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) |
|
Editing on Jesus Christ
It is about [1] where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely [2] and User:StAnselm blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
When reverting her edits, the WP:FRINGE view is that most Christians would support Jesus Christ the Father, which is a fringe Christian belief and a heresy for mainstream Christians. The WP:OR is using the Bible as source of beliefs expressed in Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting secondary sources published by Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why is this here? This sounds like a content dispute and you should follow the dispute resolution hierarchy, and please remove the pictures. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, it is here because one editor is calling other editors "white supremacists" and "racists". Is there nothing that can be done to stop this? StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the pictures as they're part of a content dispute which cannot be solved here. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages, and bropught to dispute resolution if they cannot be solved there. Admins rule on behavioral problems, not content disputes.
- Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: I can well understand that you might think a warning template or two is a softer response than taking someone to ANI, because it is. Having said that, I see at least seven templates from you on that editor's talk page. If in the future you have to go so far as to issue a second warning template in quick succession, you might also add a bit more relevant text regarding the specific actions in question, and which policies and/or guidelines they violate. And, if you ever feel the need to go to a third template in a short period of time, it would probably be best to take the matter here first, because I tend to think third warnings without any action tend to be much less effective. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, good to know for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text. "Isaiah 53:2" and "Jesus has bronze skin". And there are secondary sources available: "UPCI" and "namb.net"-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'm seeing the issue here. In reading the text, an interpretation of one way or another is not "racism". It would be best if you not say that the comments are from racists or white supremacists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked Adasegogisdi for 48 hours for edit warring and breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reading their unblock request I'm wondering if a longer block might be in order. Calling editors "white supremacists" definitely is a personal attack, and reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- People from the middle east are traditionally considered to be Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're right - so I skwewed up. FWIW, if you ever have to deal with me in the future, you'll probably get used to my doing that. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Different cultures tend to portray Jesus as "one of us". This is no big deal. See Race and appearance of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- propose an indefinite block for:
- their unblock request:
White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate
which followed - this warning to StAnselm and the same to Tgeorgescu:
Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page
and - this extremely aggressive post here at ANI.
- their unblock request:
This editor has The TruthTM and is not here to collaborate with others who think differently; that together with the lack of competence demonstrated by taking an article in Popular Mechanics as The Last Word on how Jesus looked, is a recipe for endless disruption. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([3], [4]) along with WP:OR (St. Calixtus catacomb image interpretation), unfounded accusations of racism and white supremacism for those who do not agree. Sufficient grounds for a ban, I would think. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I said that above regarding the unblock request. Immediately calling anyone who differs with you a racist or white supremacist is a tell-tale sign you aren't here for the collective good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose indef block - This is a very new editor who has, I think, maybe taken on more than she should chew too early. I might not oppose some sort of lesser sanction, and would certainly encourage the editor to seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, as well as make use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it might be a bit early for a site ban, particularly if the editor's primary field of interest is beliefs or groups of a broadly Christian nature which might be comparatively underrepresented here yet. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment to Adasegogisdi you need to find WP:RS with sufficient authority to support your claims. I mention authority here since the subject matter implies there most be many, many RS so we will naturally go with the ones that have the most support (i.e. are widely cited etc). We intentionally limited interpretations of primary sources, so claims like "These scholars are wrong because this primary source says...." are generally not really useful especially with a text as long as and with as complicated a history as the bible. Not to mention if this issue is Jesus Christ rather than "what the bible says about Jesus Christ", the bible is only one source anyway. If you are unable to find sufficiently compelling RS to support your claim, either your intepretation is wrong or it's right but for some reason people have realised yet. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of wikipedia means our articles will mostly stick with the normal view rather than a WP:Fringe view. Nil Einne (talk)
- Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it really matters what the issue is. The point is they need sufficiently compelling reliable secondary sources, not their own intepretation of primary sources. If there isn't sufficient support for their intepretation in secondary sources then they need to accept their view is minority or fringe at the moment for whatever reason and until and unless this changes the article will reflect that and possibly not even mention their view at all. If they are able to find these secondary sources then they should do so rather than trying to prove something based on primary sources or poor secondary souces. This is quite an important point and one people often have trouble understanding since for general research going to primary sources is often encouraged but as an encylopaedia it isn't how we operate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional support I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a newbie who did not know the rules. So, I support the indefinite block only if after her block expires she shows no signs of having learned from the block. As I have argued on Talk:Jesus, I find that she has WP:COMPETENCE problems and that she quite easily casts aspersions, but I am prepared to give her a chance if she shows that she has learned from her block. The gist is: it is not error which deserves indefinite blocking, but persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose ban and an indef (as of now) - Way too much, way too soon. Bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not relative newbies. Is this bad behavior? Absolutely, and I'm not questioning that. Still, once the block wears off, then I suggest we give her another chance, as per John Carter and Tgeorgescu. GABgab 00:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose ban and indefinite block This a week-old account. Wikipedia has respected editors who acted out when they first started editing the project. And it also didn't help that they also suffered "Death by template" on their user talk page. That blanket templating would anger any editor. I'm in favor of WP:ROPE and I think John Carter has a good point about having a diversity of editors' viewpoints. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose ban (for the present). I would have preferred the block to have been for the unfounded accusations of racism rather than merely being for edit-warring, so that a clear message would have been sent. But we certainly don't have enough evidence yet that basic competence is lacking, and with good mentoring and encouragement Adasegogisdi has the potential to become a fine editor. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've looked at their contribs and I don't see any evidence of potential to become a fine editor and lots of evidence for potential for continued disruption. Lots of people come to Wikipedia because they are committed to some view about X and they don't care at all about this place nor how we do things, and that is what I see here - NOTHERE. To be clear, in my view the indef should of course be appeal-able and they should be unblocked if they some show some inkling of understanding that Wikipedia is not a blog where it is OK to flame people and make very strong assertions that have no basis in policy or guidelines. But I can read :) and I see that others are not seeing things this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Range block of Edit Filter request for 213.205.252.*
I've been tracking edits by a long-term vandal who likes to change dates on cartoon and television pages (see my list here). I requested an edit filter back at the end of March (Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#TV_date_changes_vandalism) but there's been no movement yet. The user has been using the same IP range for a while now Special:Contributions/213.205.252.*. (Sorry, I don't know CIDR well enough so I'm just using the wildcard syntax). This location and behavior matches past IPs. However there seems to be a fair number of IP users in this range who make constructive contributions. Widr has been very prompt in blocking these IPs when I report them to AIV, but there's been an uptick in activity so I thought I'd come here and ask for admin attention. Below is a list of recent IPs, dates, and edits, starting with the first instance of this IP range:
- 213.205.252.111 - 22 March 2016 (1 edit; different ISP)
- 80.249.56.77 - 27 March 2016 (24 edits)
- 151.227.163.140 - 30-31 March through 2 April 2016 (30 edits)
- 94.1.180.104 - 4 April 2016 (8 edits)
- 94.195.178.50 - 4 April + 12 April 2016 (38 edits - resumed after 1 week block)
- 86.135.105.121 - 11-12 April 2016 (3 edits)
- 31.118.196.86 - 17 April 2016 (8 edits)
- 213.205.236.64 - 17 April 2016 (7 edits)
- 213.205.232.64 - 17 April 2016 (8 edits)
- 94.195.176.54 - 27 April 2016 (17 edits)
- 213.205.252.204 - 27 April 2016 (2 edits)
- 213.205.252.109 - 29 April 2016 (2 edits)
- 213.205.252.29 - 7 May 2016 (7 edits)
- 213.205.252.187 - 14 May 2016 (3 edits)
- 213.205.252.106 - 24 May 2016 (6 edits)
- 213.205.252.27 - 30 May 2016 (14 edits)
- 213.205.252.17 - 1 June 2016 (5 edits)
- 213.205.252.35 - 2 June 2016 (2 edits)
- 213.205.252.183 - 2 June 2016 (3 edits)
Is there anything that can be done about this, or should I just keep checking edits using the wildcard and date range restrictions (example)? I understand if admins do not want to block the range due to collateral damage, but I thought there might be something I'm missing so thought I'd ask. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- The way you really want to search that network is using this link [5] which searches 213.205.252.0/24, or 213.205.252.everything. Not sure what the wildcard is really picking up, but you can see the right way shows there is a lot of traffic on that network. I haven't tried to filter through it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: The wildcard does the same if you enable the option in preferences. I restrict the dates to check for new edits. You're correct that there is a lot of traffic from that network which is why I originally asked for the edit filter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, it shows just a little of the traffic if I use the *, which is why I wanted to share. I'm probably a bit more conservative than most, but unless the disturbance is high, I hate to cut off that much traffic. If no one responds, you might try asking at WP:SPI. No, it isn't a sock, but the front page of SPI is where you make requests of CUs, and they have tools that admin don't have and can often tell if the "good" edits are really the same person as the bad edits, making it ok to block the whole Class C. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll post to the Functionaries list and try to draw some checkuser/edit-filter-manager attention to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. It isn't a huge range, but CUs just have better tools to see what the real issue is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown and Newyorkbrad: Thank you both. Dennis, maybe I'm mistaken about how the wildcard thing works? I really need to learn the CIDR stuff. Appreciate you pointing out the extent of the range. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. It isn't a huge range, but CUs just have better tools to see what the real issue is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll post to the Functionaries list and try to draw some checkuser/edit-filter-manager attention to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, it shows just a little of the traffic if I use the *, which is why I wanted to share. I'm probably a bit more conservative than most, but unless the disturbance is high, I hate to cut off that much traffic. If no one responds, you might try asking at WP:SPI. No, it isn't a sock, but the front page of SPI is where you make requests of CUs, and they have tools that admin don't have and can often tell if the "good" edits are really the same person as the bad edits, making it ok to block the whole Class C. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: The wildcard does the same if you enable the option in preferences. I restrict the dates to check for new edits. You're correct that there is a lot of traffic from that network which is why I originally asked for the edit filter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, range block not possible. This is a mobile range, which makes it hyperdynamic. It's also very large. There are plenty of good edits on the range. I'm very, very hesitant to block large mobile ranges at the best of times, and this one doesn't nearly meet the threshold. Risker (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Risker: Understood. Any chance this could be addressed with an edit filter? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW I am happy to semiprotect any complex or high visibility pages if that helps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to an edit filter, especially if it reduces the burden for hardworking vandal fighters like User:EvergreenFir. However, looking at the vandalism that's happening here, I'm not sure how you'd construct a filter to pick it up without also blocking a lot of legitimate edits. Number changers and date changers who target a broad spectrum of articles can be very difficult for automated processes to pick up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC).
