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) |
|
User:Dimension10 and page moves
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dimension10 (talk · contribs) pretty much took it on themselves to re-arrange the pages that used to be Standard Model and Standard Model (mathematical formulation). I created a thread at WT:PHYS about this, and asked them to stop moving things left and right so I can fix the mess, and make sure the old links point to the intended articles, but they just won't stop. Take a look at their move history to see the damn mess they left behind. Could an admin please block them for the moment, until they agree to stop moving things left and right and let the discussion of WT:PHYS come to it's conclusion? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Headbomb There is no mess. The mess only started after you started making some of the redirects redirect to Introduction to the standard model, and some to The standard model. It's clear that you' are the one messing up everything here, using vulgarities randomly, making a big fuss about almost nothing, and wanting the article's nameing conventions to be against all the other articles', just because YOU can't comprehend technical, mathematical, details, and YOU don't want the technical articles to be the main article? . . . Dimension10 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) .
- Could you please stop it with the personal attacks? I fully comprehend the technical details involved and the only purpose of the discussion on WT:PHYS is about the names of the articles, how to best deal with them, make sure we direct the readers where we actually mean to, and all that jazz. Your half a million moves makes it impossible to have this conversation about, you break a bunch of links in existing articles, and behave like a bull in a China shop. It's clear you won't be stopping anytime soon, and you need to be blocked so your disruption stops and so that people can have a discussion about things without pulling their own hair trying to figure out which article is which. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Look who'se talking (For others, please check the original version of this section.) . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please stop it with the personal attacks? I fully comprehend the technical details involved and the only purpose of the discussion on WT:PHYS is about the names of the articles, how to best deal with them, make sure we direct the readers where we actually mean to, and all that jazz. Your half a million moves makes it impossible to have this conversation about, you break a bunch of links in existing articles, and behave like a bull in a China shop. It's clear you won't be stopping anytime soon, and you need to be blocked so your disruption stops and so that people can have a discussion about things without pulling their own hair trying to figure out which article is which. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Headbomb There is no mess. The mess only started after you started making some of the redirects redirect to Introduction to the standard model, and some to The standard model. It's clear that you' are the one messing up everything here, using vulgarities randomly, making a big fuss about almost nothing, and wanting the article's nameing conventions to be against all the other articles', just because YOU can't comprehend technical, mathematical, details, and YOU don't want the technical articles to be the main article? . . . Dimension10 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) .
- You must be doing something wrong because even this page (WP:ANI) became one big mess when you edited it. Are you using some non-standard software when editing? Thomas.W talk to me 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing happened to the standard model articles . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've fixed the formatting issue on this page, the result of {{curly brackets}} rather than [[square brackets]]. When a move is opposed like this, the correct thing to do is to revert to the names before the move, and then come to a consensus about what the page names should be. Indeed, major name changes like this should optimally be discussed at WP:RM or the talk page or the project page first. I think an admin will need to help sort out the moves now, lots of redirects got re-edited. I'm afraid I can't help, I need to go offline in 5 minutes, and I don't want to leave it half done. I don't think any blocks are needed at this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved in this, but a few things strike me as problematic with Dimension10. The user page User:Dimension10 is using a protected template and adds, "If you edit it (the user page), the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." On the talk page, the controversial moves of other pages have been brought up at User_talk:Dimension10#Controversial_moves. The Townsend string theory matter alone is a problem. Dimension10 has clear problems with this topic area and actually attacks editors when actions do not go their way, even if their claims are proven false. Even stating, "Stupid adminstrators who don't know string theory want to delete." in relation to the Townsend string theory page.[1] These moves were a bad idea and should not have been done without consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not to mention things like [2] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Problems with this topic? HUH?! If you can't stand a joke (the kill you thing), I think your comment is pointless . And the move was because the admins refused to check the refs, and they were happy with the move . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not to mention things like [2] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved in this, but a few things strike me as problematic with Dimension10. The user page User:Dimension10 is using a protected template and adds, "If you edit it (the user page), the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." On the talk page, the controversial moves of other pages have been brought up at User_talk:Dimension10#Controversial_moves. The Townsend string theory matter alone is a problem. Dimension10 has clear problems with this topic area and actually attacks editors when actions do not go their way, even if their claims are proven false. Even stating, "Stupid adminstrators who don't know string theory want to delete." in relation to the Townsend string theory page.[1] These moves were a bad idea and should not have been done without consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm also uninvolved, but most of the moves seem to be for the sake of personal preference, or "potential spelling mistakes". For example, it's really unlikely that someone will misspell "The Stranded Model" for "The standard model"...
- The ""Stranded Model"" page was however, really due to a spelling mistake , believe it or not . And I don't think that "Stranded Model" can be a "personal preferecence" s . Dimension10 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are lots of editors who feel that jokes about murdering editors who comment on a talk page are in bad taste. But YMMV. As for the moves... you may have a strong case for your version, you might not. But clearly the moves have been disputed here - so now they need to be reverted until a discussion can be had and consensus can form. I do find it troubling that your first response when someone questions your moves is not "Well, I moved Standard Model because of reasons, and then moved Standard Model (mathematical formulation) because of these reasons, and this is why I think it is better that way..." and so on - Your first response was to attack Headbomb instead. You need to dial it back a bit, Dimension10. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think nobody realised it's about Pauli Villar ghosts and critical dimensions getting rid of them ? I.e. Editing my User page = Not accepting the current state of the User page "Dimension10" = Not accepting 10 dimensions = Being plagued/Haunted by Pauli-Villar ghost statesj. You need to know a bit of string theory to understand, but it's a funny joke, and it's very uentertaining . : ) Dimension10 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I still don't see what I've done ? Dimension10 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not to me . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
And I suppose vulgarities in the titles, randomly character assassinating, causing edit wars, ignoring move reasons purposely, but instead calling me a vandal, isn't personal attacks, but moving pages as to agree with other pages is?
On fixing the mess
In parallel to the above stuff, any admin that wants to clean up the mess (aka restore to the pre-move status quo) would have to
- Move Introduction to the Standard Model → Standard Model
- Move The standard model → Standard Model (mathematical formulation)
Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)
- Particle physics standard model
- Standard model (basic details)
- Standard Model of particle physics
- Standard Model of Particle Physics
- Standard model of the universe
- The Standard model
- The Standard Model
- The Standard Model of Particle Physics
Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (mathematical formulation) (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)
- Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model
- SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)
- SU(3)XSU(2)XU(1)
- Standard model (details)
- Standard model (technical details)
Then delete the following redirect
Then WP:PHYS can have its discussion about what titles to settle on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think I got it all. Anything else I need to do? NW (Talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- As far as i'm aware, that covers everything that needs to be done concerning article moves at this point. Things may change after the discussion at WT:PHYS, but that can be handled through the usual channels of {{move request}} and similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Other Articles, like the intro to m-theory, and the intro to GR, and a few other articles, have the technical pages as main, and the non-technical as the "Introduction to the ... " . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's nice, but irrelevant. You broke a fair number of pages and redirects with your actions, which clearly did not have consensus. For such an action in the future, please attempt to gather it ahead of time. There's a reason things were as they were before your actions, and while it may not be accepted by all, there was no need to change it without discussion. And could you please indent your replies properly? NW (Talk) 02:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Other Articles, like the intro to m-theory, and the intro to GR, and a few other articles, have the technical pages as main, and the non-technical as the "Introduction to the ... " . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- As far as i'm aware, that covers everything that needs to be done concerning article moves at this point. Things may change after the discussion at WT:PHYS, but that can be handled through the usual channels of {{move request}} and similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please block Dimension10 (again)
The SPI has some additional examples of trolling from his old account [3]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If you think Dimension10 is somehow an expert, rest assured he is not. Read the conversation here and see that his understanding of math is that of someone who probably hasn't finished undergraduate college yet. (Also see [4].) Between his move mess with "mistakes" and the more obviously trolling templates he created 1 (permalink) 2, I don't see why this user—who was evading an indefinite block for vandalism and trolling while make all these new silly edits—was allowed to continue wasting productive editors' time. In his retirement message [5] Dimension10 has copied some material from the user page of User:Sławomir Biały, whom he had trolled previously; the material is certainly ironic considering who the WP:RANDY was in that case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, that conversation was a long time ago, when I was quite new to Physics . And it wasn;t trolling' . Neither were the templates . I have not used the first template anywhere but on my own user page, and the second one is perfectly valid . Any way, I don't want to continue this discsussvion . You may block me, no problems . Dimension10 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly object to you using "dead" in the retirement heading. It's misleading, and it's in very, very poor taste. Also, you are very clearly not retired anyway. I'm supporting a block, as trolling is evident. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, changed it to "Bye.". I don't know what you mean by I;m not' dead . I clearly a,m . As I said, I have no issues if I'm blocked . Dimension10 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- And now it says "Killed by admins"... why has this user not been blocked for trolling, and continuing the disruption of their previous indefinitely-blocked account? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- It can be seen as a smart tactical move. Most of our admin corps are - rightfully so - sensitive about the potential blowback from sanctioning an editor because they criticize admins in general (as opposed to personal attacks on a specific admin), so perhaps D10 thinks that "Killed by admins" provides some amount of protection from being blocked for their behavior? Or perhaps they're just blowing off steam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is plain speciulation, and is wrong . I ' m not trying to "not get blocked" . Dimension10 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) ~
- Yup, that conversation was a long time ago, when I was quite new to Physics . And it wasn;t trolling' . Neither were the templates . I have not used the first template anywhere but on my own user page, and the second one is perfectly valid . Any way, I don't want to continue this discsussvion . You may block me, no problems . Dimension10 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose one can be so clueless, both in terms of content and social interactions, that his behavior is in good faith but indistinguishable from trolling. Sill, a WP:CIR block would be justified in that case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- What content? Dimension10 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) """"""
In addition to what the SPI archive page says and his incredible drama of storming away from WP with his "I've been killed by admins blah blah", his overall contributions seem to show a pushing bias for string theory (which he doesn't seem to understand very well himself), against other theories such as against LQG and CDT, as well as his rather dismissive and offensive subpage on crackpottery. (Crackpot theories or not, that subpage of his is still rather rude against living or dead persons). Despite all the talk about about crackpottery, Dimension10 apparently uses non-standard notations/conventions/definitions, labels WP/others as "biased" [6], and anyone against his edits apparently "know nothing of physics" [7] (which again is rather false and dismissive but can be ignored). Hint, hint...
Originally I thought a block on Dimension10 would actually be a bit too harsh, but considering his contributions with a stuck-up attitude, a block seems justified. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That exterior algebra thing is old, when I was very new to physics, as I've said before . It's meaningless tp bring that up . And yes, I am dismissive of LQG/CDT,/etc., but I have good reasons to do so . Dimension10 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have tagged his "nonsense" essay for CSD as a WP:BLP attack page. He makes derogatory statements like "<name removed> is an theoretical crackpot and adventure crackpot enthusiast." Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- And they're also dumping their comments right in the middle of other user's comments. Not good. I ask again: why haven't they been blocked yet? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- In the middle of which comment? Could you please point otoo it? I'd have no problem fixing it . Dimension10 (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I failed to notice that the 2 paras were the same comments' . And as I've said on my talk page, I have ***not*** claimed to be an expert. The word "expert" on my user page, which was quoted from ScienceApologist, does ***not*** refer to me, but to some others . Dimension10 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You've done it several times... otherwise I would've sorted it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indef block for WP:CIR and/or trolling. Since this thread has started, what has Dimension10 done? Let's see:
- Regularly edits with formatting that makes no sense (just see any contribution). This has been pointed out repeatedly to the editor, who seems not to see the problem).
- Makes a ridiculous claim that his template that contains "If you edit it, the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." is some type of physics joke as his basis to argue for a "strong keep" !vote to stop the template from being deleted.
- Creates at attack page in his user space that has to be deleted.
- Continues to push his view that Wikipedia is not technical enough by adding that view to Wikipedia-space pages: [8].
- Makes strange edits to important essays: [9]
- Makes null-edits with inappropriate edit summaries: [10]
- Tries to unilaterally change a Wikipedia policy to an essay: [11]
- Repeatedly creats null-edits or one-minute self-reverts on articles and Wikipedia space: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
- Makes these types of ridiculous templates: [19]
- And to top it all off... Makes not one single useful contribution anywhere on Wikipedia during this entire time.
- So can we wrap this up, please? Singularity42 (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- (1) I don't see a problem with my formatting . (2) It ' is a physics joke, see the MfD page for that article, where I've replied to your comments . (3) Ok, it's already been deleted; I thought I could write anything in my user space, but now I know that isn't true . . . (4) It' is a problem, i n my opinion, and isn't that the reason for the existence of that page? For people to point out problems, and get replied too ? . (5) I thought it's on - topic for that page ? . (6) That was a revert edit . Is tehe summary so important? And I don't see how that would be offensive, given the fact that some people use vulgarities in their summariese . (7) I undid it in my next edit, as I realised it was a bit too opinionated . (8) So??? (9) Not ridiculous . (10) In my opinion, I've made some rather useful contributions , such as to string theory articles, fiixed physics templates like Theories of Gravitation, String theory, etc. , etc. but that's my opinion, so never mind . Dimension10 (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- LOL [20]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- WHAT. So this user was blocked by User:Beeblebrox, and yet User:Floquenbeam says "fuck consensus" and unblocks them. What the hell? Why are we giving MORE chances to a user who was blocked in the past for being disruptive, has evaded the block with a sockpuppet, and yet has continued the same disruptive behaviour? Talk about a horrendous unblock... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I told Beeblebrox, with his reluctant agreement not to object, I unblocked because there was a prior consensus to not block Dimension10 for block evasion. I understand there has been some disruption going on, and we'll work out some ground rules if he plans to continue editing here (It appears he is considering retiring, don't know if that will take). There won't be any more disruption without a block. And if some other admin decides that there is consensus here for a block now, I would disagree but wouldn't stand in the way of their reading of consensus. It wouldn't be wheel warring because I unblocked for a different reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Everything this user has ever done is disruptive. Maybe you should've changed the block from "for block evasion" to "disruptive editing/NOTHERE", but I strongly object to your unblock. Particularly as there are plenty of editors here who have said "block Dimension10", and Someone not using his real name made a very strong case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox may not be objecting, but as an non-admin observer, I sure am (and I don't believe I've ever objected to an unblock before). I get it if this editor has done something constructive. But he hasn't. He was a net-negative to the project under his old account, and was blocked as result. He created a sock, continued to be disruptive, and so... we unblock him?? There has been nothing constructive here. Did the list I post above mean nothing? Singularity42 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It did not mean nothing. I meant that, if he does not retire, I will make sure he does not disrupt anything any more, and if he does, he'll be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. And like I said, if an admin thinks a final warning isn't legit, and he should be blocked now for disruption, I'm not going to fight it. I just think a final warning is better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- So my comment about you saying "fuck consensus" and essentially using a supervote is 100% accurate then. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You really should calm down Lukeno94. "Fuck consensus" is a pretty extreme accusation, not what Floquenbeam means.
It's OK if he pretends to be an expert (which is isn't) that has been thrown out of WP - butHeadbomb et al (including me) certainly know physics blatantly needs mathematics and is not ruled by "advertisements", in the way D10 accuses...Right now Dimension10 is not doing any harm andif he retires that's fine. If not, then we just need to see how much more disruption is caused which would justify a later block if needed. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)- No, my "extreme accusation" is clearly backed up by the actions of Floquenbeam. As for Dimension10 not doing any harm... yes, they are, their disruption has been clearly, and accurately, detailed by Someone not using their real name. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You really should calm down Lukeno94. "Fuck consensus" is a pretty extreme accusation, not what Floquenbeam means.
- Note to others: I haven't pretended to be an expert . I was refering to another user . Dimension10 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly am well aware of his disruptive editing as stated by user:Someone not using his real name and user:Singularity42 and presented cases above as well,
and just said right now (not prior) he is not causing problems editing his own user page creating a drama. All the "kill me/kill you/dead" template/talkpage stuff has been deleted, his attack page against crackpots deleted, and his WP:OR removed (or being removed), even if there is more it can still be deleted. I was simply trying to be fair instead of aggressively rubbing the obvious in peoples faces all the time (as you seem to be),and left a final comment on D10's talk page in attempt to clarify once more why his page moves and article titles were erroneous. I have nothing more to say on this matter.Apologies, see below. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly am well aware of his disruptive editing as stated by user:Someone not using his real name and user:Singularity42 and presented cases above as well,
- It wasn't Original Research . . . As I've said many times . Dimension10 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your own names/conventions etc, as inferred from your talk page?... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've already warned you that you shouldn't be inserting your comments in the middle of other user's ones... yet more disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- How is this considered "in the middle"? Dimension10 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't Original Research . . . As I've said many times . Dimension10 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still not retired (notwithstanding user page notice) and still making unconstructive edits. Latest: changes a well-used template to suggest that archaeology is biology: [21]. Is someone planning on watching and reviewing all of his edits if we're keeping him unblocked? Singularity42 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- True. I was stupid to have assumed good faith in D10 with support for the unblock (but I was trying to defend Floquenbeam from being cornered alone - he was only acting in good faith as well), and have stroked out my erroneous comments above. As you can see D10 has created his own extremely biased wiki. Lets just block him here and leave D10 to his own wiki (and blog) where he can't bicker to anyone except himself/possibly a few others. This is wasting our time and the case would be closed if D10 was reblocked now... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say you were stupid to AGF, you're just not as cynical/jaded as I am :) I still object to Floquenbeam's actions, and stand by my comments, particularly based on this latest farce. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- True. I was stupid to have assumed good faith in D10 with support for the unblock (but I was trying to defend Floquenbeam from being cornered alone - he was only acting in good faith as well), and have stroked out my erroneous comments above. As you can see D10 has created his own extremely biased wiki. Lets just block him here and leave D10 to his own wiki (and blog) where he can't bicker to anyone except himself/possibly a few others. This is wasting our time and the case would be closed if D10 was reblocked now... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies again to Lukeno94 for the accusation. It's done, thanks Floquenbeam. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks :) And no problem Maschen :) (signing super late) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Preempting discussion of Jesus
Futuretrillionaire keeps trying to archive an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of Jesus that has barely even begun. He's doing this without any communication, so I'm not sure what to say to him or how to respond. It seems extremely antagonistic. Strangesad (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- He's now done this three times, which seems like edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Archiving the thread and referring you to the FAQ was an appropriate response to the revival of a dead-horse discussion. Perhaps you should try taking this up at Futuretrillionaire's talk page before asking for admin intervention? - Cal Engime (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I left a message at his Talk page. Interesting you don't think he should be leaving messages at my Talk page. He is the one undoing other editors' efforts. I was not the only one commenting in the thread before the conversation was stomped. Regardless of all that, even if the content of the article is a matter of consensus, no rule justifies blocking discussion of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Discussing the issue on the Talk page is what I was trying to do. Strangesad (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
And then there was this. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Stfg: What did it say? I'm just curious. That edit has now been deleted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing to see there. Strangesad was making the "Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed..." edit that's now at the end of the collapsed section, but while making that edit, he inadvertently reinserted some disruptive text that had previously been posted by an unrelated vandal (the IPs in the edit history), so his edit had to be technically hidden together with those of the vandal. The legitimate part of his edit was later restored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- @FutureTrillionaire: Like Fut.Perf. said. I'll just add that it wasn't directed at you (or any editor) personally. --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So, is there any guidance from admins on hiding discussions on Talk? The only presented argument is that the version being questioned is the consensus version. You are not entitled to stifle questioning of the consensus version of the article. By implication, these editors are proclaiming a right to invalidate any future discussion of these issues on the grounds that it is "in the FAQ" and WP:STICK. The civilized approach to such a thing is to ignore the discussion if you don't like it, not try to shut it down for everyone else wanting to pursue it. Strangesad (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Closing that was a kind gesture considering your argument about Michael Grant (author) was beginning to get into BLP policy for recently dead. Please be more careful espousing your opinion of real people as that could be seen as disruptive in itself.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I said Grant was an expert on Roman coins. Strangesad (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is something very odd about the comments being made here. Here is the BLP policy on the recently dead that Mark cites above: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died 9 years ago, and the policy says "two years at the outside." The policy refers to "suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died at the age of 90, although I don't know how. The policy talks about "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead, and I said his expertise was as a numismatist and not in the general history of the period. That is exactly what the Wikipedia article about him says: "some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit".
- So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. Strangesad (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Academic freedom" is not how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. Strangesad (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That page is about legal rights, which isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what it takes to build a healthy intellectual community. Is that how Wikipedia works? Strangesad (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- My point was that it seems this editor is bent of bashing legitimate historians because they are dead. Fine, then we can now begin bashing all those dead religious figures used as references here as well. Light your torches and pick up your pitch forks folks, there are reputations to destroy! --Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The entirety of what I said is: "The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins". Exactly how is that bashing?
Can I restore the discussion? The objections here are contrived. I'm puzzled by the lack of guidance. It appears I'm not going to "win" an edit war, but the implication is that only consensus views are allowed to be discussed in Talk, and that's not the intent of the consensus process. Strangesad (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- The present wording of the article is firmly supporting by WP:RELIABLE sources from a variety of points of view. Do you know of better sources that say this is not the consensus of scholars? If not, then sorry, a vital article is not going to be edited to appease a WP:FRINGE view. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- This thread is not about what the article should say. It is about whether a discussion of what the article should say is allowed on its Talk page. (It is also ridiculous to refer to views held by Harvard professors and Nobel prizewinners as "fringe.") Strangesad (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think you'll have to explain what discussion there is to be had. You deleted important, well-sourced information based on your own interpretation of the words "virtually all" and "scholars of antiquity" (that phrase doesn't include Michael Martin). In your own words, "This has been discussed at great length", and "It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off". Explain why another discussion will not just take up space. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- The way to do that is start a discussion on the Talk page, which is what I did. Nobody has to start a discussion about whether it is permissible to start a discussion, and the idea that ANI would be the place for such discussions of discussions is absurd. Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest update. After censoring my attempt to talk in Talk, Futuretrillionaire is now reverting my article edits with the comment "discuss first." [22]. Pretty funny. This is fairly typical of my experience of few months ago editing a different Jesus article. It is how a group of dedicated editors maintains "consensus" on these articles. Gaijin has also continued the tradition of blocking skeptical discussion on the Talk page by closing discussions that are active. Strangesad (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The edits I reverted were of a different issue, so it's appropriate to discuss. In those edits, at least you're focusing on the arguments.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)- Nevermind, I didn't realize this issue was also discussed before. Still, the reverts were justified because they were POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You have provided ZERO sources that contradict the sources we already have included which comply with WP:RS/AC. Rehashing the same arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam are disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are confusing issues. The edits FutureT reverted were non-controverisal, and the majority (re argument from silence) based on sources already in the article (which the article currently misrepresents). As for the "virtually all" disagreement, the problem isn't that sources contradict the article, it's that the stated sources are inadequate to support the article. If this has been debated thoroughly, you should know the stated problem.
- Trying to bring objectivity to an article on Jesus via the "consensus" process is a waste of time. The community is unable to handle such cases according to its principles. As was said a few months ago, when I last visited this subject: Atheists don't win popularity contests. Strangesad (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins (atheist), The God Delusion, p.122 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- "If Jesus lived today, he would be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins. You're distorting the sources. Strangesad (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on the subject of ancient history. His opinion is irrelevant. Besides, a historical Jesus who "would have been an atheist" is still a historical Jesus. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly.
- Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on the subject of ancient history. His opinion is irrelevant. Besides, a historical Jesus who "would have been an atheist" is still a historical Jesus. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- "If Jesus lived today, he would be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins. You're distorting the sources. Strangesad (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins (atheist), The God Delusion, p.122 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop citing him as a skeptic who believes Jesus existed. Also, many people identify the historical Jesus as somebody who definitely would not be an atheist today. What Dawkins means by the historical Jesus and what Richard A. Burridge means are different. This is the exact topic I tried to discuss on the Jesus Talk page--where it belongs--and which was closed/hidden/archived in-progress. Why are we having it now on ANI, instead of where it originally began and still belongs? Strangesad (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Uh. No, you are. The topic at hand is the historical existence or not of Jesus. His divinity is an entirely separate matter. On a related, but also separate issue is how much of what is written about him is historical vs apocryphal, and there there is much wider debate (which we already discuss in the article). But you are attempting to use arguments from those like Dawkins, who admit he existed, as an argument that he did not exist at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
FutureTrillionaire's Behavior on Jesus
- FT's last reverts of my edits are BLP-violations and misrepresent sources.
- The article says Robert Price is "an atheist who denies Jesus' existence". When I looked at the source, I found this statement by Robert Price (who is a living person): "...I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of faith.". I changed the article to reflect what Robert Price says about himself.
- FT reverted with this unhelpful comment: "Wrong. A Christian atheist is still an atheist)" [23]
- I restored the article to BLP compliance, with additional informarmation in the comment.
- FT reverted the edit again, and added a source which says nothing about Robert Price's religious belief.[24]
- As described above, FT has aggressively tried to close/hide an in-progress discussion of the article.
- He has made comments relevant to Jesus here, yet tries to keep it off the article Talk page there. Several others have begun discussing the topic here, showing the topic still has life in it. The discussion belongs on the Talk page.
- Despite his squashing of my attempts to discuss, he has never left a message for me on any Talk page, nor did he respond to the message I left on his Talk page.
- The article contains sources regarding something known as the "argument from silence" (drawing conclusions based on an absence of evidence). I added quotes from the sources (I didn't originate the use of these sources). I tweaked the text to make it clear that the sources are not rejecting the argument from silence--the article misleadingly implies otherwise. [25]
- FT reverted again. Again, no explanation on any Talk page.