- Thank you for the comments and kind words. I'll just keep watching the IP range for now. If it gets overwhelming, I'll ask for some page protections and point to this conversation. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to an edit filter, especially if it reduces the burden for hardworking vandal fighters like User:EvergreenFir. However, looking at the vandalism that's happening here, I'm not sure how you'd construct a filter to pick it up without also blocking a lot of legitimate edits. Number changers and date changers who target a broad spectrum of articles can be very difficult for automated processes to pick up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC).
- FWIW I am happy to semiprotect any complex or high visibility pages if that helps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Risker: Understood. Any chance this could be addressed with an edit filter? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User:User000name
I believe that User000name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked indefinitely or otherwise severely sanctioned, and his or her userpage deleted, but because I find myself too angry to appear impartial am bringing the situation here.
I first heard of this user when I saw a post on another editor's talkpage, admonishing that editor for referring to User000name as a "Nazi" in an edit summary. The editor responded that User000name is a Nazi as reflected on his userpage. This led me to take a look at that page, which includes long lists of external links. I was concerned to discover that the largest section of the userpage was (and is) headed "Holocaust Revisionism" and contains dozens of links to Holocaust-denial articles, "documentaries" and videos. In this thread, I asked User000name to explain the purpose of including this material on his userpage. Another administrator added that User000name must remove Youtube links to copyrighted material, which is true enough although in this context I think a secondary consideration. User000name then responded to both of us, ''Purpose of sections "external links" and "Holocaust Revisionism": it is a collection of info, sometimes the sources aren't the best per WP policy so I will not add them anywhere at the (Main) namespace but will keep them on my userpage; is there an issue with that? I'll remove the links."
User000name then removed the Youtube links, replacing them with the word "REDACTED". These included links to sites such as "Auschwitz - Why the Gas Chambers are a Myth", "Buchenwald a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil", "Zundel vs. Zionist - Truth vs. Lies", "Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of the Big Lie", and "Understanding the Holocaust as a Legend". The edit summary was "Removing YouTube links fags asked me to remove".
User000name did not remove any other links, and the "collection of info" on his userpage continued to have a "Holocaust Revisionism" links section including links to "Zyklon-B and the German Delousing Chambers", "The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax", "Exposing the Holocaust™ Hoax", and "Nazi Gassings" (whose caption is "just another website that denies the Holocaust hoax"), among others. There is also a "Nazism" section of the userpage whose contents are also appalling. I discussed this situation in this thread, asking another administrator whether User000name should be indeffed as a Holocaust-denial troll. User000name then provided the further explanation that "The ['fags'] edit summary meant I disagreed with removing any links to YouTube. Holocaust revisionism links were there because they are sort of interesting."
In a further review, I observed that User000name's userpage, in its own prose (not in a link) uses the term "Holohoax" and elsewhere describes Barack Obama as a "monkey." I asked User000name to explain, and his entire response was, "Along with useful info POVs were also included from text files that were made from text copied from a textboard titled "/newpol/"; more importantly, what is the issue? I could be making useful edits at this website instead of this."
In addressing this situation I tried to be mindful of the fact that Wikipedia embraces a broad range of people and ideologies, and also of the caution passed along by another administrator that sometimes external links may be posted for purposes of studying or identifying problematic human behavior rather than praising such behavior. But even the most lenient version of AGF and widest broadmindedness can only go so far. I pinged User000name to my page, where I told him very directly (in by far the strongest language I've ever used in 10 years on this site—people will be surprised) exactly what I thought of his userpage and, if the page was an accurate reflection of his ideation, of him. He had a clear chance to explain that I was misunderstanding him, if such a response was possible, and dissociate himself from all of those links and comments. He said nothing.
I just spot-checked User000name's contributions for the past 24 hours. His most recent edit was to add a rare spelling variant to the Kike article, which he sourced to Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish. The book was already cited in the article, but User000name gave it a reference-name; the name he chose was "<ref name="kike.htm">". Correction per the user's talkpage; I don't think it affects the overall situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(The situation speaks for itself in my view, but for those who might be interested, see the principles enunciated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander.)