- The article gives the background of a source as "secular agnostic." Aside from the redundancy, another relevant part of the source's background is that it is evangelical and his early degrees are from a Bible college and a theological institute. So I added that to the background info. FT immediately reverted that too.[26]
He has reverted virtually every edit I've made to the article and tried to censor discussions of some of the edits in Talk, all without participating in discussion. I believe this pattern meets the definition of "ownership". Strangesad (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, all of your changes got reverted, because they are strongly against consensus that you have been pointed to repeatedly. You have introduced no sources that contradict the consensus. Your characterization of FT is grossly misleading, and you should look out for falling WP:BOOMERANGs Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that User:Strangesad is actually giving a good description of their own tendentious, POV editing. Strangesad thinks that just about every authority quoted in the article on the question of the existence of Jesus is biased or unqualified to discuss it - Bart Ehrman went to Bible college! [27] - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! [28] - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! [29] Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! [30] Strangesad is causing serious disruption to both the main article on Jesus and the talk page and I ask that some sort of warning or sanction be issued.Smeat75 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- If it is relevant that Ehrman is agnostic, it is relevant that his training and background are not. Still waiting for an explanation of "Christian atheist." Strangesad (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
{od} Three of my edits pronounced "disruptive" have now been reinserted or accommodated, and are now part of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, having looked at the quote above about Price, I guess it could be argued that he isn't actually indicating that he is necessarily in any way "Christian" however that term is defined, just that he really, really likes going to church. And it is, marginally, possible that he might be in some way someone who does not believe in Episcopalian beliefs, or that, possibly, the particular Anglican/Episcopalian church he goes to might in some way hold really unorthodox beliefs, even given the broad range of belief within Episcopalianism. Maybe. But that is a really weak argument. And I have seen "Christian atheist" used in some sources as describing someone who does not believe in god of the (mainstream, presumably) Christian belief system, making him an "atheist", but might, maybe, hold beliefs which might be consistent with some other system, which the individual himself might not have reviewed or know, which would only allow someone to say that he is "atheistic" at least relating to the beliefs of what might be the only religion he knows much about, Christianity. It is a term that is in occasional usage, and I think in general it has a clear definition, but I am not sure that the general meaning given the phrase would apply here. It would be a stretch to say that an Episcopalian is not theistic, and I don't see the source material used as being sufficient to make such a statement. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad
Strangesad's disruptive editing to the Jesus article continues and is escalating. Strangesad today removed a couple of sources from the article on spurious grounds [31] [32] and continues, against clear consensus on the article talk page, to alter the second paragraph of the lead, which has been arrived at through innumerable discussions over years and is a paraphrase of a cited quote from New Testament authority Bart Ehrman [33]. Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" [34]. Strangesad has been disrupting this important article for days now and I request admin action to prevent further such activity. Smeat75 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. His eariler disruption is minor compared to the blanket removal of citations without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I removed two citations, and explained it in the commentary. We are completely distorting what the sources say. Just as we did in calling Robert Price an atheist. I've made the edit once. Strangesad (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gee, can you get the facts right? I added to the use of the "popular book." I don't think you even read my edit. Strangesad (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I read it and speaking of not reading things, anyone who attempts to edit the second paragraph of the lead will see this notice, which you have either not read or simply ignore -
"-- The paragraph below was created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it.
READ THIS FIRST. The following references are WP:RS sources which are used per WP:RS/AC guideline. The issue has been discussed on the talk page at length See the "talk page FAQ" about it—it may answer your question.
The main source says "scholars of antiquity", other sources say "scholars", "biblical scholars and classical historians" and "historians".
Sources do not say "X scholars" or "Christian scholars", so do not modify it as such for that will make it deviate from what the sources state.
The source says "virtually all", so do NOT change it to "most", "several", "many", etc."- Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- In his first edit in this latest controversy, he removed the entire second paragraph, apparently rejecting the edit notice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Something needs to be done about this. Strangesad's edits are undoubtedly disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- What the main source says is that there a "bona fide" scholars who question the existence of historical Jesus. Thus, I added to what the main source says. This discussion belongs in article Talk, where it would be now if FT hadn't tried to suppress it. Strangesad (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've issued Strangesad a warning about this disruption. Further edit warring will be met with a block. Enough is enough. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no edit warring, your warning is one-sided, and my edit now appears to have been accepted (for the time being, at least). Please retract your gratuitous display of power. Strangesad (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, that one edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no edit warring, your warning is one-sided, and my edit now appears to have been accepted (for the time being, at least). Please retract your gratuitous display of power. Strangesad (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it was. It was one of five edits I made. All reverted by Smeat with the single comment "(reverting to version prior to Strangesad's latest disruptive changes) ".[35] Still waiting to hear how removing misrepresentation of a source is disruptive. Strangesad (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I don't think Strangesad's edits were (originally) made in bad faith, they have now risen to the level of disruption. I hope Strangesad heeds the warning given. – Quadell (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, there was an attempt to get Strangesad indef blocked back in April: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Proposing indef block for Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
In other news, and without making any accusations against specific editors, I find it highly coincidental, that two content disputes broke out at the same time about this tpoic, on two different articles, with no overlap of editors. It makes my WP:SPIdy sense tingle. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paul_Barlow_at_Christ_myth_theory Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Topic ban Strangesad from all articles related to religion This has been going on for far too long already. Many of us spent much of the spring involved in endless discussions about the behavior of Strangesad and her pal Humanpublic. Humanpublic was later banned for sockpuppetry. Strangesad actively encouraged Humanpublic to use socks. Strangesad also used highly abusive language directed at lots of other users. A long discussion about Strangesad saw about half of us supporting an indef ban. The closing admin understood that view, but opted for not banning "yet". Now we find ourselves back at ANI for I don't know which time concerning Strangesad and religion. Enough is enough.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban - Strangesad started this latest controversy by deleting an entire paragraph of important information. The paragraph was constructed with consensus and had an edit notice clearly explaining that any changes to the paragraph must be discussed first. Strangesad is clearly asking for trouble.By the way, is Strangesad a woman? I want to get my pronouns correct. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, no. This "controversy" was started when you tried to collapse and archive an ongoing discussion. I made the edit you mention once, and attempted to discuss it on Talk. That's not disruptive, it is what you're supposed to do. (And, yes, I am more of woman than you could ever hope to be (or get).) Strangesad (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gee, Strangesad, I haven't seen your name in a while. I thought (mistakenly) that you'd gone away. It doesn't appear that your edits or your approach to dealing with other editors has improved any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Long time, no see. At the moment, the edit that is being called "disruptive" is one that I made twice and has now become part of the consensus. My approach to dealing with editors is according to policy, namely, based on discussion. You will notice that I've spent 10x the effort at giving my reasoning in Talk that FT has, and made no edit more than twice. The problem, which the community refuses to problem-solve, is that normal assumptions and polices don't work for articles like Jesus (or anything highly ideological with a clear cultural majority, e.g. Palestine, etc.). It's very easy for the majority on a ideological subject to drum up a witch-hunt. The question is not when will I change: I have done everything according to policy. Step thru all my edits to this article in the last few days: nothing close to anything that would be considered disruptive on 99% of our articles. Yet, an admin gave me a warning for an edit that nobody objected to. And, there's a topic-ban being proposed (and winning, no less). The question is when will wikipedia change. Strangesad (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gee, Strangesad, I haven't seen your name in a while. I thought (mistakenly) that you'd gone away. It doesn't appear that your edits or your approach to dealing with other editors has improved any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, no. This "controversy" was started when you tried to collapse and archive an ongoing discussion. I made the edit you mention once, and attempted to discuss it on Talk. That's not disruptive, it is what you're supposed to do. (And, yes, I am more of woman than you could ever hope to be (or get).) Strangesad (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per Jeppiz and FutureTrillionaire. I feel Strangesad is not acting in a neutral and productive manner and is overtly trying to push a certain fringe viewpoint (in a distinctly discourteous manner, I might add). —Cliftonian (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Topic Ban Consensus can change. If there is a FAQ, that does not mean that the FAQ is set in stone and that it cannot change. If someone wishes to challenge the previous consensus, they should be allowed to do so. All topic bans are good for are getting rid of opposing viewpoints.--JOJ Hutton 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment JOJ, could we please not go down that road of trying to say that this is a content dispute? Yes, consensus can change and nobody should ever be blocked for challenging a previous consensus. That is not the issue here. The issue is that Strangesad is obsessed with this topic, has engaged in strong personal attacks directed at users who disagree and, most seriously, has actively encouraged sockpuppetry to get her opinion into the article. It's not Strangesad's opinion that is the problem, it is Strangesad's disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban of Strangesad from all articles related to religion per FutureTrillionaire and Jeppiz. Enough is enough.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Enough is enough of what? You do realize that Stranesad has only participated in two threads at Talk:Jesus and made 15 edits on Jesus and only one thread at Talk:Christ myth theory and no edits to the main page. How is that enough is enough? How is that worthy of a topic ban? Good Grief, a topic ban discussion of 15 total edits and three total talk discussions. Really?--JOJ Hutton 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit count. It only shows the amount of disruption caused by such few edits has been overwhelming in itself. You may continue to comment but my !vote stands.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. It shows how quickly people want to start trying to get anyone who opposes them banned from a discussion. This fad of quick topic bans should be stopped. Topic bans should be the last resort. Not the first one. JOJ Hutton 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, JOJ, you're either intentionally dishonest (and assuming good faith, I guess that you're not) or you don't bother to check. Looking at Strangesad's edit history, there hundreds of comments and edits related to Jesus, to going after users who disagree with Strangesad's views about Jonas, and to endless ANI-discussions. You're perfectly free to oppose the topic ban, but both your comment above when you try to paint this as a content dispute and this comment about only a few edits are quite simply misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I only was referring to the recent ones, but I counted and there were about 100 edits Talk page/Main page on the subject. Most of the edits were on the talk pages. Just over 100 edits on the subject in about 6 months. Thats not a lot of edits to want to get a topic ban. And thats not the hundreds that you are alleging. And no I AM NOT BEING DELIBERATELY DISHONEST. So you can halt that line of thinking right now!!!--JOJ Hutton 13:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, JOJ, you're either intentionally dishonest (and assuming good faith, I guess that you're not) or you don't bother to check. Looking at Strangesad's edit history, there hundreds of comments and edits related to Jesus, to going after users who disagree with Strangesad's views about Jonas, and to endless ANI-discussions. You're perfectly free to oppose the topic ban, but both your comment above when you try to paint this as a content dispute and this comment about only a few edits are quite simply misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. It shows how quickly people want to start trying to get anyone who opposes them banned from a discussion. This fad of quick topic bans should be stopped. Topic bans should be the last resort. Not the first one. JOJ Hutton 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit count. It only shows the amount of disruption caused by such few edits has been overwhelming in itself. You may continue to comment but my !vote stands.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just say no to canvassing for bans [36]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [37] and Sergecross73 [38]. Exactly what is meant by "drumming up a witch-hunt." Strangesad (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- You better be able to demonstrate that these editors are biased and that the attempt was to find editors who are on the side of the 'canvassing editor" otherwise you are just complaining about things you wish to raise to a level to defend yourself. Please show how this was canvassing or seriously, don't make the accusation because if they were not aware of the guideline we have to assume the didn't have a clue.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The canvassing is blatant. I've warned FT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- How odd, I just got the exact same wording from an editor for another discussion canvassing only those with past problems with User:Sitush but that was not considered canvassing, nor when another editor canvassed editors to change their vote at an RFA. I will take you word for it Bbb23 as I would assume it to be but odd that thee seems to be no consistency in application of such warnings.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 03:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I deeply apologize. I shall notify all who have opposed the previous ban proposal (and only those) immediately.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The canvassing is blatant. I've warned FT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- You better be able to demonstrate that these editors are biased and that the attempt was to find editors who are on the side of the 'canvassing editor" otherwise you are just complaining about things you wish to raise to a level to defend yourself. Please show how this was canvassing or seriously, don't make the accusation because if they were not aware of the guideline we have to assume the didn't have a clue.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [37] and Sergecross73 [38]. Exactly what is meant by "drumming up a witch-hunt." Strangesad (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I sincerely apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. I have now notified 9 individuals who opposed the previous ban proposal (I think that's all of them?), compared with the
twothree users I canvassed.I've also crossed out my own voteand will not participate further in this discussion. I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I sincerely apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. I have now notified 9 individuals who opposed the previous ban proposal (I think that's all of them?), compared with the
- Oppose topic ban. I'm honesty not seeing excellent behavior on either side of this mess of disputes, and I don't see a compelling reason to ban just the one editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per Jeppiz. This editor has been arguing for giving undue weight to a fringe view. I think the drain on everyone's time and attention outweighs any contribution she might make. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban Wikipedia is not the place to rub religious noses in TRUTH. diff Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That diff shows an edit I made once, with the text I added supported by a source already used in the article. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, the diff user:Johnuniq presented is a clear example of an improper edit by you that places the "WP:Fringe view ahead of the mainstream view". And what is worse, you are fully aware of what the mainstream view is, and know full well that the item you added upfront is a fringe view, by virtue of the very quote from the source you refer to. That is a clear case of intentional WP:Disruptive editing on your part, which can not be excused based on the ignorance of the source on your part. The edit and your explanation make it clear that you knew you were trumping the mainstream view with the fringe view in that edit. There is no disputing that. Not here anymore (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was notified of this discussion by FutureTrillionaire. In the previous discussion, I opposed a indef ban for StrangeSad, on the grounds that s/he has demonstrated an ability to make useful contributions to the wiki. However, it appears that StrangeSad has continued to show the same inability to work with others or to understand the concept of consensus versus Truth. This continuing pattern of bad behavior has caused StrangeSad to be a drain on wikipedian-hours that far outweighs his/her useful contributions. I thus continue to suggest as I suggested before that some sort of sanction be put in place to stop this fights from occurring, not because StrangeSad is necessarily wrong, but because s/he appears to be incapable of presenting his/her views in an appropriate way. -- LWG talk 07:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Appears"? Do you know? Please list the edits I've made more than once against consensus. I'm pretty sure the list is empty, although I could be forgetting one. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Restored support for topic ban I was not canvassed, but have been watching the article talk page and its current FAC. Strangesad has been aggressively pushing a FRINGE view in a disruptive manner. This was continued in this edit to the Jesus FAC, in which Strangesad duplicated all previous discussion before adding her own comments. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to her explanation immediately below, but in the light of her unwillingness to entertain a good-faith explanation of FT's actions, even in the light of his two apologies, I am no longer prepared to do so, especially as she followed up the offending edit with four tweaks in a space of 25 minutes without noticing the error. The whole thing blew up because Strangesad edited against a consensus she know about before discussing it on the talk page. Consensus can change, but that's the wrong order. Original comment by Stfg (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC), heavily redacted by Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- You do it by 1) Choosing "Preview Edit", 2) Seeing multiple errors, 3) Choosing "Copy All" forgetting that the entire article is in the edit field, 3) Making the changes in a word processor without noticing the extra text on top, 4) Choosing "Copy All" again and pasting back into the Wikipedia editor. The idea that I spent over an hour working on my comment for the FAC, and then tried to undermine the FAC is....what I've come to expect here. Strangesad (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you for the explanation. To give you the benefit of the doubt, since your editing future is on the line here, I have deleted that part and revised my comment to neutral with an alternative suggestion. I hope you will make considerate use of any slack you may be given.--Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Benefit of doubt withdrawn in light of failure to AGF. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- You do it by 1) Choosing "Preview Edit", 2) Seeing multiple errors, 3) Choosing "Copy All" forgetting that the entire article is in the edit field, 3) Making the changes in a word processor without noticing the extra text on top, 4) Choosing "Copy All" again and pasting back into the Wikipedia editor. The idea that I spent over an hour working on my comment for the FAC, and then tried to undermine the FAC is....what I've come to expect here. Strangesad (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Holy sheitza. FT has now canvassed an additional six editors whose sole prior interaction with me was a ban discussion several months ago. He hasn't canvassed anyone outside of that one ban discussion..... Strangesad (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is explained by this edit, which has received approval. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is still canvassing people exclusively on the basis of a discussion to ban. It's a distorted lens. The damage was done when he canvassed Jeppiz, who had already tried to get me banned repeatedly, but hasn't edited with me in 4 months. Strangesad (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I have the article Jesus on my watchlist since at least two years and would have seen Strangesad being back to form regardless of any "canvassin". I find it rather revealing that Strangesad opts for the defence that the "wrong" people are commenting, while ignoring the actual topic. As I said below, there have been few users who have encouraged so many violations of rules and few users who have taken up so much of the community's time with so little to show for it. In short, few users have done so much damage to Wikipedia during 2013 as Strangesad.Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Strangesad: a pity you couldn't AGF as I AGF'ed for you. My support for a topic ban has been restored. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is still canvassing people exclusively on the basis of a discussion to ban. It's a distorted lens. The damage was done when he canvassed Jeppiz, who had already tried to get me banned repeatedly, but hasn't edited with me in 4 months. Strangesad (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is explained by this edit, which has received approval. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Totally Support topic ban: I quit Wikipedia sometime ago because of this type of illogical and contentious situation, as I had explained here. I happened to look on the Jesus page again today and guess w2hat I saw: utter chaos caused by Strangesad - and its discussion here. As Raul correctly stated here, users like Strangesad are clearly in the "liability column" of this web site. Strangesad should be certainly banned for the clear disruption of sources, and logic. Frankly, frankly, did Strangesad expect this edit to survive beyond 10 minutes? In my view the edit that started this chaos was a clear case of WP:POINT and this discussion is a clear illustration of the need to ban disruptive users such as Strangesad. This user has previously encouraged sockpupetting (as shown on their talk page) and has shown little respect for policy all the way. Personally, I think of user:Newyorkbrad as one of the very best and judicious editors on Wikipedia. Alas NY Brad certainly failed when he opposed a topic ban on Strangesad last time around. The reason for the chaos here is that the ban and the warning issued last time were too soft. This user is a liability for Wikipedia, not an asset. This user needs to be banned without further fanfare. I m so glad I quit this web site. There is nothing but contention here. Not here anymore (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is a sad thing, to me, that editors are being driven away by the sort of thing you describe. In the topic area we are discussing here, two of the most valuable editors who had expertise in the subject and could edit from a NPOV no matter what their personal beliefs may have been, have recently gone - User History 2007 vanished and User PiCo announced today he had made his last post. Neither of them gave reasons for their departure, and I hope they will come back as in this topic area at any rate we need help to maintain objective balanced articles from being disrupted by highly motivated cranks, POV pushers and fringe theorists who often have minimal knowledge of the subject.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That account was created 3 weeks ago. Strangesad (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Background As some users seem to think that the issue is only the latest round of edits Strangesad had made, I thought it may be relevant to give a short background of the problem we've had with Strangesad.
- Strangesad repeatedly reverted others at AN [39], [40] despite being warned about it [41]. Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring and reported the other for edit warring instead[42].
- Strangesad explicitly encouraged "allies" to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. [43].
- Despite several admins pointing this out [44], [45], Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. [46]
- Strangesad argues in favor of violating Wikipedia policies [47].
- Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. [48], [49], [50], [51].
- Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. [52].
The time we've all spent on Strangesad is mindblowing, and several good users have left Wikipedia because of her and her relentless fringe pushing. Few users have ever done so much harm and so little good to Wikipedia as Strangesad.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppiz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- FT really scored canvassing you (Jeppiz). Those links are from the ban proposal you made 4 months ago, which followed a ban proposal you made weeks before that, which followed yet another ban proposal you made before that. Has anybody but you made one of these proposals? Why don't you provide links to, oh say, the article I created? Or the numerous non-disputed edits I've made? Meanwhile, still no diffs from the last 3 months showing any pattern of policy violations, unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation. Strangesad (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - I think it is. This is not a place to right great wrongs, battle for the truth or challenge any religion, but neutrally to present verifiable information based on reliable sources, please see WP:5 and WP:SOAP. Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Neutrally presenting verifiable information based on reliable sources challenges Christianity. [53] Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The comments by Strangesad indicate a continued lack of logic. Strangesad is not just opposing Christianity, but all the respected Jewish scholars from Amy-Jill Levine to Louis Feldman who support the historicity of Jesus. Strangesad's position is pure WP:Fringe as multiple sources indicate. Strangesad does not have "a single professor of history" in a major university (not one professor of history) who supports the fringe view, and has never produced a source as such. As for the "article Strangesad created" it is just one page, nothing breathtaking by any measure - but it would not be an excuse for disruption even if it had been a major item. In any case, a quick review shows that the majority of Strangesad's time has been on WP:ANI fighting based on illogical assertions and with no sources to support that position. And the community has shown a "mind blowing tolerance" for these disruptions. It is time for that to change. Not here anymore (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm only challenging Christianity in the minds of certain Christians. The real point is that our sourcing is dubious, and selected to promote one view over another. Improve the sourcing and balance, and the objections go away. Who are you? Your account is less than a month old, yet you claim to be "Retired", yet you are obviously not retired (or a newbie editor). What's your previous account? Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you are also challenging all Jewish scholars cited in the article. And again, you have not provided "one single professor of history" that supports your position. I was/am retired and will be again once this illogic is over. But please do not divert, and address the issues about your own disruption. Not here anymore (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, I hereby authorize a Checkuser to verify that I am not a sockpuppet for any of the user who have commented on this page. Not here anymore (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you are also challenging all Jewish scholars cited in the article. And again, you have not provided "one single professor of history" that supports your position. I was/am retired and will be again once this illogic is over. But please do not divert, and address the issues about your own disruption. Not here anymore (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm only challenging Christianity in the minds of certain Christians. The real point is that our sourcing is dubious, and selected to promote one view over another. Improve the sourcing and balance, and the objections go away. Who are you? Your account is less than a month old, yet you claim to be "Retired", yet you are obviously not retired (or a newbie editor). What's your previous account? Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - that comment is the clearest possible indication that Strangesad is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to treat editing as a battleground - "Excessive soapboxing, importing or exporting of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia" and fight for the WP:TRUTH. Smeat75 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- In my book this talk page comment was a clear WP:NOTHERE marker (in line with WP:GREATWRONGS), and all indications here are that the trend has continued. And having looked at the diff presented by another user above, it is clear that Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet specifically edits the article to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. This train of disruptive edits that ignore and defy policy needs to come to an end here. Not here anymore (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Topic Ban Hang on here... I don't see a topic ban offense. Edgy, bold, even a bit reckless? Yes indeed. But I do not think after reading most of this long thread that we have a serious disruption here, as I understand the term to mean. Challenges to orthodox thinking are refreshing, as long as they don't become a chronic condition. The Jesus article is one of the highest profile ones on the 'pedia, but someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority should not just be given a "fringe" label and tossed out. This is someone using the Talk page and working within the established system here. I see a lot of outrage and puffed up chests, but I think we as a group are better than this. Jusdafax 21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is a good and valid argument, and I fully agree with the principles you state. The problem as I see it is that with Strangesad, it is the chronic condition you describe. This started in December, spearheaded by Strangesad's pal Humanpublic/Minorview with the support of Strangesad. Humanpublic/Minorview was sinced banned for sockpuppetry, a sockpuppetry Strangesad encouraged as she thinks violating the rules are ok to achieve the "greater truth". We should never ever ban someone for the opinion, but when we've been going through the same arguments over and over and over and over again, it becomes tedious. Once again, we've been at this same argument since December. Since December, Strangesad and Humanpublic/Minorview have been encouraged to present WP:RS in support of their views. It's been eight months, and the discussion has never advanced from there. If that's not a "chronic condition", I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, user:Jusdafax you just verified the comment I made weeks ago about the undue tolerance for disruption. So thank you for supporting my decision to quit. But did you say "a bit reckless?" This user knowingly breaches WP:FRINGE in the diff shown just above and you have fear of attrition? And you call it "someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority"? If I go off and edit the page on Earth to say that it is triangular am I just "not thinking with the majority?". Note that I made my comment about the problem with this website being the sudden defense of disruptive editors in these types of discussions weeks ago. It was not invented for you. And note that this user had been warned before and had been told that they precariously close to the indef block then. Not here anymore (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- First off, I detect symptoms of a WP:DIVA here, and citing the notoriously grumpy BWilkins (who actually finally banned Off2RioRob/YouReallyCan and is now just getting outta Arbcom, if unanimously) is counterproductive. Jeppiz, let's give this unbeliever a final warning and if you're still outraged if there's a next time, write up an Rfc that will probably get enough momentum to knock her outta here. Strangesad... time to chill. Take it from someone who doesn't know you but has a feeling he knows your POV a bit. Tread lightly when it comes to Christians on Wikipedia henceforth. Announce your proposals first, don't just hack away at stable versions. Think smart, edit cool. That way you'll still be around in a year. Otherwise you'll be on the ban list. And cool that sock talk too. OK? Now let's party, it's the weekend. Jusdafax 22:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect Jusdafax, have you looked into this situation at all? I've lost count of the times people have said "Yes, Strangesad is behaving badly but let's give her one more chance". I am not saying we should topic ban for that reason, but I am saying that it is not a valid argument. When someone has had umpteen "one last" chances, then the argument is not credible.
- Second, I find it quite offensive that you claim that only Christians can care about sources and neutral editing. I am not a Christian user and most of my edits concerning religion go against Christian views. The question of whether a person called Jesus existed is not a religious question, and trying to make it sound as if the problem here is some "Christians versus non-Christians" is very far off. Surely you can concede that there is nothing inherently Christian in putting sourced scholarship above blind belief. As a non-believer, I would even say it is often the opposite.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect Jusdafax, have you looked into this situation at all? I've lost count of the times people have said "Yes, Strangesad is behaving badly but let's give her one more chance". I am not saying we should topic ban for that reason, but I am saying that it is not a valid argument. When someone has had umpteen "one last" chances, then the argument is not credible.
- I am sorry Jusdafax, but I could not agree with your trivialization of disruption, and the invitation to party. And the diva comment was totally uncalled for - this type of undue tolerance of "continued disruption" was a serious factor in my decision to quit, and I am glad I did. As for user:BWilkins and whatever the arbcom story may be (I am blissfully unaware if it) it is really beside the point here, for as an admin he closed the previous thread and issued a warning. And no one objected or the warning. This user has been close to an indef block before, and now is close to a well deserved topic ban. And note that hardly any of these user's edits to the topic persist beyond a day - and just cause disruption. So I do beg your pardon, but your invitation to party can not be accepted. Not here anymore (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban of Strangesad, at least from the historicity of Jesus sub-topic. The latest incident [54] wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption [55]. This was the straw that broke the camel's back as the saying goes. (And I'm no fan of BWilkins if you really want to know that angle.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not support a long-term or permanent ban of Strangesad from editing religion-related articles. However, I do believe that a cool-down period is in order. As such, I suggest banning the user from the article Jesus for 1-2 weeks, and directing her to the appropriate talk page where she indeed has something to contribute. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is probably not just user:Strangesad: Looking at the edit history, edit style, points made, the level of contention in the arguments, length of comments, etc. I do not think these last edits are just by user:Strangesad, who is usually short on time and does not make these types of arguments, although the use of the word "absurd" was likely her at the start of the discussions. I think in one of their meetups, the password was likely given to indef blocked User:Humanpublic, who is now using the account. The edit behavior is that of User:Humanpublic who was confirmed as a sockpuppet by User:DoRD sometime ago, but keeps going yet. Not here anymore (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You'll want to add this to your arsenal. Your contribs log now shows 75% of all edits are to this thread. Strangesad (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally I'm much more comfortable proposing improvements at the FAC than the article Talk page. I can comment in peace there. And, I'm optimistic that venue can have more influence. Strangesad (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You'll want to add this to your arsenal. Your contribs log now shows 75% of all edits are to this thread. Strangesad (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The previous WP:SPI link is implied from the User:Humanpublic talk page in any case. I do stand by my statement, and I have previously authorized a checkuser on myself to verify that I am not a sockpuppet. Would you do the same in return please? Not here anymore (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- This makes little sense. If HP is using Strangesad's account to edit here, a CU would be useless. As for a CU otherwise on Strangesad's account, it was fairly conclusively demonstrated that Strangesad's and HP's accounts were unrelated. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The previous WP:SPI link is implied from the User:Humanpublic talk page in any case. I do stand by my statement, and I have previously authorized a checkuser on myself to verify that I am not a sockpuppet. Would you do the same in return please? Not here anymore (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it does make sense. When User:King of Hearts issued the initial SPI, the accounts were unrelated, but that has likely changed now, given the edit trail. The way it will show up is that part of the edits in the last 48 hours will be from the OS and browser used by Strangesad, and will then interleave with edits from a separate device used by Humanpublic. That information is visible to the CU, unless the June edit by HP has gone stale by now, but may still be fine. In any case, based on that very statement by Humanpublic that "no one has caught me yet" it will make sense to look for sleepers, etc. That statement itself merits a check. Not here anymore (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a CU, so I don't know what all is revealed when one is done. However, I do think that any interleaving should be checked during the summer while all the leaves are still intact, that despite the fact that Southern California doesn't know from deciduous.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was/am trying not to announce all the checks that a CU performs, so potential sockpuppets do not get trained on avoiding them. So let us just say that a CU sees items that are not obvious to a general editor or a general admin. But let us put it this way: A and B know each other, and A has been indef-blocked. A SPI in the Spring determines that they are not related, prompting A to go out and get a sockpuppet that he uses on other pages. To be sure that the sock is not detected, he meets and gets the password to the account for B (who has less time and is less contentious) so he can edit the same pages he was editing/disrupting before. Then in mid-summer he starts using B's account. But a sleeper check on A and B will likely turn something up. Not here anymore (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a CU, so I don't know what all is revealed when one is done. However, I do think that any interleaving should be checked during the summer while all the leaves are still intact, that despite the fact that Southern California doesn't know from deciduous.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it does make sense. When User:King of Hearts issued the initial SPI, the accounts were unrelated, but that has likely changed now, given the edit trail. The way it will show up is that part of the edits in the last 48 hours will be from the OS and browser used by Strangesad, and will then interleave with edits from a separate device used by Humanpublic. That information is visible to the CU, unless the June edit by HP has gone stale by now, but may still be fine. In any case, based on that very statement by Humanpublic that "no one has caught me yet" it will make sense to look for sleepers, etc. That statement itself merits a check. Not here anymore (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Just having done a quick review of the discussion, I would have to say that I am not sure that an individual ban is necessarily the best way to go here. The article is currently an FA candidate, and such articles tend to get more attention, positive and negative, when such. The edits are certainly problematic, and I don't dispute that in any way shape or form, but I am not sure that under the circumstances, particularly given the contentious nature of this particular topic, that this proposal is necessarily the best option to employ here. ArbCom is an option, and honestly, given some of what I read above, might be a better option, particularly as I seem to remember some of them also have CU. Alternately, maybe some sort of other short term editor restriction, or page locking, might resolve the question for a while. While I agree that there is good reason for the editor in question to maybe be at least warned about conduct, I am not at this point necessarily convinced that other, less dramatic, options might not yield better results in the short term with less possibly problematic long-term results. Having said that, I personally really would love to see ArbCom place most of the material regarding early Christianity under discretionary sanctions, and hope to maybe get them to do so in the near future, given the number of problematic POV pushing edits from multiple sides. But that is probably a separate matter best dealt with elsewhere, not here. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Arbcom is a separate issue and will take forever and a day. You could start that anyway. But these edits are certainly "problematic" as you said, and disruptive, as others have said. And I see that you are not disputing that. But puppetry will obviously render many of the other items on this thread moot in any case. The last round of edits were likely by Humanpublic, not Strangesad. Not here anymore (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban I'm seeing a content dispute with passionate editors more than I'm seeing severe conduct violations. Yes there seem to have been some problems in the past with socking and the like but I'm not seeing new evidence of repetition of past misbehavior. As mentioned before, WP:CCC, and sometimes consensus needs to be reassessed to determine whether it's changed or not. I generally do not find it appropriate to remove another editor's comments and to refuse to engage in discussion even if the matter is "settled" as doing so is a bit too close to WP:OWN than I'm personally comfortable with. If it is the case that Strangesad's case doesn't have a leg to stand on (and I don't know because all my "knowledge" about the historical Jesus comes from Dogma) then the best way to determine that is to invite wider community input. If after a DRN discussion or an RFC the consensus is still the same and then Strangesad continues arguing about it, it might be time for a topic ban, and if Strangesad is as wrong as people make him out to be then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate to uninvolved editors. Noformation Talk 03:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You mean well, but we've already done all you suggest and more. This started in December, and I would guess at least 50 uninvolved editors have looked at it. I became involved in February, after two months of this. Of course any uninvolved editor who look into it will find that Strangesad&Humanpublic advocate a fringe view. There is not one academic in any relevant field who supports their fringe view. That is easy to demonstrate. The problem is that Strangesad doesn't give a damn. She is convinced she knows the truth, and if other editors disagree, then they are a "lynch mob" (one of her favorite phrases). So it's precisely because this has been going on for so many months and because it doesn't matter how many people get involved that I think a topic ban is necessary.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You have done none of what he suggested. No DRN and no RFC. I advocate no view on the historical Jesus. The view that there is no meaningful historical Jesus does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "fringe." According to the article's reliable, cited sources (Ehrman), there are "bona fide" scholars who make "intelligent" arguments against the existence of Jesus. You, on the other hand, have now proposed banning me four times, yet the number of times you've attempted to talk to me on my Talk page (excluding warnings) is zero. Strangesad (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I have not advocated for a topic ban for Strangesad, I am not an admin, so it seems to me I should leave it to them to decide what should be done here but I am certain that some action needs to be taken to prevent this kind of constant disruption to important articles on religion / Christianity / the Bible. As I said earlier, two of the most valuable editors in this area have recently left, History2007 and PiCo, editors who have not been involved in these areas may not realise what a disaster this is for the project as these two were highly knowledgeable in these fields and able to edit neutrally and fend off constant POV and fringe theory pushers. They appear to have got tired of doing that and who can blame them? Dougweller in another thread where I raised this [56] says "In History2007's case, too many sockpuppets were a big issue. For both I think pov editing was another factor." To me, this indicates that WP just is not functioning any more and lack of effective action by admins has resulted in more or less turning over the project in the area of Christianity to fringe pushers. Should History2007 and/or PiCo see this, I appeal to you to at least come back every now and then and check the most important pages. WP is, perhaps unfortunately, now the number one source of information on the web and WP articles come up first on most web searches for information. History2007 and PiCo were doing a service to the world in maintaining those articles, I understand the frustration, no need for either of you to go back to being as highly active as you were here, but please help us out every now and then at least, this project is too important to be abandoned to cranks.Smeat75 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps I just missed it but I'm not seeing a diff of a discussion at DRN or an RFC. If I did miss it please point it out so I can review the discussion and determine whether sufficient outside input came to the same conclusion. As I said, if a DRN or RFC took place and consensus was upheld, and if Strangesad is continuing that same conversation then it might be time for a topic ban. If, however, neither venue has been exploited then a topic ban is premature. Just FYI - and though I'm sure you didn't intend it this way - "you mean well" can come off condescendingly. Noformation Talk 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Noformation: DRN and RfC are used in cases where no consensus can be reached at the article's talk page. Since there is consensus for this issue (a consensus that involved dozens of users), I don't understand why DRN and RfC are necessary. Just because one or two users refuse to get the point does not necessitate the use of DRN or RfC. These two venues are used to establish consensus (if none can be reached via talk page discussion). They are not requirements for a topic ban. Strangesad is being nominated for a topic ban due to her continued anti-consensus and fringe-view-promoting edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- DRN and RFC are used when a dispute needs to be resolved and is a standard progression of WP:DR - soliciting uninvolved advice is never a bad thing (and in this case apparently hasn't been tried outside of drama boards). Again, if the consensus is as clear as you say then there should be no objection to it being evaluated by neutral, third parties and doing so can only solidify the issue should it arise again. If you don't believe the discussion is worth your time you can sit it out and let other editors deal with it, since there are, as you say, dozens who agree. Noformation Talk 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Noformation: DRN and RfC are used in cases where no consensus can be reached at the article's talk page. Since there is consensus for this issue (a consensus that involved dozens of users), I don't understand why DRN and RfC are necessary. Just because one or two users refuse to get the point does not necessitate the use of DRN or RfC. These two venues are used to establish consensus (if none can be reached via talk page discussion). They are not requirements for a topic ban. Strangesad is being nominated for a topic ban due to her continued anti-consensus and fringe-view-promoting edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps I just missed it but I'm not seeing a diff of a discussion at DRN or an RFC. If I did miss it please point it out so I can review the discussion and determine whether sufficient outside input came to the same conclusion. As I said, if a DRN or RFC took place and consensus was upheld, and if Strangesad is continuing that same conversation then it might be time for a topic ban. If, however, neither venue has been exploited then a topic ban is premature. Just FYI - and though I'm sure you didn't intend it this way - "you mean well" can come off condescendingly. Noformation Talk 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. For those commenting along the lines of "I've glanced at Strangesad's edits and I don't see anything seriously disruptive", I acknowledge that is indeed true. Deeper examination, however, reveals that this editor has engaged in behavior that is difficult to demonstrate in a single ANI thread: the long-term pushing of fringe views, coupled with a persistent and verbose rhetorical style designed to wear down detractors. The long-term effect is that contributors are pushed out of the topic area (or off the site completely) out of sheer exhaustion with dealing with the person. Strangesad is not offering anything constructive to this topic area, and should be removed while constructive editors are still around to maintain logic and fend off fringe positions. Now she is trying to derail the FAC. I do not agree that arbitration is needed at this point. Arbitration is for when the community has demonstrated an inability to solve the issue. If we can deal with it here, we can be done with it. For the record, I have nothing to do with religious topics on Wikipedia, so I am commenting from a neutral point-of-view. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Update I see Strangesad has now started deleting comments by users she dislike [57], [58]. The first time, she deleted the comments outright, as seen in the diffs above. Fortunately FutureTrillionaire noticed it and reverted. Then Strangesad instead moved all the comments, creating confusion [59], this time she was reverted by Stfg. I honestly don't know what Strangesad is thinking, deleting other users' comments while this thread is going on. Unfortunately, it's not surprising and it is preceisly that kind of disrupting behavior that had made me suggest Strangesad be topic banned.Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Here Anymore
Request interaction ban on this account. Since registering, the vast majority of edits have been targeted at opposing me on this one topic. [60].
Also, what is the policy on breaking up someone's comments in a FAC with sniping and other attempts to turn my comment section into his debating forum? I expected this to be a bit more like ArbCom, where each editor has there own space, and isn't drawn into bickering by point/counterpoint sniping.
Also, please note that FutureTrillionaire reverted my attempt to get NHA's comment out of my section, after announcing (above) that he would no longer revert any of edits. It's harassment. Strangesad (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, there is this sleazy message [61], in which he says "there is now a discussion that they may have exchanged passwords." (The truth is that nobody has made that suggestion but NHA.) Strangesad (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Finally, continusouly calling me "Humanpublic/Strangesad" is sort of antagonistic. File a sock puppet report, or find a more constructive way to spend time. Strangesad (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Important development - Strangesad is now erasing comments made by users who do not agree with her.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I moved them to that editor's comment section. Very important. Strangesad (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop doing that. FAC reviews are threaded discussions. Your comments section is not your private space. --Stfg (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have now put the comments back to their original position, as moving them obscured which comment was replying to what. --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate page moves by User:Captain Assassin!
Captain Assassin! (talk · contribs · logs) has been performing a number of page moved that I consider to be inappropriate. The latest is described here. On July 20, 2013, Tneedham1 (talk · contribs) created the article Outlander (TV series). On August 4, Captain Assassin! moved this page to Outlander (2014 TV series), then created a redirect out of it, which he pointed toward his own newly created article at the former location Outlander (TV series). The funniest part is that comparing the diffs of the 2 articles, [62] and [63], you will see that the articles are exactly the same. Captain Assassin! has just copied the work of Tneedham1 onto his newly created page. IMO, this is completely inappropriate and unfair to the other editor.
This is not the first time Captain Assassin! has moved articles so that he can create his own and get "credit" for it (and he does use the word "credit" often). Just over a week ago, he moved Hercules 3D, created by User:Mythoingramus, to Hercules 3D (film) and created a redirect so that it would point to his newly created version of Hercules 3D. There is no reason why Captain Assassin! could not add to/improve the original page.
Other recent examples:
- The Normal Heart (film) was moved to The Normal Heart (play) (then redirected to The Normal Heart} so he could recreate The Normal Heart (film)
- The Flash (film) was moved to The Flash (disambiguation) (then redirected to Flash) so he could recreate The Flash (film)
- Dead Island (film) was moved to Dead Island (video game) (then redirected to Dead Island) so he could recreate Dead Island (film)
- I could go on and on…
Looking at his talk page, there have been discussions regarding page moves like this with other editors, including a "feud" with Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), which includes earlier discussions here and here. See also the history of deletions (8 within 2.5 months!) on this page: Into the Woods (film)
(On a separate but related note, Captain Assassin! has been under considerable scrutiny for creating inappropriate redirects. That discussion is for another day because I don't have the time to document that here right now. I will mention that at least 7 editors have pointed out problems with this behavior to him in the last 3 months: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71].)
Is it possible to block an editor from being able to move pages? I feel Captain Assassin!'s page moves are inappropriate and unfair to other editors. It definitely undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I do not think that he deserves this privilege. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- NOTE: I am currently fixing the editor's copy-paste creations, so some of the links above may appear red. I will look at warning/sanctioning after that. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed the Outlander issue by deleting the copy-paste and moving the original version back. I have history-merged the two versions of Hercules 3D together so that the original creating editor's edits are in the history. The others are not so straightforward, as the articles are either about different things or actually contain the user's own content. I'll continue to look at it. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- My analysis, seeing as I've been viewing his conduct since May when he swiped A Million Ways to Die in the West because he had the content, is that he wants the credit. He seemingly has no other motivation, everything is a personal attack to him. [[Into the Woods was deleted before. I recreated it, but he immediately swiped it again. Rusted AutoParts 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would support a page move ban, as well as the redirect creation ban mentioned by Black Tie. Captain Assassin!'s edits are extremely disruptive, and he doesn't see any problems with his actions. Occasionally he does apologize for a "mistake", then continues to make it again and again. I do not feel this issue will go away without administrative action of some kind.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- You see now, I'm not the only here. And we already discussed it, it was resolved and now he again moved it into some film project page. What now? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's only a minor issue. What about your redirecting of the Outlander article and then recreating it yourself with the same content? That's simply disruptive. What was the thinking behind that? Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is not only disruptive, although that may also be block worthy, it is apparent copyright violation (and plain old deceitful), because there is not attribution to the original author under the license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about that, won't happen again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't an explanation of why you did it in the first place. Why did you do it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I created the redirect of Outlander, a user CSD it and got it removed on July 19. So on the next day some user created it, I was just in bad mood already so it happened that way. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't an explanation of why you did it in the first place. Why did you do it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about that, won't happen again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
In an apparent effort to collect "credit" for creating articles, Captain Assassin rushes to create redirects and articles, apparently merely copying info from IMDb. Palo Alto (2013 film) was created with one (and only one) source which directly and specifically stated that the collection of stories ("Palo Alto") was expected to be made into three films, none of which are named "Palo Alto" and none of which are likely to be released in 2013. The Winter Queen (2014 film) was created as a redirect with the target only stating that filming was expected to begin in 2011 (with 2010 sources); the IMDb page likely used has now been deleted. Just Before I Go was created as a nonsensical redirect to the director. Faced with the possible deletion of the redirect, Captain created an article based on one (and only one) source that only knows of the project as "Hello I Must Be Going". In general (supporting my IMDb as the only source theory) his film articles include substantial lists of names not found in any other source (seriously: where else do you find the editor's name when the film has just started filming?). In addressing this issue, Captain says, essentially, that he plans to find sources for the information he adds after adding it. In short, it seems Captain is frequently here to collect "credit", not to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've just read the editor's talk page, and I think the problem goes well beyond creating bizarre redirects and unsourced articles about possible future films. I don't think a topic ban is going to cut it here, the real problem is a total lack of competency. I would support a topic ban if that's as far as folks are willing to go, but I'm afraid the real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be very pleased if you show me to be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be very pleased if you show me to be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
He could probably do with tidying up his signature a bit too. 529 characters to sign and date a post (especially when the I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. comment is just 69 characters long). Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm certainly going to support an indef, having looked at this. Captain Assassin's behaviour is flat-out wrong, and needs to stop, permanently. Moving around articles on your whim, and copy-paste moves to try and gain credit is bang out of order, and this is not what Wikipedia is for. Add in the inappropriate new articles you've created, and we're left with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is here to attention seek, by any means possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- How is my behavior flat-out wrong now? What am I doing now, I'm just saying that I'll show myself improved if you just give me some time and see. Is there anything wrong in saying that? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Capt. Assassin - recommend you post on the Film Project talk page to get other users opinions on page moves. For example, you recently moved Belle (2013 film) to Belle (2014 film), which I believe you did in good faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt, please head to the Film Project for futher clarity. The same with the redirects too. Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Lugnuts, I'll discuss the films related topics there next time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- No probs. Rather than all this topic ban nonsense, I purpose a simple "do not move/do not create redirects" until futher notice. Captain Assassin has done some great work expanding articles and I think this is a bit heavy-handed (I can't see a previous ANI about the same issue). For page moves, if in doubt either go to the film project or log a request at requested moves. For redirects, there's no need to create them as they would fail WP:NFF and will be speedily deleted in any case. Of course, if you are actually starting a new notable article, that is fine. Any of the people who brought this to ANI disagree? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks again Lugnuts, but look, I'll not move any redirect or film page until I noticed you but creating redirects is another problem. Because if I'm willing to create an article (as example an adaptation) later so if I have reliable sources at the target and the film is in development so I should have created the redirect, what do you think of that? Sorry if I'm wrong but I think WP:NFF is for future films articles but I'm not creating the articles until principal photography or filming begin, I'm just saying for the creation of redirects to make them article later when filming begin. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing in Wikipedia:Redirect which appears to justify creating a redirect for a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and there is a thing in that to create the redirects to the sections of other articles if we need it, so I think redirects can be created if they meet notability, like I said I will only create the redirects when target articles have reliable sources and proper evidence of the redirected article and then it is a significant redirect to wait to be created into a good and expanded article later. And its just redirects man, everyone creates the redirects some have been caught ( like me :), kidding ) and others fled, it's just the matter of time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Per the last comment, I would say that at minimum, any topic ban on Captain Assassin! needs to unequivocally include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. This contributor is self-evidently obsessed with 'getting in first', and such an attitude can only be to the detriment of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree completely with the fact that any topic ban will need to include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. Unfortunately, I cannot see Captain Assassin! being able to follow through with this. From his comments above, he clearly is not interested in agreeing to such a ban. From the conversations he has had with User:Rossami and User:SummerPhD on his talk page, he has gone back on his word to not create redirects without proper sources many times. For that reason, for his recent comments above, and his history of wanting to get "credit" for everything, I think the encyclopedia would benefit if he was permanently blocked. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Per the last comment, I would say that at minimum, any topic ban on Captain Assassin! needs to unequivocally include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. This contributor is self-evidently obsessed with 'getting in first', and such an attitude can only be to the detriment of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and there is a thing in that to create the redirects to the sections of other articles if we need it, so I think redirects can be created if they meet notability, like I said I will only create the redirects when target articles have reliable sources and proper evidence of the redirected article and then it is a significant redirect to wait to be created into a good and expanded article later. And its just redirects man, everyone creates the redirects some have been caught ( like me :), kidding ) and others fled, it's just the matter of time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing in Wikipedia:Redirect which appears to justify creating a redirect for a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the evidence doesn't look too good in CA's favour. This redirect was created in the last 24hrs (IE while this discussion was ongoing) with the edit summary "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its main article". The main article states "[the film] was still in the works however likely would follow Terminator 5, which is due for release in 2015". Hardly grounds for creating a meaningful redirect of any real use. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that I'm always going to create redirects, I'm just saying that I'll only create some redirects with high notability. I'm not fighting and doing anything harm to you or Wikipedia, I'm just asking for it to let me do it just a few which I will create and expand later. I'll create redirects like 50 or 100 a moment or in a month, I'll only create which have to be created (like novel and musical adaptations with production information at their targets. I'm asking it very politely, if you are thinking I'm in bad mood or I'm a angry person, well I'm not. I'm agree with you all but about redirects I'm just asking for it because everyone here in Wikipedia is allow to create them, so should I. I've learned so much in this discussion but I want to help Wikipedia. If you just think a little that a redirect will take us to the target where information of that redirected article is available with pure reliable sources and this thing is also an Admin said to me to put information about the redirected article at the target with sources then create the redirect. I'm not talking about credits here, I'm talking about rules. There are no rules to not create the redirects, if you want to ban me you should ban completely creating redirects so no one will create redirects in future. And again (specially to you Logical Fuzz), I'm not a bad guy or a rude if you are thinking of that, I'm a very politely talking and kind heart person in my real life and I'm not talking rude here too. And as above User:Lukeno94 said about my behavior, I never get angry even if someone beat me hardly so how would I behave rude or my behavior could be wrong. I'm just a animation student with full of sorrows and grieves who is looking for happiness in real life. I never hurt a person real life how can I harm or destroy encyclopedia, I don't want to. I'm nothing in here, I've made mistakes and still making perhaps, so do everyone (if not now sometimes in the past). I like very much to help encyclopedia even I tell everyone around me (my friends) to use it and help it by editing, I'm a fast learner and I don't do the thing again if someone stopped me to not to do (even in my real life) but this redirect thing is just making me crazy, you now why if you have just saw me editing or working here you all can see that I've mostly worked on stub creating, I mean I love to create stub articles, I love to start them and see others expanding them. It's not like I want credits, once I wanted it when I moved some redirects mentioned above but when I got here in this discussion I swore not to do that again. You are not thinking clearly or perhaps not understanding me clearly, don't mind I'm just saying, I think I wrote something which teased you or I don't know...which showed you or made you think that my behavior is rude but seriously I'm very polite talking. I don't know why I want to create redirects so much perhaps for stub creating as I told. You can see my whole editing history or ask Mr. User:Bgwhite or User:Mar4d, I'm really very interested in creating stubs and I had always in past. So I'm just asking/saying please don't ban it, it helps to create history in editing of that article which I think also benefits Wikipedia. Or if, if you want to ban it then I'll suggest ban it permanently in Wikipedia so no one should create them (if you think redirects are harmful to encyclopedia). And in last this blocked thing, I don't think Wikipedia wants a user blocked who is editing a lot (if not a lot then a few but it is something), so I don't want to be blocked at any price but I've told you my problems and solutions as well in this comment. I don't know what you all are thinking but I'm not being rude to anyone, once I was angry only with User:Rusted AutoParts but I forgave him after that and I apologize to him now. You all should know that I'm a Muslim and we are very good in forgiving (if not everyone, I'm), our religion wants peace and we are peaceful. Today is our Eid al-Fitr holiday celebrations, this is a great celebration day for all Muslims, I'll just say Allah bless you all with great happiness :). Please don't think I'm involving the religion in this, it's just because today is a big day for us. By the way Lugnuts, I thought you were helping me in this condition of mine Twins 2 is the title in development announced by actor, is it wrong seriously?. So the decision is up to you all, I'm nothing guys but I'm just wanting to help it because I love Wikipedia and I told this to everyone around me when they make joke of me editing it (personally I want to edit it and edit and edit and edit it like always :) ). -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the above, I repeat my suggestion of a WP:CIR block rather than a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also repeat my comment. Captain Assassin is either trolling, is otherwise choosing to ignore the concerns raised by everyone in this thread, or simply doesn't understand what is going on. Either way, their wall of text is a clear sign that they're a net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just don't know what to say now really, I'm feeling very sorry for my last comments above. Just do what you want to do, I'm on my kneels now. Or let's negotiate it in better ways if someone here is good in that or bring someone here. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I've known Assassin since he first started. For full disclosure, I do consider him a friend around here. I've personally never seen Assassin do any trolling or ignore concerns. He does however have trouble understanding. Assassin's current actions are vary similar to when he first started. It took a bit, but Kudpung and I finally "knocked" some sense into him. I'm not sure if it a language barrier or cultural differences or.... I can see two solutions.