Submitted for such action as may be appropriate, hopefully without more drama than necessary. Pinging Doug Weller, Iridescent, Alanyst, and MastCell as they commented in the thread on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Incivility aside, is it against the rules of Wikipedia to hold crackpot theories? I was under the assumption that Wikipedia is not censored. These don't strike me as particularly offensive. Wrong? Yes. Offensive? Not any more than your average conspiracy theory nut... I could be wrong I suppose, looking forward to hear what other users think. --Tarage (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Indeffed. User is not here to edit Wikipedia. User page deleted for containing waaaaay too much offensive material and offensive links--including, for instance, pro-Nazi conspiratorial material about Anne Frank, the well-known fraud invented by the allies to demoralize the defeated Germans even more, or something like that. Tarage, Wikipedia is not censored per se, but Wikipedia is also not a forum for crackpot theories and offensive material--that's what the comments threads on Facebook are for. If User000name wishes to explain, besides the "fags" comment and all that, what good that material served, they are welcome to do so in an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Drmies. Users are not indeffed merely because of a yuck factor—the issue concerns using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good block. WP:Wikipedia is not censored applies only to articles, and WP:User pages forbids "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". BMK (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- NOTCENSORED is sometimes taken to mean that we are a free-speech zone. By the same token, NOTHERE covers a lot of ground. The user may have made positive edits, but they are grossly outweighed by the negative ones. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're right that NOTCENSORED is sometimes taken that way, but, paradoxically, while the volunteer editors here have decided that the encyclopedia should not be censored, those same volunteers actually have no individual right to freedom of speech on a private website, and have also collectively decided in what ways private speech will be regulated in userspace. Personally, I espouse a zero-tolerance policy concerning Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers, similar to the one mandated by the Foundation concerning pedophilia - some things are simply too offensive to be acceptable. BMK (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support the block. The incident surrounding their userpage plus his ignoring a request to explain his 'fags' comment, the sort of thing that can have a chilling effect on editors less used to abuse, support the block. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the block, since
User is not here to edit Wikipedia
(the purported reason for the block, in both this thread and the block log) is clearly nonsensical—he has well over 1000 mainspace edits in the past month alone, all of which (with the arguable exception of the "kike" edit cited by NYB above) appear constructive and uncontroversial on a quick dip-sample. For comparison, Newyorkbrad who brought this complaint made 54 mainspace edits in the same period, all apparently minor. Given the "fags" comment this isn't a cause on which I'll stand and fight, but Drmies, at least be honest when you block someone on the grounds that you personally disagree with their opinions, rather than fabricating an easily-disproved pretext. (If we are going to go down the road of declaring people nonpersons for holding contentious views, you probably ought not to look too closely at the WMF.) ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)- You may be going down that road, Iridescent, but I'm not. And thanks for the charge of dishonesty, that's real nice coming from someone I used to respect a lot. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Come on, Iridescent. His "1,000 mainspace edits" consist mostly of running MOSNUMscript. That's a pretty minor effort compared to the time he's spent lovingly curating a userpage full of racist and anti-Semitic nonsense. It's entirely honest to say that this person's primary interest does not appear to be in building an encyclopedia. Separately, I'm sure we all have different thresholds for when a "contentious opinion" (to use your phrase) becomes morally repugnant enough that Wikipedia should not be used to promote it, but I would think most people agree that neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, and referring to African-Americans as "monkeys" are all unequivocally across that threshold. It's surprising, and depressing, to see you arguing an abstruse wiki-technicality at the expense of common sense and basic decency. You've always been a voice of reason and sanity, and this is beneath you. MastCell Talk 21:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block; uncollegiality of such an extent is a classic expression of an absence from the ideals of the project. Muffled Pocketed 09:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- good block. NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Bad block, as all "NOTHERE" blocks are (see prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#RfC_about_WP:NOTHERE if you have that much time of your life to waste). Of course the page should have been deleted, and I have no problem with an indef block, but it would spare a lot of drama to use an actual reason. For example, Wikipedia:User_pages#Advocacy_or_support_of_grossly_improper_behaviors_with_no_project_benefit would work. NE Ent 23:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- By all means, let's invite him back into the room so we can dot some I's and cross some T's. WP:BURO. A righteous block, period. BMK (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:NE Ent how odd that you cite that RfC and state the opposite of its close, which is quite clear that "The consensus is that WP:NOTHERE is a valid reason for blocking and should be included and used. The majority opinion is that it is widely used and the community has accepted it as a valid reason used in various places like ANI and the blocks of many admins." Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Bad block, His edits are a little good, but we supposed to bring him back to Wikipedia, Remember WP:NOTCENSORED KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block, I'm reluctant to block people solely for their personal views but that isn't the issue here. People can have their personal views but it doesn't mean they can use wikipedia to push them. Notcensored is about content pages and content related discussions. Editors are given a wide degree of latitude over what's on their user page but as BMK and NE Ent has said, that latitude isn't infinite. Pushing highly offensive views on your user page is one area that's going to far. If it was something like a userbox which said "this editor believes the holocaust didn't happen" or whatever, personally I would feel it better to leave it stand. Although it's highly offensive, it seems better to let an editor say it so people are easily aware than it is to cover it up and leave editors unaware. However others may feel differently so I wouldn't oppose a block in such a case. If the editor promises to cut that crap out, given my reluctance to block people solely on their views I'd probably support an unblock with a very very short leash but even then I wouldn't really push much. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech. Editors may have whatever personal beliefs they want, but for certain beliefs, announcing them or advocating for them on-wiki in a manner that can lead to disruption may taint such editor's entire record of contributions (going backwards and forwards), disrupt the project for others, and generally bring the project into disrepute. The classical example of this is the self-described pedophile, and I believe Holocaust deniers cause the same type of disruption (child protection issues notwithstanding). There may be conditions under which an unblock may be granted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block Sorry, Wikipedia is a cabal, not a congress. What I am saying here is that freedom of speech on Wikimedia wikis is limited. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean you can make personal attacks. Honestly, I was blocked on Commons for 1 week for saying that the WMF is a nazi twice (but later unblocked one day). --Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block - While Wikipedia is not censored, is it not a vehicle to exercise Free Speech. We are a community that edits solely by the grace of the Foundation and our fellow editors. When an editor's actions are offensive enough that it would offend a consensus of editors, we have empowered the community to disallow that editor from participating. It doesn't require a brightline violation of policy to do this, only consensus, as editing at Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block as per Dennis Brown's succinct and clear reasoning. Irondome (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block - We as a community have dealt with plenty of this (example), albeit not always so severe. The edit summary alone is appalling. This is not even a borderline case - I am very alarmed by the user's claim that "I never promoted Nazism, racism, or anti-semitism anywhere here (those are point of views); my userpage was just a collection of info which mistakenly had POVs and bad sources." I'm unconvinced, given the other "holohoax" and Obama references. Accordingly, I am joining the pile-on. Enough already. GABgab 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support block - We are trying to build an encyclopedia, and this kind of behaviour is very disruptive. I am pro-free speech, but I also believe that actions have consequences. We have plenty of users who can run the MOSNUMscript without being disruptive. Tolerating stuff like this will drive away good users. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
To whom it may concern
I was told this was a more appropriate place for the request I made here [6]. I'm not into infinite hoop-jumping, so take it for what you will, but I'm not going to invest a lot of time in follow-up to this observation. I've got better things to do with my life than wiki-lawyering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- First, did you notify User:Cuzkatzimhut that you were presenting a complaint about them here? This is a requirement. See the top of the page.