- Before any page move or redirect created, he asks somebody first. After a bit of time, Assassin will understand what constitutes a good or bad page move. I am willing to be the person to help him out, however this is not my area of expertise. If Assassin does move a page or create a redirect without asking first, he should have a page move and redirect ban placed.
- Place a page move and redirect ban now. But, not a permanent one.
I would, of course, favour option #1. Beyond My Ken said, "...real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively." I don't think one can get an "understanding how things work" without one showing him how in a non-adversarial setting. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Its a good idea what Bgwhite recommends, ask someone first before creating a redirect or moving a page, if I was doing wrong or I'm doing wrong I think I'll understand the problems and errors what I was doing in the past. I've learned from Bgwhite so much, he helped me a lot and I respect him and all of you here but I'll suggest to give me time first and let me go on the good way. Eventually you'll see my improvement, I can guarantee that. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the solution is simple - don't make redirects and discuss page moves first (ideally with the film project)? Yes? This is the way forward for everyone, right? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest, having read the entire screed, that CA be mentored actively to ensure that he understands. During this period we can expect a decreasing volume of errors. However, if the willingness he expresses to ask first shows signs of weakening, and if the behaviour of poor moves et al reappears, the community should take a further view. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm 100% agreed with Lugnuts, I'll not create redirects and I'll discuss moves at Film project talk. And as Bgwhite said to ask first, I'll ask someone for further moves and redirects. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- How can we know you're being truthful? In all of the previous discussions on your actions, you said you'd comply with what the editor asked you to do and then not do it. You had been warned numerous times not to and yet continued. You even kept doing it during the course of this conversation. Until I see it for myself, I don't think I can believe you. Rusted AutoParts 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm giving my word you believe it or not it's not in my hand, by the way don't mind RAP but you are also a terrible redirects creator and mover as you did with Into the Woods (film). But I've made mistakes and I admit it and from now I will do after discuss it with someone. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- How can someone be terrible at creating redirects? Into the Woods is another example of your recklessness. You moved it so you could own it, it was deleted, I recreated it, then you took it again, and again was deleted. Even if Lugnuts or BG stand in your corner, there is still quite a few people who feel it best to remove you from the project. And considering our history, I feel it's for the best as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you are trying to make me angry now RAP, then you are going to fail but for your information, Bgwhite and Lugnuts are only helping and doing what is best for all, they aren't emotional decision makers like you. At-least I don't abuse editors here like you did and its just the articles moving problem which will be solved soon with good and best reason. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've advised Assassin to stay away from movies for a few months and work on something else. Unfortunately, looks like Assassin has worked on movies the past few days. Assassin, could you stop. At the bare minimum, it's not a good idea to work on movies while your movie edits are under question. Unless I missed something, I don't see any page moves or redirects created for a few days.
- Rusted AutoParts (like your name), from Assassin's and your talk page, it looks like you and him have had some "fun" for awhile. You two clearly can't play together. It's almost to a point where an interaction ban between you needs to be put in place. Rusted, you should walk away.
- Assassin are you willing:
- To not make ANY redirects or page moves without asking Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties.
- You must ask until Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties feels you understand the procedures and are able to do redirects and page moves correctly.
- Doing ANY redirect or page move without asking will result in a ban from making these kinds of edits. The length of the ban will be up to the admin.
- Assassin, I have a feeling Rusted will be watching your edits. Bgwhite (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you are trying to make me angry now RAP, then you are going to fail but for your information, Bgwhite and Lugnuts are only helping and doing what is best for all, they aren't emotional decision makers like you. At-least I don't abuse editors here like you did and its just the articles moving problem which will be solved soon with good and best reason. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not making any moves and redirects now, just working on films (which I think I'm doing good now, if there is any problem tell me please). And Bgwhite YES I'm agreed with you on your conditions. I'll not make any redirect or move without asking you, Lugnuts or someone other. And let RAP watch my edits, I don't have to afraid of him when I'll be doing good. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 10:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to get you angry, I'm merely inputting my opinion on the situation. And it's really not helping when you constantly WP:Assume bad faith on my part. It's not as simple as giving him conditions to abide by. He had been messaged by several editors requesting he cease with his actions and he didn't. My final say in this is simply don't expect to be let off the hook so easily. I won't be watching your edits, the only edits I will see of yours are the contributions you make to the articles in my watch list. I don't abuse editors, I make it known what they're doing is wrong. I only get frustrated when they continue what they're doing, which is unfortunately what you're doing. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry RAP but I was doing and don't get frustrated now we should be good to each other if we want to help Wikipedia and each other. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Incivility, personal attacks, bad faith by User:Joefromrandb
Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Several hours ago, User:Joefromrandb made this edit to a discussion of the merits of having either George W. Bush or Henry Clay on the list. His edit summary was "I get it- you hate George W. Bush; get in line", and his edit accuses me (and by extension the four other editors who want Clay on the list) Setting aside the NPA nature of his comments, the following things are wrong with his assertion of bias:
- The primary reason for removing Bush was recentism, not incompetence
- Henry Clay is a quite significant American political figure
- We just removed Bill Clinton from the list
- Clay and Bush are of the same political persuasion; Clay's Whig Party morphed into Bush's GOP
When I explained those points to him, he said that it was "a laugh", taking this as some colossal joke and refusing to walk back his allegations of political bias against five editors. Oh, and as I was preparing this thread, he not only continually refused to walk back his outlandish claims, he called me "assholish" for asking him to do so, referring in his edit summary as my request being "sauce for the goose". Could somebody please explain to him that he can't make blanket accusations like that, because I'm not getting through to him? pbp 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would note that this is hardly the first time this user has resorted to ad homonem name-calling of people he disagrees with: a few weeks ago, he called mops who were involved in blocking him for 3RR "children". Last week, he levied this gem at an admin he disagreed with. In addition, he has been chastised for incivility at WP:VA/E within the last 48 hours. This is clearly an ongoing pattern with him. With 2 blocks under his belt, this user probably needs a 2-week forced vacation to remind him that doing this kind of behavior repeatedly is uncalled for. pbp 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- In all fairness, I've made that observation about quite a few administrators; not just the ones who've blocked me. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't make it right, it actually makes it worse. You just admitted to calling even more people names than the people in the diffs I provided pbp 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I did? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't make it right, it actually makes it worse. You just admitted to calling even more people names than the people in the diffs I provided pbp 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- In all fairness, I've made that observation about quite a few administrators; not just the ones who've blocked me. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Competence case anyone? Or am I thinking too much? MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- You're thinking too much. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, Joe's disruptive actions are continuing. A few hours ago, he made a spurious soapboxing claim. And, for asking him to stop soapboxing, he accused me of being a troll and acts like being told to stop his incivility and personal attacks are some sort of joke. This has got to stop, and I'm afraid a block is the only way to do it. I again ask admins to review Joe's many unacceptable attacks on admins and non-admins alike pbp 05:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- When you want to accuse someone of "making a spurious soapboxing claim" it probably isn't a good idea to include a diff of the actual soapboxing. Just some food for thought. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Purplebackpack89, have you considered just disengaging and finding something else to do for a while? Your reporting is somewhat misleading (October 2012 is hardly "a few weeks ago") and this all seems like a tempest in a teapot. When you find yourself getting this upset about something, it's best to take a breather and come back in a day or two. I don't see any point in this bickering and I really don't see any point in blocking someone over their rhetorical style. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, all the other diffs are from the last two weeks, and most are a lot more than "rhetorical style"; they are flat-out personal attacks. He repeatedly engages in personal attacks, and laughs off requests to be civil. I am very disturbed by his recalcitrance, and you should be too pbp 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Joe, where you going, cool it down a notch or two, willya, and quit abusing the admins. PBP, like Joe, I voted against the proposal, though I suspect for vastly different reasons. In any case, seems like you were involved in some pretty heated personal battles with Gabe, even on my personal talk page, only a couple months ago. Let it go for now is my best advice. If Joe keeps it up, revisit. Give me the word and I'll close this for ya. I don't see a lot of traction for your position. Jusdafax 21:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could show me where I've "abused the admins". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's up above per PBP re: BWilkins, and don't play dumb, dude. Jusdafax 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, you can't. Thank you for the clarification. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I see the problem. Give him a two week block. Jusdafax 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, if you "saw the problem" you wouldn't have come here to stir the pot in the first place. "Give him a two week block"! You're hilarious. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I see the problem. Give him a two week block. Jusdafax 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, you can't. Thank you for the clarification. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's up above per PBP re: BWilkins, and don't play dumb, dude. Jusdafax 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could show me where I've "abused the admins". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I say block him for username violation. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe. But he's lost me completely accusing me of stirring the pot. I am a member of WP:VITAL where PBP and I have been editing for months, and came here to cool out the discussion. If he's looking to be disruptive and antagonize people deliberately, as is becoming clear, a timely preventative block is a good call. Make it a month or two, the way he's going. Jusdafax 02:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be accused of stirring the pot, don't come to a stale thread and post baseless accusations. It doesn't get much more obvious than that. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe. But he's lost me completely accusing me of stirring the pot. I am a member of WP:VITAL where PBP and I have been editing for months, and came here to cool out the discussion. If he's looking to be disruptive and antagonize people deliberately, as is becoming clear, a timely preventative block is a good call. Make it a month or two, the way he's going. Jusdafax 02:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I actually sided with Joefromrandb in the dispute that led to this thread because I suspect he was right in his position. However, I have observed on more than one occasion in the past that he can be antagonistic and spiteful. He needs to dial that back. AutomaticStrikeout ? 01:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User talk:74.120.133.55 will not stop with the soapboxing
The above user has been an a tear about some perceived "plot" being hatched in Gilberton, Pennsylvania. There is clearly soapboxing at that page's talk (see last section). He added (and then deleted) more yesterday (diff), at which time I left him a final warning about it on his talk (diff). He responded to it with more rant. Note that he was already blocked once for 3RR on the Gilberton page. Certainly seems like WP:NOTHERE to me. At best, he is an extreme WP:SPA with a serious bit of "lack of clue". Will notify IP user immediately after I finish this. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please be careful whom you call "extreme". I was just over at your user page. I would call your views right wing extremist. In fact, it seems that the only opposition to allowing any mention of the Insurrectionism in the town of Gilberton seems to be coming from the radical right, along with this entire discussion here. I call WP:CENSOR. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- There appears to be plenty of coverage of this issue by RS at the moment judging from a google news search, probably enough for something to be added somewhere at some point if it passes the WP:NOTNEWS threshold. The IP just doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy at the moment. Perhaps if someone worked with them on on the article talk to find proper sourcing, showed them how to cite things, how to comply with NPOV and avoid OR they might calm down. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am learning that the radical right's complaints that wikipedia is "left-wing" is just BS. I am learning wikipedia policy from this experience, and am almost coming to the conclusion that wikipedia is run by those wanting it to be more like conservipedia. I am willing to work with someone on wording, but the attempts by the radical right here to suppress any information on the history of Gilberton seem to indicate that wikipedia has no desire to allow anything but right wing approved material. At this point, omission of the information indicates a desire to hide the long-term status of Gilberton. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is coverage of the police chief's rant. I certainly haven't seen anything about anthrax, ricin, the overthrow of the government, the national guard, armed insurrection or any of the many other things he is going on about. Did you actually read it? I suspect this is a WP:CIR issue, and that is in your ballpark, not an editor's. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I read it, and other comments, including the "honestly, I want CIA to put a bullet in his head" comment at Talk:Pat Robertson (which hasn't been removed yet and for which he probably should have been blocked) and the puzzling, given his activity level, "My daughter is going to be born Monday" from July 28. Call me cynical but I'm not convinced blocking people like this works. They just come back. Their soapboxing definitely needs to stop though. I usually just delete content like this from talk pages (in the WP:ARBPIA topic area where it's pretty commonplace) and cite WP:TALK/WP:SOAPBOX. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I did that at the city article. I am not comfortable doing at any article I am not involved in or on his talk page. Thanks for your help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, now a long term registered editor, User:Sweetfreek, is at the Gilberton, Pennsylvania page, spouting the same (word for word) rhetoric as the above IP. It doesn't take an expert to see WP:DUCK here. I have done again what Sean told me to do regarding the soapboxing, and reverted his edit per the already established consensus on the talk page. I did ask him to come back and try to discuss the situation sans the rhetoric after the city council meeting, so we have a better idea of where this is going in order to make a reasonable addition to the article, which, if we can keep the rhetoric out of it, is probably unavoidable. I hate controversy sections in small town and school articles, as they almost never are truly anything meaningful with time perspective. I am certain enough of the quack that I am not going to notify him. The IP already was, but if someone here thinks it needed, go for it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I can assure you that I am not the IP listed above... though frankly, I have no idea how anyone expects me to prove my innocence now that I have been accused of a crime. After all, I have been accused by the infallible word of somebody who redacts comments and pleas from the talk page, so I must be undeniably guilty of whatever he says I am, no? Sweetfreek (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, now a long term registered editor, User:Sweetfreek, is at the Gilberton, Pennsylvania page, spouting the same (word for word) rhetoric as the above IP. It doesn't take an expert to see WP:DUCK here. I have done again what Sean told me to do regarding the soapboxing, and reverted his edit per the already established consensus on the talk page. I did ask him to come back and try to discuss the situation sans the rhetoric after the city council meeting, so we have a better idea of where this is going in order to make a reasonable addition to the article, which, if we can keep the rhetoric out of it, is probably unavoidable. I hate controversy sections in small town and school articles, as they almost never are truly anything meaningful with time perspective. I am certain enough of the quack that I am not going to notify him. The IP already was, but if someone here thinks it needed, go for it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I did that at the city article. I am not comfortable doing at any article I am not involved in or on his talk page. Thanks for your help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I read it, and other comments, including the "honestly, I want CIA to put a bullet in his head" comment at Talk:Pat Robertson (which hasn't been removed yet and for which he probably should have been blocked) and the puzzling, given his activity level, "My daughter is going to be born Monday" from July 28. Call me cynical but I'm not convinced blocking people like this works. They just come back. Their soapboxing definitely needs to stop though. I usually just delete content like this from talk pages (in the WP:ARBPIA topic area where it's pretty commonplace) and cite WP:TALK/WP:SOAPBOX. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stealth censorship of this discussion on the part of Bushranger removed. I call WP:CENSOR on the attempt.
74.120.133.55 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And I call it re-hatting political ranting. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- And after that example of WP:NOTHERE after being warned about inappropriate discussions, a block should be applied. Probably with TPA revoked, as this IP user's only purpose here appears to be to vehemently push a political POV, using talk pages to do so after being warned about doing it in articles. WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTADVOCACY. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty good from someone whose personal page here reads like FOX News, TheBlaze, and Infowars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Bushranger#No_Spin_Zone ). Interesting how you can't keep the soapboxing off your own page. "to suppress Insurrections" is nonpartisan. At least I still keep MY oath. "all enemies..." 74.120.133.55 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- And after that example of WP:NOTHERE after being warned about inappropriate discussions, a block should be applied. Probably with TPA revoked, as this IP user's only purpose here appears to be to vehemently push a political POV, using talk pages to do so after being warned about doing it in articles. WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTADVOCACY. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, I hold that the WP:CENSOR going on with the Gilberton page is so extreme, that an addition to the effect of "In January 2013, The City Council of Gilberton passed an ordinance declaring that it is the SOLE arbitor of what is Constitutional, and that the Supreme Court of the United States holds no authority over it." would be rejected by the creators of the discussion right here. That proposed addition would be a statement of fact, without a political POV, simply FACT. Seriously, we are talking about a town in total rebellion against Constitutional authority, and it's supporters are attempting to WP:CENSOR the facts from being added to the town's entry. One editor of this discussion, "The Bushranger" has even attempted to WP:CENSOR my defense of my edits in this very discussion, and given his own user page, I personally question his loyalty, and adherence to an oath he claims to have once taken. Personal attacks have been made against me in this discussion, I have a right to state my opinion as well. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why has the IP not been blocked for spamming all sorts of bollocks on ANI and elsewhere? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- They have now, for three months (given that this appears to be a very stable IP that has been stable for at least two); in a spate of optimism I've left TPA enabled for now. If there's any concerns about WP:INVOLVED after the above I plead the "any reasonable administrator" exemption, but won't consider it wheel-warring if there's disagreement. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Ferret baiting
Some completely uncalled-for baiting of Malleus going on at Transportation of animals (NB talk:). Will someone please stamp on this ASAP, before it gets out of hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
So once again baiting goes unaddressed. Eric Corbett 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- But it was addressed and mostly because it was you. For most editors, there would not even have been a report filed at ANI; nor would any action likely have been taken had one been created.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me dude? Hillbilly posted an article containing personal information with the sole purpose of mocking and baiting another user, and then proceeded to edit war without any purpose other than to get a reaction. It's unacceptable behavior no matter whether it's directed at Eric or an IP, and is borderline WP:OUTING. Eric chose to make his name known here, but Hillbilly obviously didn't randomly find an article from 2004 in a Manchester news site. This whole thing was designed to harass and bait. --Laser brain (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- My assumption was that Eric objected only to the latter part of the topic. Frankly, I thought the whole topic shouldn't have been on the talk page. I would have just removed it all. BTW, I don't mind in the slightest your disagreeing with me, but could you please not call me "dude"?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the dude. I agree that even placing it on the Talk page was a poor decision. Edit warring it into the article was disruptive and way over the line. --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Speculating much Laser Brain? I was working on an article called Transportation of animals, (in fact the previous edits were concerned with transporting ferrets in particular). I think the ferret-hammock piece definitely comes under that umbrella, I brought it up on the talkpage first, linked to Eric's name so he would know that I was considering adding the material. Another editor agreed that it should be added, so I did. You can see on the talkpage I wasn't baiting anyone, just trying see funny side of it all. I've always held Eric in high regard, and am surprised that he took offense. I do apologize for the 'old chap' remark, which could be considered over-familiar. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the dude. I agree that even placing it on the Talk page was a poor decision. Edit warring it into the article was disruptive and way over the line. --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- My assumption was that Eric objected only to the latter part of the topic. Frankly, I thought the whole topic shouldn't have been on the talk page. I would have just removed it all. BTW, I don't mind in the slightest your disagreeing with me, but could you please not call me "dude"?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me dude? Hillbilly posted an article containing personal information with the sole purpose of mocking and baiting another user, and then proceeded to edit war without any purpose other than to get a reaction. It's unacceptable behavior no matter whether it's directed at Eric or an IP, and is borderline WP:OUTING. Eric chose to make his name known here, but Hillbilly obviously didn't randomly find an article from 2004 in a Manchester news site. This whole thing was designed to harass and bait. --Laser brain (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies for misreading earlier; I thought it concerned the talk page only. The added text was, even if intended in good spirits and humorously, not of proper encyclopedic level--that should be obvious to someone like Hillbillyholiday, who seems to be an editor who knows what's what. Restoring it ("not taking the piss") is disruptive, and Hillbilly could have shown better manners: you know what's going on and you should have known better. DracoE, you know I love you, but come on--if a girl says no, it's no, simple as that. If everything else fails I can invoke BLP which would urge us to be cautions. But seriously, Hillbillyholiday81, that was not a good move on your part. Eric, I'm sorry that I did not look more carefully the first time. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article has had something of a history of funny-but-true facts and I thought that the ferret-hammocks quote would perfectly fit the bill. As Eric himself pointed out on the talkpage, the fact that ferrets can now happily travel within the EU was in some part due to his efforts. The material could have been worded differently or trimmed down perhaps, but it was relevant to the article. I undid Eric's edit because his comment 'taking the piss' was simply not true, and not a comment on the validity of the edit. I have no intention of restoring that material if Eric doesn't wish for it to be there, but I must reiterate that I wasn't trying to 'bait' him, I was just trying to raise a smile. Don't worry, it won't happen again. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Surely part of the aggravation was that this was on the main page as a DYK at the time, right? Add ferrets, by all means, but the timing was perhaps a bit insensitive. Stalwart111 02:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Laser Brain's comments about about baiting.
I've just removed the additions from the page history as disruptive.It seems clear they were added to get a reaction out of one editor, and are definitely WP:POINTY if not harassment. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)- Or maybe that was an overreaction on my part. I guess if anyone thinks it's unwarranted they can revert me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Again, I refute the accusation of harassment or pointedness or whatever. The information was relevant, sourced, and IMO (whisper it) 'quite funny'. For what it's worth, Mark, I think your wholesale deletion just then was uncalled for. I've been around long enough to know not to ask for assumption of good faith at AN/I, so I'll leave it at that. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking about it some more, I don't think it met any of the criteria to be removed from the history, so I've restored it. I'd like to assume good faith here, but it really does seem like you were out to poke Eric. Mentioning passports and so on I can see, but getting into one couple's travel plans to France seems too silly to take seriously. I feel a bit conflicted though, since I've never taken you for the disruptive type. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mark. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking about it some more, I don't think it met any of the criteria to be removed from the history, so I've restored it. I'd like to assume good faith here, but it really does seem like you were out to poke Eric. Mentioning passports and so on I can see, but getting into one couple's travel plans to France seems too silly to take seriously. I feel a bit conflicted though, since I've never taken you for the disruptive type. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Again, I refute the accusation of harassment or pointedness or whatever. The information was relevant, sourced, and IMO (whisper it) 'quite funny'. For what it's worth, Mark, I think your wholesale deletion just then was uncalled for. I've been around long enough to know not to ask for assumption of good faith at AN/I, so I'll leave it at that. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Hillbillyholiday81: Thanks for your thoughts on whether the edits were harassment or pointedness, but they are not relevant. Such behavior is indistinguishable from trolling, and participants here are unlikely to care whether it is intentional—that's just not relevant. Eric is known to attract misguided attention, and I ask any passing admin to ensure that nonsense like this is stopped ASAP. If the disruption continues, please block the user and bring it here for review. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes, how silly of me to think that my own opinion on my own edits could in any way be deemed relevant to the situation, though I congratulate you for proving my point about the lack of AGF here. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Once again you are missing the point—your good faith and your intentions are just not relevant. If you lack the necessary judgment to participate in a collaborative community you will, at a minimum, have to be removed from that page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- You aren't really going to try to tell us that we shouldn't allow people to comment on their own edits, are you? AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Once again you are missing the point—your good faith and your intentions are just not relevant. If you lack the necessary judgment to participate in a collaborative community you will, at a minimum, have to be removed from that page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes, how silly of me to think that my own opinion on my own edits could in any way be deemed relevant to the situation, though I congratulate you for proving my point about the lack of AGF here. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that HBH was just being playful. The problem is that, while cow-tipping may be good clean fun for us hillbillies, bull-tipping is never a very good idea as bulls tend to take it the wrong way. He should remember that. Anyway, time to shut this down, I think.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Baiting? Maybe not. OUTING? Yes. Inappropriate? Definitely. GiantSnowman 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_9#File:Young_ferret_relaxing_in_hammock_before_transport.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have speedy deleted the image, and left a warning at User talk:DracoEssentialis#Vandalism and personal attacks. Fram (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- What? You speedy deleted an image of a ferret because it was "created purely to attack or mock another editor"? This is an image of a ferret, not a portrait painted with someone's penis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I accept Hillbilly's good faith; perhaps Eric doesn't, but he has good reason to be miffed about this. I haven't seen the image so I don't wish to comment on it. Are the edits OUTING enough to warrant revdel? Mark backtracked on it (this is not intended as an indictment) while I'm inclined to think that revdel would be proper. Given the BLP issue Eric should have a say in this as well: if he wants it gone it should be gone, and since we should err on the side of caution I'm going to revdel it again. If an uninvolved admin disagrees they can undo me, preferably with an explanation here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, good to get more input on this, erring on the side of caution is fine with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The only real outing involved would be the fact that the article mentions his wife and I think that is reasonable cause for removing the edits. It doesn't seem to be a news piece too important to the article in question.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- (non-admin, partly-content observation, so mostly out of place, but whatever.) Hillbilly, you seem to know the history of the article. When it was at AfD, some of us fought tooth and nail to keep barely-relevant crap like this ferret news story out of the article. Adding stuff like that brings up not only the baiting/outing concerns mentioned here (I support revdel and removing the ferrets here, by the way), but also stuff like WP:UNDUE issues that we were all trying to avoid by deleting or cutting down the article. What you did, even if in good faith, was by no means constructive, both for the community and the article in question. Ansh666 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC) (By the way, ping me if you want me to see a reply or something. I don't hang out at AN/I much anymore.)