- Second, what I see is that Cuzkatzimhut reverted your addition of a [clarification needed] template at Dynamical pictures with the perfectly civil comment "It is detailed at mathematical length subsequently, Pls discuss in Talkpage before vandalizing." Other than the characterization as vandalizing, which you might (but probably shouldn't) take exception to, what exactly is abusive about this? And did you take the editor's suggestion to discuss on the article's Talk page? It appears not from your editing history. General Ization Talk 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, true, but let me add that Cuzkatzimhut's comment, that the IP should get an account so "they can be talked to, responsibly and accountably", I object to the sentiment and the statement. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- He does have a point. IP editors can't be pinged, and the router in my office recycles the IP every time the phone rings, meaning you can't easily notify somebody if you want to talk about something (as the relevant user talk page changes with the wind), and can only blindly hope they stumble across your talk page post, which doesn't happen too often. (As for how I know all this, an exercise for the reader, not that I'd advocate doing the odd edit as an IP when you're supposed to be on wikibreak, oh no...) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- So it is possible that Cuzkatzimhut has a bad attitude when it comes to IPs and their edits. The question remains whether and how that attitude has manifested itself in some behavior that is appropriate to discuss at ANI. So far, I see none, and this is not the attitude correction noticeboard. General Ization Talk 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Cuzkatzimhut seems to have some sort of bad attitude, when it comes to IPs. But, a lot of editors here have a bad attitude towards everyone.
[[7]]
however he also seems quite proud of being able to click on the whois link for IPs and post their locations, which despite whois being easy to use, is also borderline outing. [[8]] User_talk:131.111.176.163 [[9]]
I'd suggest that someone might want to have a word, and suggest that he treats IPs with a little more respect, and more importantly, he needs to stop hunting around whois so he can put their locations in his edit summaries. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Someone might want to suggest appropriate use of twinkle too.
- "Reverted good faith edits by 207.72.1.90 (talk): Unwarranted & tendentious: " Well if its tendentious its not a good faith edit is it?
- "Created page with 'Would you like to get a WP account? It gives you an inside track and obscures your Cambridge IP coordinates--should you be inclined to be concerned....". "Reverted 1 edit by 131.104.23.9 (talk): Evidently they skimp on dimensional analysis at Guelph. Please think before you trash!" - Both insulting and indicating they are routinely looking into IP locations. The use of naming peoples locations - while not outing per the policy - is certainly prodding the edges of the spirit of it: "Reverted 1 edit by 128.61.123.55 (talk): Does what you wrote appear proportional to the inverse in Atlanta? please desist from vandalism.",
- "Reverted 1 edit by 128.138.191.69 (talk): Dick you check where a point on the x-axis goes?" - Just insulting.
- "Created page with 'Please get a legitimate account. Peremptory reverts especially on controversial flagged issues such as this one are frowned upon by Wikipedia." "Reverted 1 edit by 155.69.125.175 (talk): Can you please get an account so this can be discussed instead of PEREMPTORY REVERTS?" - while reverting... Incorrect anyway, for the moment editing as an IP is a legitimate account and so on.
- From looking at their history they appear to have an ongoing problem with IP's editing articles they are watching, mild to moderate incivility depending on how annoyed they are, an inaccurate and out of process understanding of the rights allowed to IP editors, as well as an inaccurate understanding of what is 'vandalism' on wikipedia (no it is not something you disagree with, or even something that is factually wrong). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think my opinion here is not worth a whole lot (I'm not an admin, and I have been blocked a couple of times) however, this might be a situation in which a respected admin talking to this guy, one to one and explaining what is and isn't good, might go a long way. It's all simple stuff "don't state the location of IP editors and don't make comments/edits based on if an editor decides to make an account or not." Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the moment we start treating one opinion as being worth more than another just because of a couple of short blocks, we might as well hang WP:AGF out to dry, because we'll have pissed all over it Muffled Pocketed 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is exactly right. My feeling is that Wikipedia is often an unwelcoming place for IP users like myself, due to disproportionate responses by some editors. I understand that there are problems, but why does that make me part of the problem? I like the trend towards automated vandalism detection, as I believe that is much more neutral. I will be much happier with the general state of affairs when WP assumes good faith, and when the wiki-lawyering is reduced to a minimum. At that point, it might actually feel like I'm part of a respectful community again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the moment we start treating one opinion as being worth more than another just because of a couple of short blocks, we might as well hang WP:AGF out to dry, because we'll have pissed all over it Muffled Pocketed 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think my opinion here is not worth a whole lot (I'm not an admin, and I have been blocked a couple of times) however, this might be a situation in which a respected admin talking to this guy, one to one and explaining what is and isn't good, might go a long way. It's all simple stuff "don't state the location of IP editors and don't make comments/edits based on if an editor decides to make an account or not." Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well said. The more universal that attitude becomes, the better this place will be. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I certainly did not mean "Dick you check where..." but "Did you check where...", which my check-speller garbled and I could not amend--of course I would be apologetic for that! "Tendentious" could be in good faith but still counterproductive. "Outing" of the IPs location is an illustration of why IPs might opt for an account; WP provides these in plethora for a reason. Besides, tell me you did not notice the more than one different IPs from the same area all hacking at the same page in barely technically competent terms. In science matters, it is not true that misconceptions are plain "mere differences of opinion".
In the same breath, I would invite the self-summoned jury to also consider the pitiful erosion of perfectly good articles by lack of adequate patrolling against anonymous swarms of IPs, impossible to address and to investigate. A well-meaning experienced editor may simply observe the undeniable extent of the erosion and suggest workable countermeasures against this critical vulnerability, instead of obsessing on civility aspects. The fact is that pages ignored by page watchers for two months collapse into washed-out sandcastles by largely clueless IP sniping and either take enormous effort to restore, or else the watchers shrug them off and drop them off their watchlist. (Students at sites such as PE Exchange then execrate the low-quality "garbage of Wikipedia" which had, of course, seen better days.) I strongly believe you should also consider this serious and central issue of protection in the same breath as manners, and not walk away from it as somebody else's business... "let them fix it". Citing WP policy pages and endless discussions do not fix crises.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- All of the wikipedia research is very clear. Most edits by IPs are good edits. Most good edits come from IP editors. You are wrong. Your attitude sucks and has driven away some good editors. Your behaviour is problematic; you need to change. If you really want to continue to push IP editors to get an account (and you shouldn't, because 5 pillars and because they way you've gone about it so far is pointy and disruptive) you shoud read eg this: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/16/anonymous-editor-acquisition/ DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
outing someone to illustrate why they should make an account, is like setting fire to someone's house to illustrate why they should have bought a sprinkler system. well, it isn't exactly the same, but I'm sure you get my point. Yes, IPs can jump into wikipedia and cause chaos, however it takes an IP about 30 seconds to make an account, and they are still just as capable of causing just as much chaos. It's frustrating. I don't really like the idea of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - I'd prefer a trust system in which it would take a user months to gain the sort of access required to make edits. But we don't have that. We have this. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be sure, we have this. However, I hope the irony might not be lost on you that WP has all these anti-sockpuppet measures for registered users, but any mention that one is noticing or correlating locations on IPs is thought to be bad form. You must have seen the jubilant mischief perpetrated through that loophole, now, haven't you? Are you inviting me to illustrate? My pleas for help in the last 10 years for protection against it have fallen on sluggish ears, so I have long since given up on those. Pardon the monotony, but I would like to re-center the issue on practical prevention of the flood of unprovable and possibly unwitting damage: the "open whiteboard effect". Talk pages are there for a reason. I disagree that a registered user causing chaos is no more accountable than a bevy of swirling IPs, though. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or alternatively, you could accept that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and stop harrassing IP's to register. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Harassing"? Phew! Maybe hectoring to discuss first, a WP policy. IPs have long realized that messing around is fun and with no consequences. Leave stacks of markers on a public library table. Did it occur to you why scientists snort when they hear WP and send one to Scholarpedia, instead? Do you see IPs represented in talk pages? That's your solution to the central question I'm posing? Let anonymous and unresponsive IPs trash all they can without practical redress mechanisms? (Just take a look at the edit history of Quark: you think "whack-a-mole is fun and business as usual?) Routinely request dozens of page protections? Unintentionally you may be all but arguing for benign neglect of systematic degradation of articles. I insist on my challenge to you: How is one to protect technical pages from "playful" IP degradation without an army of patrollers --- who clearly fail in their job quite badly, at least in the technical pages of WP. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Quark, did you say? I would be more concerned about your edit that reintroduced vandalism into the article after an IP removed it. Another IP has since removed it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right on this one; but, of course, it illustrates my chaos of "whack-a-mole" I brought to your attention: I slipped a version in my revert, but, judging from the June 3 activity of the page, you do appreciate one's frustration. I would not like you to lose sight of the central point I am making here, however, that, if consensus is the central pillar of WP, how do you achieve consensus with anonymous figures in the night who will not talk to you?. I'm still waiting for an answer, rather than perorations on the rights of IPs. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you want the IPs to contribute constructively in Wikipedia, then you should have treated them nicely. Your attitude is disruptive and concerning. The problem with you is that you assume bad faith before assuming good faith. Outing IPs is not a valid reason for IPs to register in Wikipedia. It is their choice, not yours. I think Cuzkatzimhut must be topic banned + access to Twinkle revoked (if that's possible), to prevent this user from driving away more potentially constructive editors (which includes all IPs of course). IPs do not want to talk to you because they know that it will just be a waste of time for them. They already knew that you were hostile towards IPs. Pokéfan95 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Two small points. IPs do not talk to me, or you or anyone. If they do not use the Talk page, they throw their bricks in the night and nobody can talk to them. "Outing" is a silly hyperbole: I divulged public information, which WP provides to all and everyone uses. I have correlated malefactors hounding the same pages, from the same areas, though. I have not "outed" them, but considered their actions suitably. I do not assume bath faith automatically. But if you witness the depredations on important pages by the same characters that we encounter on technical pages and you advise for ignoring or coddling their bad behavior, so be it. Remember, though, you are advocating banning etc, for a registered account. If I were 200 IPs without an exact record of 10 years service, we would not be having this conversation. Before censorious rants try answering the central question I keep posing and reposing. What do you do? 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Cuzkatzimhut (talk)
- Plenty of IP's talk to people all the time. You are clearly naming their locations in order to chill/intimidate them into registering. Wikipedia has already determined that IP's can edit and that is a valid choice for them. This is a non-discussion. If you dont like having to deal with the occasional drive-by vandal, you are free to go to scholarpedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody said IPs should not edit. This is a canard you created by strenuous cherry-picking of my record. They should, however, stick to the same WP rules that registered editors do, and discuss their actions, not with me, but with all editors. Many do. We are discussing the ones that aggressively don't. I'm not in the business of intimidation---is anyone on this self-assembled crowd? IPs should be as accountable as anyone else: they are not a protected species. In fact, WP is encouraging them to register. I would beg you, however, to go back and look into why I barked to the people I did, and what recourse I had at the time. It is the question I keep asking, but nobody here dares face. And, no, we are not dealing with "occasional drive-by vandals", we are dealing with massive and routine rambunctious vandalism. If you feel you can get volunteers to reverse it by the thousands, why haven't you? Why do you rely on my likes? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly with what is Cuzkatzimhut being charged with, and what would be the appropriate consequences?
I see that one editor is above suggesting a topic ban. It is so downright stupid that my wristwatch just stopped.
Falling back on general hubbub about the merits of IP users is not going to do any good for the articles that are involved in this discussion. The fact that IP users on average improve WP articles does not mean that they improve all science articles. They don't, by far. The articles at most risk are the articles that I suspect Cuzkatzimhut's has on his/hers watchlist (probably mathematical physics related ones). Some of these benefit from IP edits, some don't. The "popular ones", like Quantum mechanics, decidedly do not. Others, highly technical ones, like Lie algebra extension do the few times they are edited, because they are sought up by experts only. Articles in more pure mathematics do not suffer badly from the same problem. The difference is that there seems to be a 10 to 1 mathematician to mathematical physicist ratio. The mathematicians take turns reverting bad IP edits.
The above paragraph highlights the prevailing situation for the articles involved here. You have a one to many ratio of competent editors to incompetent editors. I am much less concerned with some IP's feelings getting hurt for being reverted than concerned about the articles. And, face it, it is the revert itself that hurts. Nobody likes being told they are wrong (even when they are). That same person just cannot feel personally offended by being told why he/she is wrong. This thread actually proves me wrong. The OP does feel offended enough to "punish" a competent editor. Wow! No! Really, this IP is just hurt for being reverted, just like anyone else, and is after revenge - not like anyone else.
Now it is suggested by some that all accounts, including non-accounts, are to be treated equal. Guess what? They are!. If you make a bad edit as a named user, you'll be reverted – sometimes in a rather derogatory fashion. If just a fraction of the, shall we say "sharply formulated", edit summaries I have encountered directed to named editors would have made it to the admin noticeboard, then I'd be gone, whether I'd be the "victim" or not. The problem would not the "sharply formulated" edit summaries, it would be the intolerable habit of bringing minuscule near-nonsense issues to the admin noticeboard that would be the problem.