WP:SPADE time: nothing but pure trolling, blatant admissions of pointyness, and the most mindboggling set of personal attacks I've ever seen. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, because it seems so obvious, but my involvement in this bit of light-hearted fun was motivated by a wish to confirm, again, that there are very different rules for Wikipedians and BLP “subjects” who don’t have friends on the inside. When User:Eric Corbett, an established Wikipedia contributor, objects to User:Hillbillyholiday81 adding sourced information about his wife’s achievements in the field of ferret transport, somebody drags Hillbilly to ANI, and what follows are the inevitable cries of WP:OUTING and harassment. Some of you may not know this, but Hillbilly is doing sterling work protecting notable people from actual harassment by Wikipedia contributors. By the way, the somebody who started this here thread was none other than User:Andy Dingley. The same Andy Dingley who had made it his personal business to torment a non-notable living person and his family by means of a Wikipedia biography sourced to such wonderful publications as the Daily Mail. Andy Dingley seems to have had no qualms as to how his behavior on here would make that living person feel hounded, harassed, persecuted, you name it, and I for one am appaled that Andy Dingley is still considered an “editor in good standing”. Going after someone’s children and declaring them bastards by implication? Classy, Andy, real classy. By now, some of you may have hopped over to my talk page and found some recent edits describing me as a vandal and a troll. One of them by Cyclopia, that living epitome of kindness and empathy (irony alert). Cyclopia has got his nose way up Jimbo’s behind whenever he posts on The Revered Co-Founder’s talk page. But his true, heartfelt “respect” for BLP “subjects” keeps shining through in “edits” like this one: 'Let's stop spinning this into some kind of "kindness", "understanding" or "respect" issue. There is nothing kind about a public person asking us to remove trivially public information. Nothing. There is just someone who is used to get things their way, and that someone this time doesn't like, for whatever reason, that we, of all websites, host an openly available official information. I think this is not kind at all, and it is instead insulting, bullying and demeaning to us to say the least. But even if it wasn't, and it was asked in good faith, it is still unreasonable. So we can give the asker a pleasant smile, and say "thanks for asking but no thanks, your request is not really reasonable because it is anyway publicly available information, so we feel we can cover it anyway". If being gagged by strangers is your cup of tea among "kind gestures", well, to each one their own, be my guest, but do not try to sell it as a regular "kind gesture" we are bound by ethics to perform. -- cyclopiaspeak! 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)' This is the same Cyclopia who censored my replacing a photograph of Jimbob Wales with a portrait painted by notable Australian artist Pricasso. I had a reason for doing this. As in giving someone a taste of their own medicine. Round about a year and a half ago, Jimbob threw a notable person to the wikiwolves and then refused to reply to this notable person’s distressed emails. Said notable person had made a very simple, heartfelt request not to have a completely irrelevant piece of information pertaining to his past made known on Wikipedia. You know, the first google hit for his name? Unfortunately, said living person had previously identified as a liberal. The Wikiconservatives, among them a guy proudly displaying the KKK flag on his talk page, persevered, and despite the fact that the source they used was ridiculous to begin with. It’s not like I hadn’t made His Jimboness aware of the fact on his talk page while this disgusting charade was going on. (Hey there, “Beeblebrox”. You took it upon your grammatically challenged donkey to close that Rfc. Did you actually read all of it? I doubt it, but hey, I’m just a lady “vandal” who used to actually care about this project a long time ago. Hey, Jimbob, what a coincidence that one of the current Arbcommers you seem quite friendly with attempted some damage control on a certain notorious WP:SLIMEBUCKET’s talk page a mere two hours after a certain journalist had asked you for a statement. Oh the hypocrisy!) In closing, I guess you folks can choose to get worked up over an issue that isn’t that much to write home about to begin with (let’s be real here, who outside of Wikiworld would ever give a flying ferret about Eric Corbett and his numerous wikigripes), or you can be WP:BOLD and address the wider issue. If a WP editor can get information about himself and his family deleted, why can’t you folks extend the same courtesy to barely notable people who don’t want their lives dissected on here? DracoE 12:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|
- my involvement in this bit of light-hearted fun was motivated by a wish to confirm, again, that there are very different rules for Wikipedians and BLP “subjects” who don’t have friends on the inside. There's a term for this: disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And then you proceed to throw out personal attacks left right and center. Wow. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would do well to avoid the impression that "personal attacks" (I sometimes marvel at how watered down that term has become in its practical application here ...) on (mostly) pseudonymous editors are a more serious matter than attacks on biography subjects, posted at the top Google link for their names. It is very unseemly when Wikipedians who behave like mimosas tell barely notable BLP subjects to grow a tougher skin and to stop complaining, because after all, they "wanted" to be famous. Andreas JN466 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone by winding up on the same side of a civility dispute as Malleus, but regardless of the legitimacy of the BLP concerns (which is what WP:BLP is for, and if there are concerns about that that's what WT:BLP is for), that does not excuse deliberate disruption and personal attacks. We're a community of editors who follow reliable sources or suffer the consequences, not ducks in a shooting gallery for other editors to plink at. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would do well to avoid the impression that "personal attacks" (I sometimes marvel at how watered down that term has become in its practical application here ...) on (mostly) pseudonymous editors are a more serious matter than attacks on biography subjects, posted at the top Google link for their names. It is very unseemly when Wikipedians who behave like mimosas tell barely notable BLP subjects to grow a tougher skin and to stop complaining, because after all, they "wanted" to be famous. Andreas JN466 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- my involvement in this bit of light-hearted fun was motivated by a wish to confirm, again, that there are very different rules for Wikipedians and BLP “subjects” who don’t have friends on the inside. There's a term for this: disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And then you proceed to throw out personal attacks left right and center. Wow. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's been a systematic and deliberate attempt to distort the reality of the events that triggered this thread, so let's get a couple of things clear.
- I never asked for anything to be deleted, I simply objected to the addition of trivia concerning my wife to the transportation of animals article.
- Whether or not anyone outside Wikiworld gives a flying fuck about about me is neither here nor there, and seems like a clear personal attack. And if it were true, how is the newspaper article and television appearance to be explained? Arguing that I'm not sufficiently notable for a WP article (which is undoubtedly true) is completely irrelevant to the addition of trivia about me to an article on the transportation of animals. Eric Corbett 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Let's see, if I understand the situation, Ruth Corbett was heavily involved in campaigning on the issue of being able to transport ferrets freely throughout the EU. This was added to the WP article on the transportation of animals, in a section about ferrets. That seems appropriate and uncontentious. This would be completely unremarkable except that Ruth Corbett happens to be the wife of Eric Corbett. If an IP were to delete that material, they would be reverted and, if they persisted, blocked. But since Eric Corbett is a long-time Wikipedian, he is able to edit war to remove this innocuous material, claim that this is somehow harassment, and have the material rev-deleted. I think DracoEssentialis may have been a bit cavalier in making her point, but it is none the less valid. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly don't understand the situation, so why are you commenting on it? Eric Corbett 21:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps in the vain hope that someone will explain to me why it isn't what it looks like? What have I gotten wrong? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll bite the bait. Can someone explain me what the fuck does User:DracoEssentialis wants from me? Is she whining because I don't like people who disrupt this site to make their points? For the record, I hardly got my nose "way up Jimbo’s behind" - I disagree quite frankly with Jimbo almost regularly on his talk page. Yet that's no reason to troll. That said, I stand by the edit she quoted, but I'd be happy if her ongoing trolling (of Jimbo, Eric Corbett, me, whoever) would be put to stop, regardless of how she covers it under the veil of supposed ethical crusades. -- cyclopiaspeak! 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly don't understand the situation, so why are you commenting on it? Eric Corbett 21:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
PrivateMasterHD and 69.122.190.4
PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles (and has added generally incorrect information and used questionable word choices in several articles) and has been unresponsive to messages left on their talk page except to blank the page. There have been documented concerns about them for past behavioral issues and while PrivateMaster has demonstrated the ability to make constructive edits, edits such as this continue.
I became aware of their activities on June 17 at Nick Folk when they made this edit that I reverted. Nearly a month later, they returned to the article to make two consecutive edits. There was a third edit made by an IP account (69.122.190.4) that I believe them to be using as the edit was a minute apart from the other edits. The IP claimed Folk was "designated for assignment" however, this does not exist in the National Football League (NFL) only in Major League Baseball (MLB). I left a note on the IP's talkpage however, I did not realize that Yankees10 had warned PrivateMaster a month earlier for a similar incident which aroused my suspicions. As it turned out, both accounts heavily edited MLB and NFL articles so I decided to do some research and found some trends.
Via PrivateMaster's account: Jason Babin ("designated for assignment"), Boomer Esiason (In this instance, the majority of the edit is fine but the disabled list does not exist in football), Kris Jenkins ("eliminated for the rest of the year"), Michael Crabtree ("disabled list"), Orlando Franklin (Trivial information under "Other"), Danny Woodhead (Incorrectly stating Woodhead "lead" the Jets to the AFC Championship when he had little playing time), Shaun Suisham ("designated for assignment"), Jonas Mouton ("eliminated for the entire season"), Billy Cundiff (There is no preseason roster however, there is in baseball), Jeremy Maclin ("eliminated from the season"), Percy Harvin ("60-day disabled list"), Rob Gronkowski ("60 day DL"), Physically Unable to Perform (addition of a link to the disabled list which is exclusive to MLB), and Joe Morgan ("eliminated from the season"). Update 8/12: "Optioned" is not terminology used in football.
A look at the edit history of the IP account reveals a similar batch of edits: Darius Slay ("disabled list"), Shawn Nelson ("designated for assignment"), Colin Baxter ("disabled list; designated for assignment"), Albert Haynesworth ("designated for assignment"), Dennis Pitta ("disabled list"). Most concerning is an edit made back in May to the Injured reserve list which stated MLB players were placed on an injured reserve list if they were lost for the year. This is not true because the MLB utilizes the disabled list (for example Johan Santana was declared out for the year after undergoing shoulder surgery prior to the start of the baseball season—he was placed on the 60 disabled list).
For what it's worth, in addition to the consecutive edits made by PrivateMaster and 69.122.190.4 at Nick Folk, this occurred again on July 27 at Andre Gurode with the IP incorrectly stating Gurode had been ""designated for assignment" while PrivateMaster added dates in the section titles which has been a trend in the edits of both accounts (see here and here).
Being that they frequently edit MLB and NFL articles, I could see, earlier on, if it was a mix-up however, we're to the point where multiple messages have been left for both accounts and yet they are still blatantly substituting the incorrect terminology. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indef block until he decides to communicate with other editors. I don't see where he's communicating at all with any editor. Blanking and continuing the same behavior is not acceptable.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)- He actually has communicated with other editors - but only about protection templates, it appears, and nothing about this behavior, so I'd support an indef based on WP:IDHT if it continues. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- They blanked the ANI notice and have continued about editing. I'm beginning to sincerely doubt that they're open to discussion on this matter. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- He actually has communicated with other editors - but only about protection templates, it appears, and nothing about this behavior, so I'd support an indef based on WP:IDHT if it continues. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support indef block: Very disruptive editing, no communication with other editors about the problems they notify him about, and a clear lack of competence. Thomas.W talk to me 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the "update 8/12", the fact he immedately removed that indicates something, but I'm not sure what. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nor do I. It's still problematic that they continue to remain silent however. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
GAR discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that the discussion on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/BGM-75 AICBM/1 may have become somewhat polarised. In particular, I do understand why a contributor is saying that he will bring this to ANI, if I do not withdraw the GAR. Is this manipulative? Please see this edit and this edit. I think that a calming influence is needed. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I was in the middle of writing this when I was notified of this thread. I'll post it here instead. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Snowmanradio, an editor who has been an editor of Wikipedia since December 2005, has opened a Good Article Review of the above article here. In it, s/he has demonstrated a shockingly bad understanding of both the Good Article criteria and basic practice on Wikipedia. For instance, s/he has suggested that the author of the article, User:The Bushranger, has a conflict of interest by participating in the review. S/he has refused to get the point that his or her requests, which are either demands for information that may or may not even exist (and if it does, is still classified) or utterly ridiculous, are in no way supported by the GA Criteria. How this editor, who as I said has been here for eight years, is so shockingly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, I do not know. But I suggest that this farce of a GAR be archived. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that in the GAR discussion my intention was to bring up conflict of interest only the context of an editor being protective an article that he or she has created. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Snowmanradio, do you not understand that that only underlines how unfamiliar you are with basic Wikipedia practice? Authors of articles are expected to participate in reviews of their work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Intothatdarkness here. I have no idea what the hell is going on with your assessment of #5, Snowmanradio, but either you're not competent enough to be conducting a GAR, or you're being deliberately disruptive. Bushranger's "defense" of the article is perfectly valid, and no conflict of interest is apparent; why should a major contributor of an article be excluded from either improving the article, or explaining their edits? I've never participated in a GAR myself, I must admit; but from my work with turning articles into GAs, that review seems well out of touch. I suggest you withdraw the GAR pronto. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- It should be noted that User:Snowmanradio did not notify me of this AN/I. On the subject, I'll just say I would have no problem whatsoever with a productive GAR of that article, I fully accept constructive critcism (something on which the opposite was strongly implied by Snowmanradio in his GAR), and if the consensus of a proper GAR was that the article in question did not meet the GA criteria, I would have zero issue with it being delisted (indeed, I was honestly surprised when it passed its GAN - I had simply nominated it on a "well, nothing more can be done here, so let's see what happens" basis). I do not, however, believe that a GAR that is filled with WP:IDHT on the part of the revewier, and which could very easily be taken as a WP:POINTy nomination in response to the article in question being brought up as a challenge to this statement, serves the project at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- (ec x 3) Even I can find problems with the writing there. User:Eric Corbett would probably see red. The GAR is justified, but should probably be conducted by another editor at this point. The more general problem of making GAs out of articles where not that much is publicly known about the topic (this is a 4-paragrah GA, not counting the lead) should probably be discussed elsewhere. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually no, not even a light Suffolk pink. The glaring omission for me though, which disqualifies it from being a GA in my opinion is the political and military background that led to it being proposed. What would it have been able to do that existing missiles couldn't, and why was that important? Eric Corbett 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good point, and something that (honestly) had completely escaped me while writing it. I wouldn't have any problem with it being delisted until I (or anyone else, of course!) can dig stuff up on that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to delist it if you or someone else can come up with a background section within the timescale of the review. Eric Corbett 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly, it would have to be somebody else, as here in Podunktown I've exhausted online sources and interlibrary loan requests usually come back stamped "lolno". - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to delist it if you or someone else can come up with a background section within the timescale of the review. Eric Corbett 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good point, and something that (honestly) had completely escaped me while writing it. I wouldn't have any problem with it being delisted until I (or anyone else, of course!) can dig stuff up on that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, I wouldn't object to a proper GAR - heck, there's been times I've looked at that article and wondered if I should do it myself - even if it was only on a "meets the letter of the criteria, but not their spirit" basis. One like this though...ugh. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- And, IMO, that should be the issue here. It's not the question of a second review, but the lack of quality and professionalism in the one being conducted. Intothatdarkness 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually no, not even a light Suffolk pink. The glaring omission for me though, which disqualifies it from being a GA in my opinion is the political and military background that led to it being proposed. What would it have been able to do that existing missiles couldn't, and why was that important? Eric Corbett 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article (currently 337 words of readable prose) does not say who initiated the project, why was it needed, who participated in the planning stages, and it omits costs that were incurred. These are major omissions to my way of thinking and I think that this is not meat criteria 3a of the good article criteria which says that a GA should address the main aspects of the topic. The discussion is a community Good Article Review, used for controversial GAR's, for the community to decide on. Article size is not a GA criteria. The GAR is somewhat of a mess now and uninviting for community reviewers due to the polarised discussion, and I think that it probably needs restarting. I would be happy to end the current community GAR and start a second community GAR to briefly outline the important issues that I think are important for the community to look at. I am not actually sure how to close a GAR, but if it is closed then I can start another tomorrow or in a few days time and I hope the second GAR will be better. Snowman (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you would allow somebody else (like Eric, perhaps) to open a second one, instead of doing it yourself. (As for costs, that is something not in available sources...) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've not taken part in the review, so I can close it as "kept" if everyone agrees, then a second community GAR can be opened. But like Bushranger I think it would be better all round if another reviewer did that rather than you Snowman. Eric Corbett 23:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would be happy for you to end the current community GAR, which needs closing, because it has been spoilt by a polarised discussion. My main interest is to see that this article is either improved to GA standard or de-listed, so I would welcome second community GAR. I have no objections if someone else starts a community GAR, but if one is not started within seven days, then I would endeavour to start the second GAR myself. I would recommend a community GAR is started rather than a individual GAR. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll close the current review tomorrow, if nobody does else first. I'd still strongly recommend that you do not start another community review; I'll do that myself if necessary. Eric Corbett 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you do that, please copy my comments from the current review, as they have been offered in good faith, even though you seem to disagree with them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to comment at the review you may of course do so, but I'll be copying nothing. Eric Corbett 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I note that the discussion on the current community GAR has recently been advanced by User Someone not using his real name. With this in mind, I have changed my mind about restarting the current community GAR, and I now think that it would be simpler and appropriate to continue the existing community GAR. The ground has already been ploughed and there is no need to re-plough it. I would take heed of User Eric Corbett's recommendation that I do not start another community GAR myself on this article. I note that User Eric Corbett would restart the community GAR, if necessary. Snowman (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to comment at the review you may of course do so, but I'll be copying nothing. Eric Corbett 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you do that, please copy my comments from the current review, as they have been offered in good faith, even though you seem to disagree with them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll close the current review tomorrow, if nobody does else first. I'd still strongly recommend that you do not start another community review; I'll do that myself if necessary. Eric Corbett 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would be happy for you to end the current community GAR, which needs closing, because it has been spoilt by a polarised discussion. My main interest is to see that this article is either improved to GA standard or de-listed, so I would welcome second community GAR. I have no objections if someone else starts a community GAR, but if one is not started within seven days, then I would endeavour to start the second GAR myself. I would recommend a community GAR is started rather than a individual GAR. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- In which case, you should strike pretty much all of your comments, Snowman, since they're mostly irrelevant to the GAR process, and some border on nonsensical (your comments about #5, for example) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As this reassessment has now restarted isn't it time for this thread to be closed? Eric Corbett 21:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Section blanking of Burj Khalifa by Binthaneya (with npov issues)
I don't generally find myself doing much more than basic vandal reverts (this is my first ANI post) so forgive me as I try to do the best I can here (and hopefully this is the right place). I stumbled upon this (possible) NPOV/Section blanking issue through my regular vandal patrol. I have no ties to the page whatsoever.
User Binthaneya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has insistently blanked the "Labour Controversy" section of Burj Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with edit summaries that indicate NPOV issues. Diffs of these section blankings can be found here: 1 2 3 4 - I can see no valid reason for this section to be removed without discussion.
I contacted the user via their talk page and stated that before they blank a section, they should cite sources/discuss it on the talk page. The talk page discussion can be found here with my initial comment, the user's reply and my subsequent reply. The Labour Controversy section of Burj Khalifa remains blanked as I wish not to violate 3rr. -Ryan 07:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, a look at the twitter the user connected connected themselves to in their talk page reply (@binthaneya), indicates they are from a Human Resource company. -Ryan 07:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've restored the section and warned for WP:3RR violation, explaining that Twitter is not a good venue for dispute resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- ...apparently with not useful effect. The Guardian and the BBC are biased, western colonialisms. Can another admin please step in? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- User has begun making biased edits (see edit summaries) to The Dubai Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -Ryan 08:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've restored the section and warned for WP:3RR violation, explaining that Twitter is not a good venue for dispute resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours for starting a new edit war at The Dubai Mall. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a bit strange, but the editor in the section below on AfD canvassing also has edited substantially at Burj Khalifa and The Dubai Mall. curious, especially given that they are now fairly clearly using socks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 11:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
User has begun editing again with NPOV issues -Ryan 05:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- While one could say I'm semi-involved, I blocked this editor as they have gone well overboard with the whitewashing, soapboxing, edit warring, and disruptive editing. Especially since they just got off their previous block for the same thing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The supreme irony, of course, being that his "dear leaders"-remarks make the UAE look like North Korea. Counterproductive POV, but POV nevertheless. "whitewashing, soapboxing, edit warring, and disruptive editing"? Yes, although the whitewashing could be construed as (ironic) blackwashing. And i'm not at all involved. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Unhelpful edits, redux
Last month, I reported 108.54.106.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for causing several issues in his edits and not responding to requests to stop. Following the end of the block, the IP has performed the same disruptive edits any time it makes edits to the whole of a page rather than its sections by removing every single carriage return between section headers [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. I'm aware these pages aren't the best anyway, but the edits are not going to be of any help when editing the article. The previous block obviously did not send any sort of message to the operator of the IP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- This one definately needs an admin to study this one somewhat. Ryulong has been hounding this IP, reverting almost every edit made, reported the IP as a vandal causing what appears to be a block by a careless admin based on just Ryulong's report. Have a look at the IP talk page for this no history block for "not responding on his talk page"?? Later another careless admin posted a warning on the IP's talk page only to have Ryulong revert the admin's reversion of the edit, stating that the edit was helpful. This is the forth frivolous complaint (I can't find one linked from talk page probably removed due to ridiculousness) Ryulong has made against this editor in what appears as a clear case of WP:Ownership. Ryulong needs some attention here. This is clearly disruptive behavior over content disputes.
- Twice this IP has cleaned out old edits on his own talk page only to have them replaced by Ryulong and a second time by a careless admin. Surely an IP has the right to maintain his own talk page providing a notice isn't a current ongoing issue. Even the welcome banner was replaced two times. Quite the forced welcome for newbies. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- 108.54.106.70's actions are inconsistent with WP:BODY, "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." 108.54.106.70 simply needs to change the way they edit. Since they haven't done that, this report doesn't appear to be a frivolous complaint and reporting it here can't reasonably be described as "clearly disruptive behavior". Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for recognizing the problem, Sean.hoyland.
- 99.251.120.60, I don't see how attempting to get the IP's attention and to change his editing patterns counts as "hounding", particularly when the deleterious edits (as described by WP:BODY) are making things difficult to edit. Regarding my revert of the admin's revert, I felt that those changes were done in good faith to the article and were overall helpful, which is why I restored them and did not revert anything here except the carriage return removal. There's nothing wrong about that nor is it against policy. Also, IPs are not in control of their talk pages as much as registered users are. Registered users are free to remove content at will. IPs cannot blank the entirety of the page when much of the content is not personal to them but simply for identification of the IP address. So, 99.251.120.60, if you have nothing useful to contribute to the thread leave. If you think I am such a detriment to the project, why don't you start your own thread pointing out the problems that you assume I am causing rather than attempting to turn every report I post here into a WP:BOOMERANG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Personal attacks on editors and rudeness here and to other editors is not the etiquette that Wikipedia expects. I see you have made some attempts to communicate with IP editors that don't edit articles to your standards. I see you have notified the IP of another discussion about him/her this time. This is an improvement in collaboration. However, following an editor around and reverting 95% of his edits can be viewed as hounding as well as article ownership when you have spent massive quantities of your time on these same articles previously. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not really "following them around" when the edits that were made to the article are the ones I am reporting that are a problem. Any reverts I made were to restore the white lines per WP:BODY. The only thing caught in the reverts were some minor and probably trivial edits to format.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Personal attacks on editors and rudeness here and to other editors is not the etiquette that Wikipedia expects. I see you have made some attempts to communicate with IP editors that don't edit articles to your standards. I see you have notified the IP of another discussion about him/her this time. This is an improvement in collaboration. However, following an editor around and reverting 95% of his edits can be viewed as hounding as well as article ownership when you have spent massive quantities of your time on these same articles previously. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- 108.54.106.70's actions are inconsistent with WP:BODY, "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." 108.54.106.70 simply needs to change the way they edit. Since they haven't done that, this report doesn't appear to be a frivolous complaint and reporting it here can't reasonably be described as "clearly disruptive behavior". Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk page comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page).
Please see this DRN, which received no input, even after a relisting : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=567171893#Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government
Re. links and diffs to involved pages, editors, proposed solutions : see the DRN, please… --Elvey (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, TJRC deleted your Talk page comments exactly once, apparently because he believed that you were editing his comments. I can see why: the formatting, quite frankly, is a mess. Indented quotations may be standard in scholarly works, but indenting on Talk pages means another editor is writing, so when you mix and match indented sections and single sentences per line you become impossible to follow. In addition to that, half of your discussion is on the Talk page and half is in edit summaries. Use the Talk page to discuss. Also, there's no need for edit summaries like this, accusations and demands, or "bumping" comments. You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. I feel that he's probably been overzealous in tag removal, too, but he's trying to get a clear justification for the tag but not getting one from you. Please just AGF and answer his question without unnecessary indenting and copying attacks from further up the page. Woodroar (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for (if I'm reading you correctly) confirming that TJRC did delete my talk page comments, shouldn't have, and explaining that his accusation that he was reverting a violation of WP:TPO by me was mistaken. I hope TJRC will recognize/acknowledge it too. I couldn't make sense of the false accusation at the time, but see HOW he went wrong now. If you can suggest a better way to include those quotations in the talk page, I'm all ears; if it's a mess, then perhaps we can agree on something better. It seems pretty readable to me; I certainly wouldn't call it a mess; what minimal markup will improve it? IIRC, the quote template makes a worse mess.
- I'm not sure if you managed to miss the content of the mainspace edit of the diff I provided, but in addition to the deletion you linked to - of THREE questions of mine, I wrote that TJRC " DELETED THE ANSWER " - and in fact he deleted my answer over and over and over and over and over - the answer he deleted 5+ times is: "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities." Because I had answered the question 5+ times, it sure felt like gross violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and had me wondering about WP:CIR. What makes me certain that TJRC DID in fact SEE and READ the answer is TJRC's later edit summary, ""Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government" == "does not apply to .. District of Columbia or Puerto Rico" which proves he read it because it quotes from it. I do strive to always AGF, however AGF doesn't mean one must put up with WP:IDHT over and over and over and over and over.
- That's why I suggest pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has himself DELETED THE ANSWER.
First, I have to say, it would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion. I know Elvey had a complaint at the end of July (notified by a bot here, but I was pretty much off-Wikipedia for about a week, and when I went to AN/I, it was already gone).
Woodroar is correct; I had reverted Elvey's edits of my comments only once, and I had intended by my edit summary to make it clear why. I do disagree though, that I shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. WP:TPO says it pretty clearly: "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I object to the interruptions, and, exactly as WP:TPO says, the interruptions should be reverted; and I reverted them.
As a matter of disclosure, after Elvey deleted my non-interruption comments yesterday ([79]) and re-instated his interruptions, I did undo that edit, as well, also based on TPO.
Elvey's links to what he thinks are deletions of talk page comments are actually removals of the tags; they're not even edits to the talk page all.
I believe now that Elvey believes that his comment in the tag is self-evident and not in need of further explanation. So when I've asked him what he thinks is confusing, he thinks he's already answered. However, I don't see why he thinks the statement is wrong or unclear, so I'd like to find that out and address it. I think it's clear, but if Elvey doesn't, at least one person finds it confusing and it's worth fixing.
I would also like to distinguish between the two templates Elvey applied here. His first (and second) claimed that the section was inaccurate, because "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government"; but that's pretty much a paraphrase of what the section actually says: the prohibition against copyright of works of the U.S. government does not apply to District of Columbia or Puerto Rico -- because Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government. So the claims of inaccuracy were just plain wrong. After a couple taggings of that, he's now revised that to "confusing" (with the edit summary "Same difference"; however, I see a big difference between a claim that a passage is inaccurate and a claim that a passage is confusing).
I do think though, that Elvey has some fundamental misunderstandings of US copyright law, and the very different roles that the United States government and the individual state governments play in it. Those misunderstandings, coupled with his confidence, makes this a pretty challenging issue to resolve. Add in his general incivility, and tendency to throw accusations, and this is a pretty frustrating experience for all involved. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Notification
Why is manual notification of involved parties still considered necessary given bots that do this : (note: following link updated to remain correct) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TJRC&diff=prev&oldid=566344391 ? I will notify if someone doesn't beat me to it, but still wonder. --Elvey (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unlike DRN, there's no set process that we must follow here, so there's nothing on which to base a bot's actions. Let's say I complain about something you're doing, but I don't link your name; how will the bot know that I'm talking about you and not some random person who goes by Elvey in real life? Or if I don't mention you by name, but I link to a diff made next after an edit you made (like you did, linking to your edit when talking about the bot edit that preceded it); how will the bot know that I'm complaining about you and not the person whose diff I've linked? I agree that it would be very convenient to have bot notifications for this page, but I simply don't think it's possible. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Impossible? Surely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_noticeboard/request could work rather like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request does, enabling the bot to work the same way. --Elvey (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- IMO, it is always worth checking that the bot does its job and makes the notification. If it hasn't then do it yourself. Bots have a habit of doing things wrong when you least expect it to so operating on the assumption of "the bot will take care of it" can lend to complacency and carelessness. Furthermore, this is my personal view anyway, it would be a simple act of courtesy and good manners to leave a notification yourself. Again this is a personal thing, I usually leave a personalised message rather than slapping on a template except for a few things like the Talkback template and I'll sometimes modify a template to add a few words of my own to it. In a highly automated environment as Wiki is becoming taking the time to just make the interactions between others just a little more personal can mean a lot to someone. Blackmane (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Impossible? Surely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_noticeboard/request could work rather like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request does, enabling the bot to work the same way. --Elvey (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If someone wants to bring an issue to AN but can't be bothered to tell other users, i'd suggest that their issue might not be important enough to bring here. Spartaz Humbug! 09:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban violation by Yogesh Khandke
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yogesh Khandke was indefinitely topic banned on 4 April 2012 from subjects relating to colonialism and Indian history. I recently requested clarification on this but it was archived with no resolution. YK continues to flout the topic ban at the DYK for Anti-Muslim violence in India an article which deals with Indian history, more specifically he continues to question the hook is which is explicitly about violence since partition, which most certainly falls within Indian history. So this again requires either a clarification or a broader interpretation on the topic ban as his behaviour at that article is exactly the same as what earned him a topic ban to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- (1)I had also raised questions regarding the correctness of the hook before the scope of my topic ban was discussed here a couple of days ago, so it isn't a new area I'm getting involved in. (2) I have presented my side at the previous discussion,[80] (@19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC) and @20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)) (3) I've tried to contribute positively to the project since my topic ban, I leave it to the community to judge how successful I've been. (4) Regarding my edit which DS considers a topic ban violation, DS writes "...all you are doing is being a tendentious and disruptive pain in the rectum".[81] I request the community to look into this too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Given the failure to arrive at a conclusion during the last discussion, I don't think we have adequately informed Yogesh Khandke about whether this sort of editing is within the scope of the topic ban. Even if we decide it is, I don't think sanctions for edits prior to that determination would be appropriate. Looking at the article, it is primarily focused on contemporary events, and the DKY discussion is very heavily slanted towards the most recent of those events and the ongoing situation. As a result, I'd say the participation at DKY is probably not a violation. Monty845 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is partition a "contemporary event" This article deals with incidents that are historic in nature, does the settler colonialism of Bangladeshi immigrants which led to the Nellie massacre a violation of the TBAN? Are the events from 1946 "contemporary events" I would say not, the article deals with historic events, not daily trivia. And as I said, his behaviour on the article talk page is the same as that which earned him the topic ban to begin with. Perfect example, On 11 July 2013 YK proposed the article be turned into a list. When that obviously never got anywhere on 24 July 2013 he suggested the article be merged claiming it was a synthises, not to mention how many times he had to be told that a court conviction against an organization was not needed when we have academic sources which say the RSS carried out acts of violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If the topic ban is to do with Colonial India, then everything after 1950 should be fine - the reason I say 1950 is because that is when the constitution was completed. And everything before the 18th Century should be fine as well (prior to when the British Empire began getting heavily involved in the country.) If it is "all Indian history, apart from recent history" then I'd say it would be only for the last 100 years of history that Yogesh Khandke can edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The topic ban just says history, and how is 100 years ago not history? That is not even close to recent history. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- "topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Is what I am seeing in the discussion about the TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- A topic ban is not effective unless it is explicit what topics are being covered. Reading the last time (last week?) this same complaint came up, there was a lack of consensus on the extent of this topic ban. If Admins are confused, it's reasonable to assume that it is equally unclear to Khandke (and the rest of us). I think this calls for an full explanation of what topics this ban applies to and not some sort of prosecution over a ban which is ambiguous. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I am after here. I want it clarified as to just how broad the TBAN is. And once we have that down we can all move on with editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's the question, exactly! One can't know whether someone crossed the line until it's known where the line is. It might be arbitrary to set a date (1913? 1953? 2003?) but I think that would be a endless debate. Just get consensus about some point that could reasonably divide "history" from modernity, inform him and then judge his conduct once clear guidelines have been set. Also, be specific if this is ban is to cover articles only or articles and talk pages. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why 100 years? When someone talks about "recent history", it is usually within that timeframe. Given the scope of the history of India, it is indeed recent history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I am after here. I want it clarified as to just how broad the TBAN is. And once we have that down we can all move on with editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- A topic ban is not effective unless it is explicit what topics are being covered. Reading the last time (last week?) this same complaint came up, there was a lack of consensus on the extent of this topic ban. If Admins are confused, it's reasonable to assume that it is equally unclear to Khandke (and the rest of us). I think this calls for an full explanation of what topics this ban applies to and not some sort of prosecution over a ban which is ambiguous. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment by Fowler&fowler There is no need for an extended discussion. Yogesh Khandke has been indefinitely topic banned not from "colonial India," but from "colonialism and Indian history, broadly construed." See: Topic ban notice. There are no ifs ands or buts. No 1950s, 1757s etc. No extenuating circumstances, no limitations of geography or time. "Colonialism" means colonialism anywhere in the world. "Indian history" means all of Indian history, including that of the countries on the Indian subcontinent. This is not the first time since his topic ban went into effect that he has attempted to test other Wikipedians' faltering memory by flouting the ban. See: earlier attempts and punishments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- PS The article Anti-Muslim violence in India is very much modern Indian history, consequently, included in his topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- PPS I'm a little confused now. I just checked both articles, but YK hasn't edited either; nor has he nominated the DYK. So what is his crime?
- He has edited the talkpage extensively. Which is of course also included in the topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As per here, he has been regularly involved in the discussion regarding the proposal to merge or move it, and even apparently was the one who started that discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Maunus and JC. YK has clearly violated the topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As per here, he has been regularly involved in the discussion regarding the proposal to merge or move it, and even apparently was the one who started that discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Editing at Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim violence in India seems to be the matter in question. And taking part in that discussion does qualify within the terms of "discussing" Indian history, as per the prior ban. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I understand. Not sure what to make of it. True YK shouldn't have taken part, so he has violated the terms of his topic ban, but the DYK hook is too obscure, possibly even a bit in the nature of a bait. (Darkness Shines and Yogesh Khandke have long been at odds on Wikipedia.) I have never heard of Parveen Swami, the journalist. Why a relatively unknown journalist's supposed ruminations about Anti-Muslim violence in India should be the stuff of wider wiki-curiosity is a little beyond me, but perhaps that is off-topic here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It could well be true that DS's own motives are open to serious question here. That probably doesn't justify what YK has done, but it might maybe be grounds for examination of DS's own actions. That's probably a separate point, which I unfortunately, probably won't be able to do anything about as I am going bye-bye for a few days to continue to develop my lists of articles in other reference sources. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)If it were bait then I am a poor fisherman, YK did not turn up at that DYK nomination until 11 July 2013 it was nominated on 24 June 2013. He never edited the articles talk page until 27 June, so no baiting done here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I understand. Not sure what to make of it. True YK shouldn't have taken part, so he has violated the terms of his topic ban, but the DYK hook is too obscure, possibly even a bit in the nature of a bait. (Darkness Shines and Yogesh Khandke have long been at odds on Wikipedia.) I have never heard of Parveen Swami, the journalist. Why a relatively unknown journalist's supposed ruminations about Anti-Muslim violence in India should be the stuff of wider wiki-curiosity is a little beyond me, but perhaps that is off-topic here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- He has edited the talkpage extensively. Which is of course also included in the topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- PPS I'm a little confused now. I just checked both articles, but YK hasn't edited either; nor has he nominated the DYK. So what is his crime?
- PS The article Anti-Muslim violence in India is very much modern Indian history, consequently, included in his topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment (e-c): Fowler&fowler makes a very good point above how Indian history is included in that topic, and, apparently, as per the link to the 2012 discussion, previous violations of it. As his block in July 2012 was for one month, and this is for the same general problem, I would have to assume that the block should be escalated to at least two months, maybe longer. I might support an at least three month block myself, although the exact length of the block is more or less at the discretion of whoever implements it. Granted, he hasn't violated the ban in a bit over a year, which isn't bad, but he did violate it just a few days beyond a year, apparently, and that can hardly be seen as in any way good either. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)\
- Comment:"...you are now banned from making any edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history, widely construed"
- I think there was some debate about what time period "history" covered. It's ambiguous to me and I also don't know what "widely construed" is meant to cover but it doesn't specify Talk Pages. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It applies to edits not to any particular articles or article space. This is very common for topic bans.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I saw Yogesh's topic ban as focused on colonial and pre-colonial India – reasonably remote history – as this was where prior conflicts occurred. If we say that "history" includes modern history, up to what happened yesterday, then Yogesh would be banned from all India topics, period. I don't think that was the intent; and if it was, it should have been clarified. I also think that Yogesh correctly identified that the DYK hooks in question were suboptimal. On divisive issues like this, whether it's India/Pakistan, Northern Ireland or Palestine/Israel, it is surely best to pick hooks that are likely to be accepted as factual by all sides involved in the underlying conflict. Pointing out cases where some more thought needs to be put into the matter, as Yogesh did here, is good for the encyclopedia. Andreas JN466 00:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Though I agree with Jayen466 that this particular DYK hook is way off base, I also think that this is a definite topic ban violation on YK's part since the hook is historical in intent. Also, the impetus behind YK's topic ban was around a perceived hindutva rendering of history and this pretty much fits that bill so, yes, I'd say it is a violation of the topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a new aspect you bring forth now. If Hindutva was the issue then at the first TBAN, why wasn't that mentioned in the final wordings? Do you mean he can edit Mughal or Jainism or Buddhism or such related history which were before British colonization but are definitely old history and not modern/contemporary? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
An IP: 86.148.195.168 has been reverting a cited reference on Brad Friedel about a reported Bankruptcy concerning him in 2011. I have tried to encourage the editor, who gives the impression of being new to Wikipedia, via the edit summary and also their Talk Page to visit the discussion page for the article where I have also posted a message provide a reliable source and any other relevant information. The IP concerned has suggested in one edit summary that I should get my legal team involved and in the latest revert said in the edit summary ..... "I deal with things via phone and email not talk pages. My lawyer, Alan Digirolamo, of bdblaw will be the most reliable source you can get. I suggest u keep this off your page and speak with him instead of hiding behind a computer" See here. Assuming good faith I presume they have just misunderstood how Wikipedia works but guess it could just as well be a hoax. I did not judge it as amounting a legal threat to Wikipedia hense the post here. Please could an Admin take a look. Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the IP is absolutely right to remove the information as it stands - it's cited to the Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid newspaper and hideously unreliable. However, there are other sources out there, and I'm going to use Eurosport to replace it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are other sources,[82] [83] [84] However it is qualified as a "technial bankruptcy" whatever that means as a clarification from the goalkeeper's spokesman, quoted speaking to the Daily Mirror. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I said above, I've recited it to Eurosport. The Mirror is highly unreliable, and should be avoided for basically everything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Before I did anything I went and had a look and found a significant number of other news articles reporting the same information as the DM. Yes the DM can be unreliable at times and caution is needed when using it but just because of this it is not a reason to dismiss every citation from it. If I had not found the case and the facts reported in the Mirror also referred to in a number of places elsewhere I would have removed it but saw no reason to replace it just for the sake of it this time. In any event if you are proposing to use the 'Eurosport' reference I have seen, I would think twice as this looks, in part at least, a reworking of the DM article! I will leave it to you though to choose one of the others which have reported the events independantly to the DM including news media in Ohio and in Cheshire where Brad lives and the case was heard in the UK at Macclesfield County Court. Tmol42 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Daily Mirror can never be used as a source on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- John's correct. Also, can someone block the IP? They've now clearly made a legal threat in their latest edit. [85] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the DM cite has now been replaced by one from a quality media organisation that relies on its journalistic,reporting on guess who?..... The Daily Mirror! see here . But guess as this is not a red top tabloid it must be a reliable source! Tmol42 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it. The Daily Mirror is saying that Freidel was "declared bankrupt" in an English court. How does that translate to the material in our article that say he was declared bankrupt in the U.S.? I don't even understand how one would be declared bankrupt in the U.S. Normally, one files for bankruptcy in federal court. As for the legal threat, the IP sort of retracted it in his next edit summary. I wouldn't put that material in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Bbb23, not sure this is the place to discuss this so will probably get my fingers rapped. (Redacted) By the way I see you have reverted another deletion by the IP. I have added a final warning with an encouragement and suggestion that the IP engage in discussion on the TalkPage or if they delete again they will get reported fo the AIV noticeboard.Tmol42 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't revert the IP. I just added back a word from the material above that the IP probably inadvertently removed along with the bankruptcy material. As for everything else you say, I don't see any reliable sources for any of it, so as far as I'm concerned, as it stands, it's a BLP violation to even say it, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia (your feared finger rapping). I would not suggest reporting the IP to AIV. What they're doing is not vandalism, and any issues should be sorted out here or possibly at BLPN, but not at AIV, which is intended for other purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Bbb23, not sure this is the place to discuss this so will probably get my fingers rapped. (Redacted) By the way I see you have reverted another deletion by the IP. I have added a final warning with an encouragement and suggestion that the IP engage in discussion on the TalkPage or if they delete again they will get reported fo the AIV noticeboard.Tmol42 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it. The Daily Mirror is saying that Freidel was "declared bankrupt" in an English court. How does that translate to the material in our article that say he was declared bankrupt in the U.S.? I don't even understand how one would be declared bankrupt in the U.S. Normally, one files for bankruptcy in federal court. As for the legal threat, the IP sort of retracted it in his next edit summary. I wouldn't put that material in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the DM cite has now been replaced by one from a quality media organisation that relies on its journalistic,reporting on guess who?..... The Daily Mirror! see here . But guess as this is not a red top tabloid it must be a reliable source! Tmol42 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've just fully protected the article for a day due to the edit warring and BLP concerns. The IP voiced his concerns in a very disruptive way, but he may have a legitimate point about BLP sourcing. Note that removing BLP vios is an exception to 3RR and can be done through full protection as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Someone explain to me why the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source. I'm completely unfamiliar with the publication, and the article doesn't give me any hints except for the bits discussing when it had published hoaxes by accident; is this why you say it's unreliable, or is there something else? Please remember that "tabloid" is a publication format (the size of the paper on which it's printed) and thus irrelevant to its reliability or lack thereof. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Many editors believe that the Daily Mirror is not reliable for serious material based on a history of getting things wrong, as well as focusing more on gossip than on serious news. Other editors may be able to give you a more thorough analysis. In any event, even if the source were deemed reliable here, the source did not support the assertions in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whilst not trying to judge or defend the journalistic integrity of the DM, re the assertions and the citation this is not true. The one sentence referred to a person a year, a legal event and an organisation. The citation referred to the same person, same legal event the same year and the same organisation. The replacement citation referred to the content in the Mirror article the person the year, a legal event and an organisation. The only debate is does this reflect what happened. Tmol42 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that the assertion in the WP article makes no legal sense and the DM article is even more incoherent. The sentence that is no longer in the article says: "In 2011, Friedel was declared bankrupt in the US following the financial collapse of his soccer academy in Ohio USA." As I've already stated, one is not normally "declared bankrupt" in the US. One files for bankruptcy in federal bankruptcy court to be relieved of paying one's debts. It is possible that the court will dismiss the bankruptcy filing, which is sort of the opposite of being declared bankrupt, but let's put these legal niceties aside and move to the DM source for our weird assertion. The court that supposedly declared Friedel bankrupt was an English court in an English proceeding. Even the DM article never says that the English court declared Friedel bankrupt in the US (as our article states). There's no object in the sentence. Then the DM article discusses Friedel's alleged financial problems in the US, and there it gets even odder. It talks about repossession of his US home and then says something about an application for annulment. What on earth does that mean? You don't annul a foreclosure in the US. Yet it seems to quote Friedel as saying this although the sentence that precedes the quote is almost indecipherable. And DM also appears to quote Friedel using the phrase "technical bankruptcy". What does that mean? Honestly, forget about the integrity of the DM. If this article came from the BBC or the New York Times and was worded this way, I still wouldn't use it to support anything in a WP article as it's drivel. I'm now going to bed, but I sure hope that whatever anyone finds that they think is sufficiently noteworthy to report in the Friedel article is a helluva lot better worded and supported than what was removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper, and thus immediately cannot be used as a source in a BLP, as John stated. I've already stated this as well. As most tabloid papers do, they sensationalize stories quite heavily, and often concoct rumours and such out of thin air. I replaced it with a Eurosport source that is a reliable source, although if someone wants to find a better one, be my guest. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that the assertion in the WP article makes no legal sense and the DM article is even more incoherent. The sentence that is no longer in the article says: "In 2011, Friedel was declared bankrupt in the US following the financial collapse of his soccer academy in Ohio USA." As I've already stated, one is not normally "declared bankrupt" in the US. One files for bankruptcy in federal bankruptcy court to be relieved of paying one's debts. It is possible that the court will dismiss the bankruptcy filing, which is sort of the opposite of being declared bankrupt, but let's put these legal niceties aside and move to the DM source for our weird assertion. The court that supposedly declared Friedel bankrupt was an English court in an English proceeding. Even the DM article never says that the English court declared Friedel bankrupt in the US (as our article states). There's no object in the sentence. Then the DM article discusses Friedel's alleged financial problems in the US, and there it gets even odder. It talks about repossession of his US home and then says something about an application for annulment. What on earth does that mean? You don't annul a foreclosure in the US. Yet it seems to quote Friedel as saying this although the sentence that precedes the quote is almost indecipherable. And DM also appears to quote Friedel using the phrase "technical bankruptcy". What does that mean? Honestly, forget about the integrity of the DM. If this article came from the BBC or the New York Times and was worded this way, I still wouldn't use it to support anything in a WP article as it's drivel. I'm now going to bed, but I sure hope that whatever anyone finds that they think is sufficiently noteworthy to report in the Friedel article is a helluva lot better worded and supported than what was removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whilst not trying to judge or defend the journalistic integrity of the DM, re the assertions and the citation this is not true. The one sentence referred to a person a year, a legal event and an organisation. The citation referred to the same person, same legal event the same year and the same organisation. The replacement citation referred to the content in the Mirror article the person the year, a legal event and an organisation. The only debate is does this reflect what happened. Tmol42 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I take a more pragmatic view about tabloids. Personally I wouldn't touch The Sun and the Daily Mirror with a barge pole, let alone the Sunday Sport, but I'm prepared to believe there are cases when it can be cited legitimately. Sometimes an interviewer will be paid for "exclusive" rights to a particular tabloid, which means it can end up with the most authoritative source about something, such as a direct quote, where broadsheets might cover the event in less detail. For what it's worth, the Daily Mail is not normally considered a "tabloid", but its biased and unreliable reporting is right up there with The Sun as far as I'm concerned. Back to the event in question, the easiest thing to do is to attribute a quote specifically to the source as an opinion rather than suggesting it is fact. I did this for Bramshill House, where I cited the Daily Mail but made a specific point of saying "The Daily Mail reported 'x', 'y' and 'z'" in the article text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The source in question is The Mirror, not the Mail. This proposal is not acceptable when we're talking about material in a BLP which is controversial or potentially harmful; as WP:BLP says, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". If we're not satisfied that the source is reliable, we shouldn't use it at all. January (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- In case User:Nyttend or others remain confused, when people are referring to tabloid here, they clearly mean Tabloid journalism not Tabloid (newspaper format). Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The source in question is The Mirror, not the Mail. This proposal is not acceptable when we're talking about material in a BLP which is controversial or potentially harmful; as WP:BLP says, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". If we're not satisfied that the source is reliable, we shouldn't use it at all. January (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
On the advice of one of the Admins above I have found a new and I think robust (in terms of WP:RS) source from an article in the New York Times and have posted this and some draft text for comment on Talk:Brad Friedel. You are invited to take a look and comment accordingly. Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Being hounded
Two weeks ago, I had posted a thread requesting assistance dealing with an edit warring dynamic IP editor and the thread was responded to by 99.251.120.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) attempting to turn my report into a WP:BOOMERANG against me in the ensuing archived discussion, by taking various resolved issues on multiple pages and saying I was violating WP:OWN. Last week, when I reported an editor to WP:AN3 the IP appeared again to attempt to turn my report against me. And in the past day, in the thread above, he has done the same in regards to another report of mine, even though an editor has commented and realized the problem that I've stated. This is all the IP has done. There are two edits to the article space simply fixing missed grammar, and everything else is a comment on this board attempting to implicate me in some trouble or contributing to other pieces of ANI drama. The IP appeared out of nowhere to turn my post against me 2 weeks ago and has done nothing else of note on this site. In response to my inquiries as to his identity, he made this claim, which I still find highly unlikely, and also accused me of having handed off my account to someone. It feels like I can't get help because of this IP editor. Can someone please help me out?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you weren't here to complain about so many editors that edit YOUR articles you wouldn't be seeing my observations here several times per week. You attempt to use ANI to resolve your content disputes and waste everybody's time here using half-truths and exaggerations. The edit histories do not lie. Please read WP:Battleground. Try to collaborate with other editors instead of attacking editors with insulting tone. I stand by my previous remarks. Instead of displaying so much WP:OWNERSHIP in these articles, use more AGF and things may look better in Wikipedia for you. Your "boomerang" assumption and personal attacks on the intent of my neutral observation reports display more bad AGF from you. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- And you are one to fail to assume good faith by accusing me of attempting to WP:OWN the articles I request assistance on. What am I supposed to do when an editor on a dynamic IP edit wars with multiple people which just happens to include myself (the Korean IPs)? What am I supposed to do when an editor edit wars and I attempt to communicate with him but he outright refuses to do so and continues to enforce his own preferred version of the page (User:Black60dragon, now blocked for a month for edit warring elsewhere)? What am I supposed to do when I make every attempt to communicate with an editor on a static IP to change his editing practice and he outright ignores me (User talk:108.54.106.70)? I cannot get anything done because you have harassing me over my attempts to keep articles in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines when dealing with IP editors who are not knowledgable in them or editors who have said they are not going to read any of them. I felt that these issues required administrative attention, and in several cases they did (a page was protected, an editor was [later] blocked). What they did not require was derailing from yourself in your constant attempts to get me in trouble.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ryulong, do you have any idea of any blocked users who the IP could be? It's pretty damn obvious that it's someone with a grudge against you, and given their editing history, it's almost certain that it's a sock of someone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- "IP sock of banned editor" light is certainly blinking. It's disappointing if ANI will do nothing about this. Is there an alternative venue/protection you can pursue? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well I just can't figure out who it could be. To be honest, I have pissed off a lot of people onsite and off. There is an odd editing pattern that seems to suggest that the individual is not familiar with MediaWiki formatting, but I can't be sure. Of course, the checkuser policy changed over the past few years to where they will no longer comment on any IP addresses because it's allegedly an invasion of privacy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- "IP sock of banned editor" light is certainly blinking. It's disappointing if ANI will do nothing about this. Is there an alternative venue/protection you can pursue? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- And you are one to fail to assume good faith by accusing me of attempting to WP:OWN the articles I request assistance on. What am I supposed to do when an editor on a dynamic IP edit wars with multiple people which just happens to include myself (the Korean IPs)? What am I supposed to do when an editor edit wars and I attempt to communicate with him but he outright refuses to do so and continues to enforce his own preferred version of the page (User:Black60dragon, now blocked for a month for edit warring elsewhere)? What am I supposed to do when I make every attempt to communicate with an editor on a static IP to change his editing practice and he outright ignores me (User talk:108.54.106.70)? I cannot get anything done because you have harassing me over my attempts to keep articles in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines when dealing with IP editors who are not knowledgable in them or editors who have said they are not going to read any of them. I felt that these issues required administrative attention, and in several cases they did (a page was protected, an editor was [later] blocked). What they did not require was derailing from yourself in your constant attempts to get me in trouble.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
IP 110.175.35.212 behavior
The IP 110.175.35.212 is making nonconstructive edits. The IP is reverting not just my edits but user Vivvt's edits. The behavioral pattern can be observed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._R._Rahman_discography&action=history. The IP doesn't appropriately know the guidelines of writing a page (as per WP:MOS) and is creating fan-based articles with no neutral point of view which is clearly observable on this page Ye Maaya Chesave (soundtrack). It is requested to block this IP for a definite time
Arjann (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You may also see the user page of this IP filled with notices of vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.175.35.212
Sockpuppet
I just reverted an obvious sock of the syndrome of a down, please block Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Prokaryotes linking YouTube content apparently not uploaded by the copyright holder
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Prokaryotes, a new contributor, has repeatedly added external links to videos on YouTube [86][87] to our Essiac article, despite being reverted by several contributors. Not only are the links questionable per WP:ELNO policy, but of more immediate significance they appear to have been uploaded to YouTube by a person other than the copyright owner - which per Wikipedia:Video links policy is expressly forbidden. I have pointed out the relevent policy to Prokaryotes both at Talk:Essiac and User talk:Prokaryotes, but Prokaryotes persists in restoring them. I suggest an appropriate block to give Prokaryotes time to familiarise him/herself with Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently not a copyright violation. Also i take note that the user Alexbrn has a gang. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- On what grounds do you state "Apparently not a copyright violation"? You have given none whatsoever so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If my math is correct, Prokaryotes is at 6RR, 5 of which are to restore the copyright violation.[88] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- On what grounds do you state "Apparently not a copyright violation"? You have given none whatsoever so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently not a copyright violation. Also i take note that the user Alexbrn has a gang. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Request for advice
Hi I have a complaint regarding this editor who seems to have been looking through my contributions and reverting my edits. I first encountered him when I edited the planet of the apes articles and Jurassic park articles. He sent me a message claiming I was not justified in making edits without discussion. However, the problem persisted when he reverted an edit I made weeks earlier before encountering him on The X-Files article. I had edited the x-files with discussion and reaching agreement with another editor.
What's more is the x-files article was left alone for days, that is until I encountered the editor in question. Clearly people seemed to be fine with my edit. It was left alone since July until the editor in question discovered it and reverted it. This time his excuse was that I "did not build consensus" when I clearly explained it on the discussion page. He continuously revert wars over it with some new excuse each time.
His latest excuse is that he doesn't agree with it.
I unfortunately cannot currently edit wikipedia too often as I do not have the time just yet, but I am concerned that the user will continue to revert my input and waste my efforts to contributing for the encyclopedia.
What's more is I don't find his tone very friendly and skimming through his talk page it seems I am not the only one [89]
You can view our conversation on my talk page [90] and his too [91].
He is presently edit warring against me on the X-Files article but I am trying to refrain since I share the sentiment of it being disruptive and even warned him over it (see talk:The X-Files).
I mentioned earlier I do not have time for fights since I'm not editing often but any effort to engage with him seems to have no effect on his stubbornness. I also have no idea weather he plans on reverting my future edits or not so I think some advice/assistance in this situation would be my best option. Thanks.
- Additional note: It seems my suspicions were correct that he is looking through my contributions and reverting me on several articles, his latest revert being on the Lord of the Flies article from the notification I received in my changed messages.
I'm proceeding to inform the editor of the board post. Taeyebaar (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to be away from for a few days as I have some things to see to so I shall check back here later today or tomorrow. I have notified this editor on his talk page. Taeyebaar (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: His stubbornness and edit warring is continuing. As usual he ignores anything I write so it's pretty likely he will not change his conduct. He's continuing to edit war. Any suggestions or interventions will be appreciated.-Taeyebaar (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko accusing other users of trolling and harassment for asking him to provide evidence for his claims
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kumioko has opposed Rschen7754 at the comment stages of the CheckUser appointments. I have no problem with this, as all editors are entitled to their own opinions. However, when Kumioko was asked for evidence to support his claims, he said that he could but that he didn't want to. Once he finally did supply evidence to support his claims (which, I might add, was all from seven years ago, some of it pointing to Rschen's being a part of USRD as evidence against him), denouncing ArbCom in the process, he was told by Snowolf that this evidence did not support his claims and that he was purposely refusing to back up his claims.
He accused Snowolf of badgering his oppose, to which User:Kashmiri, a user who hadn't yet left a comment concerning Rschen's candidacy, replied, accusing Kumioko of trolling for repeated refusal to back up his claims despite having been asking to do so multiple times by many different users. Kumioko replied by counter-accusing Kashmiri of trolling. After Kashmiri replied again, noting genuine concern, Kumioko told him he was trolling for replying to Kumioko and not leaving a comment about the candidate. I replied to this, telling him to just stop while also repeating things that had been told to him by other users many times before, and he replied by accusing me of "hounding, trolling and harassment", none of which I was doing. He also proclaimed that he did not need to provide evidence to support his claims and that that should be ArbCom's job, which isn't true.
I believe some action should be taken on Kumioko for knowingly disrupting the comments stage of the candidacy and for baselessly accusing multiple users of badgering opposes, trolling, and harassment. Thoughts? TCN7JM 00:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to keep this brief. I went there to support or oppose several candidates. No one was asking any of the supports, not even mine, for clarification or proof or justification. When I opposed a couple of candidates though, then I started getting harrassed and badgered for opposing. I'll say the same things here. I do not trust him to have access and it should have been left at that. I accused those others of badgering and hounding because that's exactly what they did. If you go there you can see that. Part of the reason I don't trust Rschen is explained there plainly as stuff he already provided. Some is just his general demeanor and our interactions. Part of my objections where based on his participation and association with a WikiProject with a long and sordid history of bullying and harassing users. I am not disrupting anything. I told them in the beginning I didn't want to draw it out. I expect everyone to side against me her but that is my comments. Now go ahead and block me and get this overwith. Kumioko (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Learning to just let things go is an ability in short supply in that thread. If you just don't respond to Kumioko, he's unlikely to continue posting. He's had his say, he's not going to be effective in his comments because he's not providing any substantiation, so why keep replying to him? Why call him a troll, then get upset when he returns the favor? Why does everything always have to be a thing? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, I never called Kumioko a troll. Secondly, Kumioko should not have even posted at that venue in the first place if he was not going to provide any evidence as to why Rschen should not be given access to CheckUser privileges. He knew this, but posted there anyway. TCN7JM 01:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- So what? If it isn't going to have any effect, why worry about it? You (plural) want someone to make him stop talking there, when all you (plural) need to do is not talk to him there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is all because I opposed. If I would have supported, we wouldn't be here. But because I opposed Rschen and then Arbcom members decided to hound me for it, now we are here at ANI talking about my behavior. And I am not supposed to care or be upset about that? Kumioko (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is not the point of this thread. Kumioko was asked to provide claims to back up his comment in opposition and purposely refused to do so, which is obviously disruption. It's about the same as saying "I don't want X to become an admin, but I'm not telling you why." The problem is not that this needs to stop, the problem is that it should not have happened in the first place. TCN7JM 01:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- So what? If it isn't going to have any effect, why worry about it? You (plural) want someone to make him stop talking there, when all you (plural) need to do is not talk to him there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, I never called Kumioko a troll. Secondly, Kumioko should not have even posted at that venue in the first place if he was not going to provide any evidence as to why Rschen should not be given access to CheckUser privileges. He knew this, but posted there anyway. TCN7JM 01:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Arbcom seems to be handling it fine without our help, and its they who will ultimately consider the oppose anyway. Monty845 01:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your both half right. The CU and OS right are granted by Arbcom, so there isn't a "vote". All the support or Oppose are frankly pretty meaningless and I knew that going in. But then why not ask the supporters for clarification? Why only opposers? And I did go back and add some but as I stated I didn't believe they would care anyway...so why should I spend my time to give them information that I knew they wouldn't even look at or care about. I have seen a multitude of discussions and comments from Rschen that were inappropriate and in several cases unnecessarily antagonistic. But I would need to look for them. He has been brought to ANI several times. He has been brought before other venues for his conduct. But again I would need to look for them. I don't believe now anymore than I did then that anyone cares. But I care that I don't trust this user to have access to this permission. That should have been enough and left at that. But instead Arbcom decides to make a mockery of the rules because they can and no one will or can do anything against them accept Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you'd actually provided evidence aside from the stuff from 2006 that Rschen had already pointed out in his nomination statement, or anything that didn't go along the lines of "Rschen is part of USRD, therefore he cannot be trusted", perhaps the arbitrators would have looked deeper into your claims, but you didn't. TCN7JM 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If I actually thought they would be taken seriously I might be willing to take the time. But since there are a dozen other supporters for the candidate and the Arbcom seems hell bent on protecting their candidates from Opposes, it doesnt really inspire confidence in the process. The process is great if you want to support, but if you dare oppose you can expect to be hounded for comments and brought to ANI. No wonder there are only a couple of opposes. No one wants to go through this. Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you'd have actually provided claims to support your opposition, people would have taken you more seriously, but as it is now, you purposely refused to provide claims and are upset because people aren't taking you seriously. This is why you should really either provide real evidence for your claims, or retract them altogether. TCN7JM 02:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have to be honest I don't think I should need to prove why I don't trust him. I don't and that's enough. I have gotten familiar with this user over the past few years and I don't like what I see. You don't agree and that's fine. But my oppose due to lack of trust has just as much weight as all the Support because he is an experienced editor. As such I have no intention of retracting my opposition. If the Arbcom wants to call me a big fat meany, ignore them or remove them of their own accord that's on them. But I am not going to be bullied into removing what should have been a simple oppose. Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not "bullying" you into removing the oppose, but honestly, you do need to provide claims for why you do not trust the user. If that wasn't the case, I could just go to any given RfA at any time and say, "Oppose - I don't want this user to be an administrator" and it would count. Right now, it doesn't, for good reason. You do realize this, right? TCN7JM 02:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- On RFA pretty much anything goes, that's been a long term problem with RFA and something I and others have complained about and tried to fi many times...with no success. This is different though. Our votes don't count here at CU/OS at all, they never did. Its all on Arbcom. They get the say and that is why its not worth the time. They have already made up their minds to promote him (and a couple of others). Unless Rschen decides to quite, he's a shoe in. But I still don't trust him and that isn't going to change. For what its worth, when I run for RFA again I have a chair reserved in the front row for Rschen to come and lodge his oppose as well. Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not "bullying" you into removing the oppose, but honestly, you do need to provide claims for why you do not trust the user. If that wasn't the case, I could just go to any given RfA at any time and say, "Oppose - I don't want this user to be an administrator" and it would count. Right now, it doesn't, for good reason. You do realize this, right? TCN7JM 02:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have to be honest I don't think I should need to prove why I don't trust him. I don't and that's enough. I have gotten familiar with this user over the past few years and I don't like what I see. You don't agree and that's fine. But my oppose due to lack of trust has just as much weight as all the Support because he is an experienced editor. As such I have no intention of retracting my opposition. If the Arbcom wants to call me a big fat meany, ignore them or remove them of their own accord that's on them. But I am not going to be bullied into removing what should have been a simple oppose. Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you'd have actually provided claims to support your opposition, people would have taken you more seriously, but as it is now, you purposely refused to provide claims and are upset because people aren't taking you seriously. This is why you should really either provide real evidence for your claims, or retract them altogether. TCN7JM 02:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If I actually thought they would be taken seriously I might be willing to take the time. But since there are a dozen other supporters for the candidate and the Arbcom seems hell bent on protecting their candidates from Opposes, it doesnt really inspire confidence in the process. The process is great if you want to support, but if you dare oppose you can expect to be hounded for comments and brought to ANI. No wonder there are only a couple of opposes. No one wants to go through this. Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you'd actually provided evidence aside from the stuff from 2006 that Rschen had already pointed out in his nomination statement, or anything that didn't go along the lines of "Rschen is part of USRD, therefore he cannot be trusted", perhaps the arbitrators would have looked deeper into your claims, but you didn't. TCN7JM 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your both half right. The CU and OS right are granted by Arbcom, so there isn't a "vote". All the support or Oppose are frankly pretty meaningless and I knew that going in. But then why not ask the supporters for clarification? Why only opposers? And I did go back and add some but as I stated I didn't believe they would care anyway...so why should I spend my time to give them information that I knew they wouldn't even look at or care about. I have seen a multitude of discussions and comments from Rschen that were inappropriate and in several cases unnecessarily antagonistic. But I would need to look for them. He has been brought to ANI several times. He has been brought before other venues for his conduct. But again I would need to look for them. I don't believe now anymore than I did then that anyone cares. But I care that I don't trust this user to have access to this permission. That should have been enough and left at that. But instead Arbcom decides to make a mockery of the rules because they can and no one will or can do anything against them accept Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Arbcom seems to be handling it fine without our help, and its they who will ultimately consider the oppose anyway. Monty845 01:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've supported Rschen in that discussion, so I suppose I'm too WP:INVOLVED here to act as an admin. Kumioko's become disruptive on the election page, and if he doesn't stop I think he should be banned from that page. Not for opposing, but for derailing the discussion with his increasingly off-topic comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- WTF? I specifically told the I didn't want it to turn into a circus but they kept pressuring me to continue to comment. Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just stop posting there... you've spoken your mind and now it's up to the trusted Arbs to make a judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's a longstanding precedent when accusing another editor or opposing them for a position, statements of misconduct or poor judgement must be accompanied by clear and specific examples, preferably with diffs when possible. Accusing someone without any evidence at all is grossly uncivil. At the very least Kumioko should have responded reasonably to a request for specifics rather than go off on a rant about arbcom, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, why on earth was this archived when there were several additions to the discussion within the last several minutes? Archiving an active discussion is rarely a good idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Let ArbCom deal with it... if people stop replying to him, he will stop responding. Also, let us go admire California State Route 52, written by me, and which is on the Main Page today. </plug> --Rschen7754 05:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- And both of you know better than to edit a closed discussion! Or at least you should! And I did give clear and specific examples. Its not my fault if you refuse to except them. Someone who once had an Arbcom sanction (even 6 years ago) shouldn't be a functionary. Rschen has a long history of being unnecessarily antagonistic in discussions (as can be seen above I might add) and the only reason he is being as calm as he is is because he knows he has to put his best foot forward while the election is going on. Rschen is the type of user who will use the tools to his advantage in discussions and will use them to bully other users for the sake of the USRoads project. That is specifically why I don't trust him. Is that specific enough for you? Kumioko (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm shifting this goal post. Kumioko has given the examples; you may think they're bad or too old, but that's not a matter for this board, and it's not "grossly uncivil". Rschen, thank you for your comment; you are showing the proper spirit here. There is longstanding precedent that such opposition is not dragged out indefinitely, and that opposes are judged by the judges. There is also longstanding precedent, I believe, for such conflicts to be discussed on, for instance, the appropriate talk page first, where I find no discussion. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi
- Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Multiple accounts appear to be writing this as a hagiography, and persistently removing maintenance templates regarding the article's issues, despite numerous warnings. The article needs attention from objective parties, but this may not be easily accomplished as long as there's a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Templates don't improve articles; article improvement improves articles. The best way to prevent such problems is to make it a good article. Having said that, I just blocked 2.51.15.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their proxy Sobanhazarwi (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for disruptive editing, esp. the edit-warring by proxy. But, and I don't enjoy this part, I have warned The Banner for edit warring as well and would like to ask another admin to see if a block there is warranted. I know The Banner and I know he means well, but this went a bit far. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed re: the usefulness of templates vs. copyediting, but as is evident there's a lot that's unsourced, and requires someone with knowledge in the field. If the templates are removed again I won't restore them. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User:DeputyBob commenced edits at Martyr where they started a religious v secular debate and received a block for edit warring. See diffs 1, 2, and 3 as examples. Since the block has expired they have only edited user talk pages to press their religious POV, including on my talk page, and mocked the use of wikipedia guidelines. A quick look at their contributions and User Page suggests they have no interest in adding constructively to the project and are wholly disruptive. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would wait until he or she would return to editing the article space, lets give him a chance. No reasons to block him or her again although the tediousness of his editing seems to be strong Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If he returns to disruption in the article space, then we should certainly consider a topic ban or possibly an indef block. CtP (t • c) 03:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see solid evidence that this user is interested in adding constructively to the project. The problem is different: constructively-minded people can still be disruptive if they're repeatedly ignoring guidelines and consensus. A block will be needed if he continue with the WP:IDHT comments and editing. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind
Can we please de-archive this ANI thread so it can finally be put to bed? (I suspect a final resolution was imminent.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Peteforsyth & Russavia
On 19 June I blocked Russavia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption and this block was overwhelmingly supported by the community [92]. On 24 June AGK locked Russavia's talkpage for a month as a consequence of using his talkpage to continue the disruption and threatened to remove his talkpage access permanently if this continued [93]. Following the expiration of that lock Russavia has been using his talkpage in a manner clearly designed to solicit desired edits on the project. For example, the following diff shows him striking out comments once they have been actioned [94]. Since then a further 4 edits designed to solicit edits have been made.
On 9 August I revoked Russavia's talkpage access as I felt that it was being used for an inappropriate purpose. I felt that another recent ANI discussion [95] concerning Apteva was relevant as their talkpage access was removed while blocked for using the page to solicit edits while blocked. While Apteva was more blatant than Russavia, I see no difference in substance between their actions - especially given that Russavia has been blocked indefinitely and, at the time, Apteva had been blocked for a month.
My block of Russavia's talkpage was challenged by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - see discussion on my talk page [96] who subsequently undid it as well as removing the standard block settings preventing account creation and ip-autoblocking (basically turning a hard block to a soft block). I see absolutely no logic for this alteration and no satisfactory explanation for the change has been provided - referring to blocks being preventative rather than punitive seems to step around the strong consensus endorsing my original block. I am also concerned that Peteforsyth is not neutral with regard to Russavia - He is clearly friendly with Russavia on Commons and recently supported him in de'crating and de'admining discussions as well as a March post on Russavia's commons talkpage expressing his admiration [97]. I have asked Peteforsyth to clarify this but he did not respond to this question.
I basically have 3 questions that I would appreciate feedback on:
- Is it acceptable for an indefinitely blocked user to solicit edits on their talkpage?
- Is Peteforsyth sufficiently neutral to have undone my talkpage block without seeking a consensus here & was it OK to convert Russavia's block to a softblock?
- Should we leave the softblock be or restore the hardblock?
As noted on my talk, I'm on holiday and have sporadic internet access so may be not be able to step back to this discussion regularly. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- According to previous discussions on this noticeboard, Russavia was de facto community banned. Peteforsyth is a supporter of Russavia on Commons. He has expressed his personal view that the dispute between Russavia and Jimmy Wales will "blow over". That completely overlooks the Jimmy Wales topic ban of Russavia put in place by Newyorkbrad. Now that the dust has settled from mid-June, it might be worth formalizing a community ban of Russavia either here or on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Responding to the 3 questions in order: If the solicited edits are not themselves problematic, I have no idea. Probably not a WP:Involved violation, as such the conversion was permitted, but unwise. (unwise both due to the potential appearance of bias, and because an admin action should only be reversed prior to discussion for very good reason) I can think of no justification for the change to a soft block, and so Support restoring the hardblock. Monty845 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not understand why concerns about copyright (see here) or images not conforming to WP:NFCC (like this) lead to the removal of the talk page access as they were considered as not being helpful. In his reasoning, Spartaz claimed that In the case of indefinitely blocked users, talkpages should not be used to post material about article content. Is it really the intention to have notifications about copyright problems suppressed just because an editor is blocked? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Just an observational note. The block is a hardblock, and Russavia came into #wikipedia-en and made the following comment:
[02:08] russavia an admin around? a hardblock in conjunction with an account creation prevention -- this would mean that any IP i've edited from in the last 3 months would be prevented from editing or creating an account?
- Just wanted to point that out. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed it is now a soft block [98]. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Dusti, aside from being wrong about the block, do you know that posting IRC logs on-wiki is considered a blockable offence by some? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed it is now a soft block [98]. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth is WAY too WP:INVOLVED to make that decision by himself. Perhaps he could justify the restoration of the talk page access, but not the other things. I think we may need to run a CU to check if Russavia has circumvented his block as a result of this ridiculous decision. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Point 1, doing so would normally be, in my book, meatpuppetry but given that they're blocked anyone acting on their behalf is basically a sock (not in the classic sense, I hope people understand what I mean). Point 2, Peterforsyth could argue that their friendly relationship with Russavia on Commons is off-en-wiki, but I would argue that given the closeness of Commons and En Wiki, Peterforsyth could in no way be considered uninvolved to be performing such admin actions. Point 3, admins should not be unilaterally converting imposed hard blocks without consultation. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Responding just to your first question: it all depends on how it's done. Since good blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, a reasonable request for what's really an improvement should definitely be fulfilled, and any rule that prohibits it is a rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Of course, requests for things that damage articles should be denied, and unreasonable requests (e.g. attacks on someone else) are a great reason for shutting down talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed in general, but I don't think we want to encourage people to become meatpuppets who proxy edit for people who are de facto banned. If Russavia came across something glaring and posted it to his talk page in the hopes someone could help, that would be fine. But if he is repeatedly asking for people to edit on his behalf, then I agree with removing access. I also support others in stating that the hard block should be restored. Resolute 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Responding just to your first question: it all depends on how it's done. Since good blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, a reasonable request for what's really an improvement should definitely be fulfilled, and any rule that prohibits it is a rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Of course, requests for things that damage articles should be denied, and unreasonable requests (e.g. attacks on someone else) are a great reason for shutting down talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note Whatever the issues over talkpage access, the IP block and account creation blocks need to be put back, they are entirely standard settings and Pete did not address why on earth he had done that in his response to Spartaz. [99] Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think this was an appropriate use for a talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. By indefinitely blocking someone we have decided that we do not want them contributing to the encyclopedia. Talk page access is primarily given for the purpose of discussing the circumstances surrounding the block, not for making more contributions. Whether the edits are constructive makes no difference - blocked editors are blocked from making any sort of edit, not just from making unconstructive edits. If anything I would consider use of a talk page in this way to be a form of gaming the system by showing that the block is ineffective. Nor do I see why the hardblock was turned into a softblock, as hardblocks are almost always used in situations where the blocked editor was being actively disruptive. Hut 8.5 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; reset block settings to before Peteforsyth changed them. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support talk page access, though I have no opinion on the rest. AGK shouldn't have revoked his talk page access in the first place since Russavia was simply responding to an article written about him in the Signpost. Now he has just been commenting about legitimate issues with content. Revoking talk page access under these circumstances is unduly punitive. As Russavia is merely blocked rather than banned he is allowed use of his talk page for things other than appeals regarding his block.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple comments, since it seems people want them.
- Russavia's edits to his talk page in no way relate to the stuff that he was banned for. Since I restored his privileges, he has flagged four clear copyright violations that have existed on the site for 4 to 9 years -- clearly and uncontroversially problems that should be addressed. That's it. No fanning of flames, no drama. In my view, no harm, no foul. This is a markedly different circumstance than the one Spartaz originally cited as precedent, which among other things involved the use of the {{helpme}} template. If anybody can't handle what's going on, all they have to do is unwatch Russavia -- problem solved.
- Yes, of course I am a collaborator who works with Russavia. He has been around a long time, does a lot of good work; I have learned a lot from him and enjoy his company. This is a far cry from saying I endorse everything he does, or am some kind of meatpuppet. If there is relevance, I fail to see it. My actions have been motivated by what is best for Wikipedia, not by a sense of personal loyalty.
- The hardblock-to-softblock conversion is something I did for a different reason, and something I had expected would be entirely uncontroversial. I have had more than one student who, when attempting to create their first Wikipedia account, are prevented from doing so, and after some digging the reason has turned out to be an autoblock that had absolutely nothing to do with them. To me, this seems like a significant problem in the recruitment of new users, and I would think that autoblocks would typically be used very lightly in consideration of that unintended consequence. I have never heard an allegation that Russavia has socked; doing so seems to me out of step with his approach to editing wikis; and I looked through his block log to confirm that socking has never been at issue. With all that in mind, I thought that removing the anti-socking aspects of the block would be a simple and uncontroversial change. I guess I was wrong, and this is probably not the best venue to address what now seems to me like an overly reactive general approach that has evolved here in relation to blocks.
With all that said, I'm done here -- this is not the kind of thing I log into Wikipedia to work on. I'll probably check back to see what is said, but overall I don't see this as an issue worth the ink that has been spilled on it. I think we all have better things to do. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be involved in discussions about this sort of thing, don't go messing around with high-profile blocks like this one as it is pretty much guaranteed that this sort of hint will attract attention on the drama boards. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Status quo ante - Quite clearly an ill-advised and possibly bad-faith maneuver on PeterForsyth's part, given their Commons connections. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Cjlim and continued linkspam
- Cjlim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User's only contributions are to add material related to World Scientific, which has previously had problems with promotional SPAs. They've continued to add refspam despite three warnings, and have not commented on any talk page or their own. a13ean (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You sure you've got the right guy? Cjlim has edited science and engineering articles since 2009 and hasn't touched World Scientific as far as I can tell. CtP (t • c) 21:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User:HighKing Breach of Sanctions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Highking is forbidden from making edits to British related articles yet here appears to do so. [100] As he is the user making the edit, request was made to take edit suggestion to talk page. This was ignored and they engaged in Edit War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even broadly construed, I'm having trouble seeing how that edit is a violation of the topic ban. That said, we don't make up our own quotes and attribute them to a source, the edit is clearly contrary to WP:MOSQUOTE. (that point is largely moot, as the quote as been removed entirely, but as long as the quote was in there 199.198.223.107 was right) Monty845 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I originally made this edit according to WP:IMOS and WP:IRE-IRL. The anon IP reverted, with no comment or edit summary, even though I'd clearly marked it as WP:IMOS. The reference provided doesn't have the text on the page so it seemed like a simple edit. I've been stalked by anon IP's before, so this behaviour didn't strike me as unusual. As an aside, that this anon IP mentions the sanction looks, to me, a little suspicious. Anyway, over the course of the next couple of days I left two messages on the IP talk page, both ignored. The IP them skipped to a different address altogether and mentioned that my edit was a breach of sanctions - which it clearly is not. I requested temporary semi-protection which was applied. Today, I rewrote the section in question because there were numerous inaccuracies and it was only on rewriting the section did I come across the quote (on a different page on the website) - but even so I decided to omit the quote because the breadcrumb on top of the page uses "UK and Ireland", and the quote doesn't add anything to the section so is unnecessary as per copyvio. Clearly this AN/I was filed in "revenge". --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Though this doesn't seem to violate HighKing's ban from adding or removing 'British Isles' under WP:GS/BI he was altering a direct quote by changing the way that the The Automobile Association referred to Ireland on their own web site. I recommend that he leave his issue alone and not try to over-defend the behavior in question. WP:IMOS is guidance for use on Wikipedia but the AA can refer to Ireland using any style they prefer. The terminology of 'revenge' is not apt when the IP might have been justified in stating that a quote was falsified. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I originally made this edit according to WP:IMOS and WP:IRE-IRL. The anon IP reverted, with no comment or edit summary, even though I'd clearly marked it as WP:IMOS. The reference provided doesn't have the text on the page so it seemed like a simple edit. I've been stalked by anon IP's before, so this behaviour didn't strike me as unusual. As an aside, that this anon IP mentions the sanction looks, to me, a little suspicious. Anyway, over the course of the next couple of days I left two messages on the IP talk page, both ignored. The IP them skipped to a different address altogether and mentioned that my edit was a breach of sanctions - which it clearly is not. I requested temporary semi-protection which was applied. Today, I rewrote the section in question because there were numerous inaccuracies and it was only on rewriting the section did I come across the quote (on a different page on the website) - but even so I decided to omit the quote because the breadcrumb on top of the page uses "UK and Ireland", and the quote doesn't add anything to the section so is unnecessary as per copyvio. Clearly this AN/I was filed in "revenge". --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If an initial edit is faced with a revert, HK should then have taken the edit suggestion to the TALKPAGE, however in this case the user engaged in an edit war, and had the page protected. I would guess that further edits were made purely to prevent anyone from using the revert button tool. As it is one only has to view HKs talkpage to see that he is an addict with persistent IMOS abuse and British article rape. If this is not a sanctions breach, it is at very least a sprinkling of urine over said sanctions. Innocent people do not get stalked with a reason, I would ask why HK attract so much attention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
What HighKing was doing on this article is basically the exact same behaviour he was warned not to do by admin User:Cailil when he re-imposed his topic ban on British Isles related edits (see the extended discussion under "Removals of the term British Isles (again)", which is still on his talk page). In placing that sanction, Cailil warned HighKing to stop edit warring to police terminology on Wikipedia, which he was doing here (to replace Republic of Ireland with Ireland), and he warned him to stop reverting "multiple times to maintain an inaccuracy", which he did here (by imposing his own wording wrongly attributed as a direct quote). He also warned him to stop conducting these disputes without using the talk page, and to generally stop making edits with a view to removing a term (in this case Republic of Ireland) rather than improving content (and in saying that, he correctly identified that his habit of making 'rewrites' in the name of quality which by coincidence always remove a term he disputes, as he did here, were simply a variant of the policing terminology behaviour. If Cailil were here now (he's marked himself "away, busy", since 8 Aug), I think on seeing all this, combined with the fact HighKing requested semi-protection rather than engage on the talk page, in the process calling the IPs edits as "vandalism" (which they clearly aren't), I think he would already have indef-blocked him by now, and would probably at a minimum be expecting a commitment from him to stay completely away from the topic of Britain and Ireland, because his continuing activities in it as seen here are still clearly "counter-productive" and of "no benefit to wikipedia" (I'm quoting his closing remarks). Zoombox21 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is Zoombox's first edit, and the IP's first edit was to undo an edit by HighKing. I think that this posting is nothing more than an attempt to get HighKing into trouble. Howicus (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm simply trying to make sure that the task of ensuring HighKing's behaviour meets Wikipedia norms isn't reliant on Cailil being here 24/7 to monitor him. There is enough information on HighKing's talk page about what Cailil thought of his behaviour regarding policing the term British Isles, to surely conclude the same thing is happening here over the term Republic of Ireland. If you think I've made any errors in assessing the situation, or if you think I've been overly harsh on HighKing, or somehow misinterpreted Cailil's warnings, then by all means point out how. You should be aware though that the involvement of IPs with HighKing was considered irrelevant by Cailil when he was assessing what HighKing was doing. This is all there on his talk page. If you're merely trying to have the issue ignored, then fine, I'll simply wait until Cailil gets back, and apprise him of the edits. I have absolutely no doubt that Cailil will not be pleased to see what HighKing was doing at that article. Zoombox21 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also just noticed the edit summary Highing used when replying above - "nonsense". Cailil gave him a direct message when he reinstated that topic ban - do not continue to edit war over terminology. And uses that as the edit summary in his reply to a complaint which has at its heart, edit warring over terminology. It suggest to me he's not taking this issue as seriously as the warnings Cailil issued him would seem to merit. Zoombox21 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Does HighKing's topic-ban cover Ireland/Republic of Ireland or just British Isles? Just to point out this edit, though it does fall in line with the IMOS so maybe it is alright for him to do.
Other than that, the IP/Zoombox21 does seem to be flinging as much dirt as possible hoping to see how much sticks no matter how watery it is. Mabuska (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Highking described the reverts as vandalism. That is mud slinging right there. So he should have no complaints if someone lifts that same piece of dirt and throws it straight back. Its a simple breach of sanctions and falling back into the same wave of behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt Cailil would see it as a violation of this specific BI topic ban, but you wouldn't blame any outside observer for thinking that HighKing edit warring over how Ireland/Republic of Ireland is referred to in Wikipedia falls under terminology disputes over British Isles broadly construed, much like someone sanctioned for edit warring over Macedonia broadly construed could hardly be seen to be making progress if they just moved on to edit warring over Greece. The issue though is not the topic ban, it's the very detailed warnings Cailil gave HighKing when he (re)enacted it. As for my motivation, feel free to point out any innacuracies in what I've said. I've thrown no mud here, watery or otherwise. I've said what I think HighKing did in this incident, and I've said what Cailil warned him not to do going forward. If you think I've lied, misrepresented or distorted anything here, then please let me know so that I may correct it. For me, it simply doesn't get any clearer than being warned not to edit war over terminology, warned not to continue to police terminology without discussion, and warned to not continue to misrepresent sources as part of policing type edits, and then do what he was doing to this article and this IP user, which is all three, and more. Referring to IMOS is no defence, HighKing cited other policies and guidelines during BI related edit wars too, but if you read his talk page these arguments were all dismissed by Cailil as being of secondary relevance when considering his actual behaviour pattern, in considering how he actually conducts himself while making these sorts of terminology edits. If nobody here is interested, or rather people are more interested in me or the IP than HighKing, fine, I'll just wait for Cailil to return, at which time I think HighKing is for the high jump, if you'll excuse the pun. As has been seen previously in Cailil/HighKing interactions, there is no statute of limitations on enforcing existing sanctions or invoking new ones in response to his unwanted behaviours - HighKing won't be able to avoid sanction, at least from Cailil, just by going quiet for a bit and hoping no other admin acts on it, for whatever reason. Zoombox21 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- In addition Mabuska - since IMOS is just a guideline, and since it is not explicit about what to do about references to Ireland/RoI in direct quotes, there can be no realistic defence here at all that the edit was correct under it, especially given that, as EdJohnston has already alluded to, altering the contents of a direct quote away from the source (or rather, given his inability to find it at that particular page, altering it to what he wanted it to say), is a pretty clear violation of WP:V, a policy, which trumps all guidelines. A Manual of Style does not serve Wikipedia if it causes readers to mistrust the accuracy of direct quotes on the site, even when they are provided with a cite. Which is all besides the point, because Cailil had already pointed out on his talk page that HighKing's problems go beyond simple good faith disagreement over how to interpret any specific page like IMOS. But on the general point of good editting, a diligent editor not interested in policing terminology would have either removed the quote as unverified, or altered the reference to point to its new location, both actions being equally justified by WP:V. An editor only interested in policing terminology however, as Cailil charged him with, would do what he did. Followed by the rewriting it out of the article completely on the extremely spurious grounds that a 10 word quote is a copyright violation, which is again, the same sort of behaviour Cailil referenced - resorting to wholly spurious arguments like copyright just to further an enforcement agenda. HighKing is bang to rights here imho. If Cailil had gone to the trouble of numbering every behaviour he had warned him not to engage in, I think every one would be able to be checked off just by examining this little dispute here, given his response here as well. Zoombox21 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The qoute was altered, but the inline citation didnt bring the person following it to what was been qouted. The cited page and the qouted page. If, and I am sure Highking did follow the inline citation there was no qoute from that page, in fact he has subsequential edit the article using the page from the inline citation. Also it should be noted on the page the inline brings you to mentions "Ireland", on the banner, no Republic. No breach of his sanctions and no breach of WP:MOSQUOTE because it wasnt qouted on the page showing, which is in itself a technical breach by the person who added it - but only an oversite and not breaking the spirit of the guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Zoombox21, it seems unlikely that you are in full compliance with WP:SCRUTINY. If that is the case and given that policy isn't just a law for the poor, could you switch to your legitimate account ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm simply going to close this section with no action. I don't have a lot of time for editors masking their identitiy in order to get other editors blocked. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Structured settlement
Could a few other users keep an eye on the article Structured settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Given statements from the current IP to continue their behavior, as well as other IPs that geolocated to the same area, I am concerned about potential continued disruption, as well as potential socking concerns at the article.
An IP, who has been removing the material since February, was removing content claiming it to be commercial spam and claiming that multiple people are being paid to keep the material in the article. The only other editors that appear to have removed the content are IPs that all geolocate to the same area - while multiple established editors have restored the content.
As a result, I reverted their blankings as being against the implied consensus shown in the prior reversals of the blanking; and I urged the IP to discuss their concerns on the talk page as well as urging them repeatedly to drop the unsupported accusations against other editors. The user continued their disruption with statements such as "I will continue to remove it as it is unnecessary"[101] - so I eventually blocked them after giving the user a final warning. They now have an unblock request on their talk in which they again make accusations of other editors being financially compensated.
I have no strong opinion on the content either way - and have reverted solely based upon the implied consensus of prior established editors restoring the content. If a talk page consensus goes towards removing the content, then I would have no problem with it being removed. But this IP is clearly going about their desired changes the wrong way, and shows no interest in learning from what I have told them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've been watching that page; while I am very much against spam, I saw no spam or COI problems with the section the IP kept removing. I smell sour grapes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good block. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good Lord that article has problems. Structured settlements are used to "compromise a statutory periodic payment obligation"? Is there some non-standard meaning of "compromise" which would make this sentence valid? If so, it is obscure enough to need explanation. And it isn't a recent addition, it has been in the opening sentence since 2005. As to the references to Wentworth, I think they are wholly inappropriate as is, will elaborate at talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Dwaipayanc, User:AfricaTanz, Warning flood and discretionary sanction
I want to draw your attention towards this incidence. I'll divide my post into two parts—
- Flooding of warnings: User:Dwaipayanc has been given at least 4 warnings today, see few sections from here. This is against a) Wikipedia editor retention b) Wikipedia assume good faith etc. In addition, when it is a known issue that the editor is a trusted editor for a long time, one should be careful before giving so many warnings. So, (may not be deliberately done), but, this has become almost a harassment to a trusted editor. (see next point).
- Discretionary sanctions: Future Perfect at Sunrise has imposed a discretionary sanction on editors here. I feel, there has been confusions: a) User:Dwaipayanc has been given a warning, but, not User:AfricaTanz who has done more reverts than AfricaTanz. b) I think the main confusion here has been: 2 consecutive reverts of Dwaipayanc— Dwaipayanc reverted an edit of me mistakenly and then immediately self-reverted that. So, these two edits should not be counted in the edit war. With due respect to Future Perfect (he has been one of the best editors I have ever seen), I have a hunch that he did not carefully check these two edits and the other edits/editing trends here. If you see the editing pattern, then you'll find out that this has been an issue of one editor (i.e. User:AfricaTanz), his edits are being questioned and challenged in multiple articles. Giving the editor who is trying to help a series of warnings and leaving the problematic editor free is unacceptable. Finally, in my opinion, the discretionary sanction on editors here was not required too. In the warning message it has been told— an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia — this is incorrect, a) Dwaipayanc is one of the best editors of WikiProject India with no complaint against him at all, b) the issue was not that serious. I have not seen where the Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions, there are many more serious issues, this was a minor issue where one can easily get clear idea that what is happening and what should be done. --Tito☸Dutta 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- (small observation) I think you might have an error in your post: "... AfricaTanz who has done more reverts than AfricaTanz." Did you mean "than Dwaipayanc"? OSborn arfcontribs. 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was warned the same way that Dwaipayanc and another editor were. To my knowledge, no one has yet cited Dwaipayanc's mistaken (was it?) reversion of you. What Dwaipayanc has done, with your help in response to Dwaipayanc's canvassing of you, is very, very serious. A huge portion of the Bengal article is unsourced and now temporarily protected from editing because the two of you kept adding back the unsourced material and refused to source anything: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). Not one source was added. Please tell us why you and Dwaipayanc could not be bothered to add a source for any of the material you kept adding back. You and Dwaipayanc achieved precisely what you wanted: the complete preservation of an awful and embarrassing article that violates Wikipedia policy in many different ways. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Er...while WP:DTTR exists, so does WP:TTR. If somebody is being disruptive, giving them warnings for it is what is done - WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- hi all! Thanks Tito for your concerns. I don't mind getting warned if policy dictates so. So, no problem with that! Yes, I did a revert of Tito by mistake, and immediately self reverted.
- unfortunately, AfricanTanz, despite his great intentions, did not really follow suggested guideline for content dispute. WP:V suggests a nice civil way for that. Try to fix the error first, then tag with citation needed, and discuss in talk page. If no response, then of course delete material. Despite several requests, the user did not follow such a nice guideline/policy. Instead he quotes a post by Jimbo Wales from 2006, a post that explicitly mentions that it is not a policy! --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely forgot what I said here and are not intentionally engaging in selective quoting, i.e., lawyering. AfricaTanz (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's look at the items that Dwaipayan, Titodutta, বিজয়_চক্রবর্তী, and Bazaan keep adding back to Bengal with no sources and no demonstrable effort to source:
- (1) "Smaller numbers of Pathans, Persians, Arabs and Turks also migrated to the region in the late Middle Ages while spreading Islam."
- (2) "After a period of anarchy, the native Buddhist Pala Empire ruled the region for four hundred years, and expanded across much of the Indian subcontinent into Afghanistan during the reigns of Dharmapala and Devapala. The Pala dynasty was followed by the reign of the Hindu Saiva Sena dynasty. Islam made its first appearance in Bengal during the 12th century when Sufi missionaries arrived. Later, occasional Muslim raiders reinforced the process of conversion by building mosques, madrassas, and Sufi Khanqah. Beginning in 1202 a military commander from the Delhi Sultanate, Bakhtiar Khilji, overran Bihar and Bengal as far east as Rangpur, Bogra, and the Brahmaputra River. Although he failed to bring Bengal under his control, the expedition managed to defeat Lakshman Sen and his two sons moved to a place then called Vikramapur (present-day Munshiganj District), where their diminished dominion lasted until the late 13th century."
- (3) "During the 14th century, the former kingdom became known as the Sultanate of Bengal, ruled intermittently with the Sultanate of Delhi as well as powerful Hindu states and land-lords-Baro-Bhuyans. The Hindu Deva Kingdom ruled over eastern Bengal after the collapse Sena Empire. The Sultanate of Bengal was interrupted by an uprising by the Hindus under Raja Ganesha. The Ganesha dynasty began in 1414, but his successors converted to Islam. Bengal came once more under the control of Delhi as the Mughals conquered it in 1576. There were several independent Hindu states established in Bengal during the Mughal period like those of Maharaja Pratap Aditya of Jessore and Raja Sitaram Ray of Burdwan. These kingdoms contributed a lot to the economic and cultural landscape of Bengal. Extensive land reclamations in forested and marshy areas were carried out and trade as well as commerce were highly encouraged. These kingdoms also helped introduce new music, painting, dancing, and sculpture into Bengali art forms. Also, many temples were constructed during this period. Militarily, they served as bulwarks against Portuguese and Burmese attacks. Koch Bihar Kingdom in the northern Bengal, flourished during the period of 16th and the 17th centuries as well as weathered the Mughals and survived till the advent of the British."
- (4) "In 1534, the ethnic Afghan Pashtun Sher Shah Suri succeeded in defeating the forces of the Mughals under Humayun at Chausa (1539) and Kannauj (1540).[citation needed] Sher Shah fought back and captured both Delhi and Agra and established a kingdom stretching far into Punjab. Sher Shah's administrative skill showed in his public works, including the Grand Trunk Road connecting Sonargaon in Bengal with Peshawar in the Hindu Kush. Sher Shah's rule ended with his death in 1545."
- (5) "Shah Suri's successors lacked his administrative skill, and quarrelled over the domains of his empire. Humayun, who then ruled a rump Mughal state, saw an opportunity and in 1554 seized Lahore and Delhi. Humayun died in January of 1556. By this time Hemu (also called Hem Chandra Vikramaditya), the then Hindu prime minister-cum- Chief of Army, of the Sur dynasty, had already won Bengal in the battle at Chapperghatta. In this battle Hemu killed Muhammad Shah, the then ruler of Bengal. This was Hemu's 20th continuous win in North India. Knowing of Humanyun's death, Hemu rushed to Delhi to win Agra and later on Delhi. Hemu established 'Hindu Raj' in North India on 6 Oct 1556, after 300 years of Muslim rule, leaving Bengal to his Governor Shahbaz Khan. Akbar, the greatest of the Mughal emperors, defeated the Karani rulers of Bengal in 1576. Bengal became a Mughal subah and ruled through subahdars (governors). Akbar exercised progressive rule and oversaw a period of prosperity (through trade and development) in Bengal and northern India."
- (6) "Bengal's trade and wealth impressed the Mughals so much that they called the region the Paradise of the Nations. Administration by governors appointed by the court of the Mughal Empire court (1575–1717) gave way to four decades of semi-independence under the Nawabs of Murshidabad, who respected the nominal sovereignty of the Mughals in Delhi. The Nawabs granted permission to the French East India Company to establish a trading post at Chandernagore in 1673, and the British East India Company at Calcutta in 1690. The most notable among them is Murshid Quli Khan, who was succeeded by Alivardi Khan."
- (7) "Agriculture is the leading occupation in the region. Rice is the staple food crop. Other food crops are pulses, potato, maize, and oil seeds. Jute is the principal cash crop. Tea is also produced commercially; the region is well known for Darjeeling and other high-quality teas."
- (8) "The common Bengali language and culture anchors the shared tradition of two parts of politically divided Bengal. Bengal has a long tradition in folk literature, evidenced by the Charyapada, Mangalkavya, Shreekrishna Kirtana, Maimansingha Gitika or Thakurmar Jhuli. Bengali literature in the medieval age was often either religious (e.g. Chandidas), or adaptations from other languages (e.g. Alaol). During the Bengal Renaissance of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Bengali literature was modernised through the works of authors such as Michael Madhusudan Dutta, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Kazi Nazrul Islam."
- (9) "Other folk music forms include Gombhira, Bhatiali and Bhawaiya. Folk music in Bengal is often accompanied by the ektara, a one-stringed instrument. Other instruments include the dotara, dhol, flute, and tabla. The region also has an active heritage in North Indian classical music."
- (10) "Bengal had also been the harbinger of modernism in Indian arts. Abanindranath Tagore, one of the important 18th century artist from Bengal is often referred to as the father of Indian modern art. He had established the first non-British art academy in India known as the Kalabhavan within the premises of Santiniketan. Santiniketan in course of time had produced many important Indian artists like Gaganendranath Tagore, Nandalal Bose, Jamini Roy, Benode Bihari Mukherjee and Ramkinkar Baij. In the post-independence era, Bengal had produced important artists like Somenath Hore, Meera Mukherjee and Ganesh Pyne."
- (11) "Bengali women commonly wear the shaŗi and the salwar kameez, often distinctly designed according to local cultural customs. In urban areas, many women and men wear Western-style attire. Among men, European dressing has greater acceptance. Men also wear traditional costumes such as the kurta with dhoti or pyjama, often on religious occasions. The lungi, a kind of long skirt, is widely worn by Bangladeshi men."
AfricaTanz (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you AfricaTanz for listing the specific paragraphs/materials that you wanted to delete. Since I am not a regular editor of the article currently, it would be helpful for me to find out references for those materials. Of course, if no references are found, those material will be deleted. Thanks a lot for cooperating. Exactly this thing you could have done in the article talk page, or, even easier, could have tagged those areas with citation needed tags. That would have prevented all these unfortunate proceedings. Bye the way, did you search for references yourself before suspecting that these materials are un-sourable? If yes, please say that yes you searched but did not find. that would save us time. Anyway, thanks again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are seriously claiming that you never looked at this material before you restored it time and again? What I listed is everything. Do you ever look at diffs? Why do you need to be spoon fed a listing of the material you are restoring before you are willing to make even a cursory attempt to source it? Do you not see a problem with knee-jerk, constant reverting of an editor's deletion of unsourced material? I am even more shocked than I was before by your conduct. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's also look at the nonsense edit summaries they have used when protecting this mountain of unsourced (and perhaps unsourcable) material:
- (1) "Vanga is a well known sanskrit word for Bengal (cite added), Bengalis are a blend by Aryan race too is very well known!"
- (2) "Well known are not necessary to be cited or sourced as you enter the interior of the lined pages you would get cites! Well known history!"
- (3) "Well known are not necessary to be cited or sourced! Bangladeshi women wear only sari, The common language is only Bengali and was mordenised"
- (4) "a well know face, pakistani forces and the liberation war and all of history before independence, and obviously 1991 is the restoration of democr.."
- (5) "it;s a basic info dude."
- (6) "basic info"
- (7) "AfricaTanz, what's your problem with a citation tag? You're removing well-known information, which can be verified through other wikipedia articles already linked"
- (8) "the project is not a destructive me, but collaborative see talk page. Read WP :preserve. Tag with cn as I was doing."
- (9) "Again insertion of same problematic content, please discuss at talk"
AfricaTanz (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's take a look at some of their discussion page posts:
- (1) "But stuff like Vanga, the Pala Empire and Bhatiali are highly important subjects in the history of Bengal and frankly its ridiculous and outrageous for someone to remove them all together merely on the grounds of sourcing issues."
- (2) "Any materials challenged or likely to be challenged needs citation. Please challenge the materials that you think needs verification with citation needed tags. Even many good articles do not have citation after each and every sentence. Indeed even after your deletions, Bengal article may not have citations after each and every sentence."
- (3) "This is a collaborative process, not a destructive one, obviously you should delete vandalism or blatant hoax immediately. But, for usual material, one should first try to fix it rather than deleting straight-forward. Do not blanket delete."
- (4) "So, please refrain from your biased editing behavior."
- (5) "You are making error in the context. Learn to use common sense in some instances. Obviously you should remove something that is absurd to common sense."
- (6) "The other point here is that all this information is already linked with various Wikipedia articles and can be easily verified."
AfricaTanz (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
But, in my opinion, Dwaipayanc's edits were not disruptive. --Tito☸Dutta 06:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you consider your own reversion disruptive? Did you realize you were restoring a mountain of unsourced material? Why did you falsely say in your edit summary: "Again insertion of same problematic content, please discuss at talk"? Had you been paying attention, you would have realized that I was not "inserting" anything. When I asked you about this on your talk page, you didn't respond. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Avanhard resort article and self-promotion
- Avanhard (Vorokhta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have noticed that someone tried to pad this article several times with various links to a foreign commercial third-party websites, such as this one, this and this. All of these commercial sites are using self-published basic info about resort (and few photos of unknown source) for a self-promotion of their own commercial services (namely selling the tours or rooms at the hotels at this particular resort). Am I correct to assume that such sources (which have the only purpose of self-promoting their own commercial service) should not be used due to WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:IS or am I wrong? I have tried to remove these but they were reverted and I was straight away accused of vandalism. I do not really want to break any WP:3RR rules (and if I already did - I apologize for that) or engage into further pointless conversations at an article's Talk page so please help me figure it out here... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID this is exactly breaking point 5. Also some content in the page was focusing more on a resort than the town/village itself. I have removed the content but not the external links yet though. A m i t 웃 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)