If any user is feeling that proper discussion cannot be made in the edit summary, and that simply leaving the comment field empty is too weak, then I support that editor in formulating things sharply. It may deter the IP from making further bad edits. This is good. We aren't interested in the bad future edits. We are interested in future good edits. Sharp reverts prevent the bad future edits and encourage the good future edits. YohanN7 (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for arriving late. (My own laptop has died so I have to use other computers when possible/allowed). I really don't understand why the IP says "I've got better things to do with my life than wiki-lawyering". Well why make such a fuss here then (of all places)? Cuzkatzimhut is not a random idiot editor like me, but a reputable expert in the articles he edits. Nothing he does is offensive or destructive. His dialogue may seem unusual (even to me), but it is not "rude". A number of other editors (some IPs, some registered users) have before taken Cuz as offensive exactly as the above IP has done here. If you can't tolerate his language/behavior you have a very low threshold. All this silly "political correctness" and "treating each other nicely" is never going to happen. If anyone thinks of it, there should be NO topic ban on Cuz, we're lacking valuable editors and some have been driven away just because they were impolite. This pointless thread should be closed a.s.a.p. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Legal threat
WP:NLT says: "Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator.". In this case there is reason to believe it is a hoax, but it is a legal threat anyway. I have no experience dealing with this kinda stuff, so I will just leave this message here, someone here probably knows what to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- He says that his rights have been 'allegedly' infringed, not that he will necessarilly do anything about it. And in any case, it appears he was correct to do so- the material he pointed out has been removed? Muffled Pocketed 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- User Sjö wrote: "this appears to be a hoax by user:Neha0974". User utcursch wrote: "Pardon my language, but this is bullshit.". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- User Neha0974 wrote: "I have a good faith belief that none of the materials or activities listed above have been authorized by me, or the law.I hereby give notice of these activities to you and request that you take expeditious action to remove or disable access to the material described above, and thereby prevent the unauthorized distribution and use of my materials. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Seems like a legal threat to me... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your user page seems chock-full of WP:copyvios. Muffled Pocketed 13:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also as you say, it should be reported 'elsewhere to an administrator.' Why bring it here when there was already an admin 'on-site'? Ian.thomson is well aware of his role and its nuances. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- If I see a bunch of usernames it is not immediately clear who is and who is not an admin. Not all admins deal with everything, they are volunteers. Many stick to one or more areas they prefer. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I was wondering if anyone else considered it a legal threat. The individual was hoaxing us, claiming copyright on stuff that she stole from us. There wasn't any explicit "I'll sue you" language, however. Buuut... Between the two, I spent a while trying to figure out the exact reason to block her for but was (and am) tired and got distracted by other things. I need to turn in (should have a couple hours ago), so I'm not going to be the blocking admin on this case (though I'm not seeing how we can assume enough good faith from the copyright-hoaxer to leave her unblocked). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that ?she has completely wasted a shed-load of editors' time- propably intentionally, and certainly not caring if so- and is almost certainly not here to help; however, apropos the OP, I thnk we have to be vey clear as to what exactly constitutes a breach of WP:NLT. Sleep well! Muffled Pocketed 14:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Simple. Block her per WP:NOTHERE. If they're posting hoaxes like that, then they're obviously here for the sole purpose of being disruptive.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that ?she has completely wasted a shed-load of editors' time- propably intentionally, and certainly not caring if so- and is almost certainly not here to help; however, apropos the OP, I thnk we have to be vey clear as to what exactly constitutes a breach of WP:NLT. Sleep well! Muffled Pocketed 14:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&type=revision&diff=723896716&oldid=723888959 The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Off site canvassing
- Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bringing this to the attention of others for comment. Chris Kyle is currently the locus of an entrenched content dispute, with multiple edit warriors, disruption and blatant POV-pushing. It has been alleged that there have been attempts made off-wiki to recruit people to join the talk page to "stop the Libtards" from "stealing American Sniper's valor". Without naming names or pointing fingers, I felt it was appropriate to add {{Template:Recruiting}} This diff, which might require oversight, along with the relevant file (I'm not certain about how that policy applies in this instance) is yet more evidence of canvassing. Winkelvi and DHeyward, have both persisted in attempts to remove the template from the page [10] [11] [12] [13]. The template's tone is neutral; would someone please explain to them that it should not be removed, or explain to me why it should be removed. The whole page is a rats' nest, with some serious sub-par behaviour. Keri (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see: 3 doxing attempts, no evidence that there is canvassing, a bad faith SPI filed against me and then a thinly veiled template trying to support the doxing as valid. Look at the edit summaries of the editors replacing it[14]. Your supporter was blocked and you asked for multiple sanctions at 3RR (didn't happen) so now you are forum shopping/canvassing it here? If you were the one to add that template, please take it down as its main purpose seems to be to perpetuate the doxing and casting aspersions that were in three hatted discussions - whatever your intent, that's what the editor justified its existence with. All the offsite links were blanked before I could even see them but the 3 doxing attempts was apparently somebody with the last name of "Heyward" is on Facebook and you chimed in that it was "troubling." Meanwhile the only new editor was the IP that came to warn us. It was semi-protected so the warnings, doxing and newbie contributions stopped which was when you decided to add the template. For what purpose? It seems the effect was only to perpetuate harassment of me. --DHeyward (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also there is hardly any dispute. The article has been stable for a over a year. We are waiting on the Navy to address the concerns raised and following consensus until consensus changes. The person that was not doing that is sitting out for a week. --DHeyward (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've already made it very clear that I don't think any of the main actors from that page are involved in canvassing. The screenshot provided bears no resemblance to your name or anyone else's involved in that page. As for multiple sanctions, yes, I think you should have been sanctioned for edit warring. But that's by the by: you were lucky. The fact remains that an external website is encouraging people of a particular POV to edit the page. The template informs them about consensus and !vote. Keri (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- For reference, it was doxing and anyone who's been here long enough will see it (I've been completely doxed before). It was lame and false, but not unrelated. Second, if you want to cry out that you think something should be oversighted, don't post the accusations and links on ANI. It perpetuates the harassment as do templates that call attention to it. --DHeyward (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- It won't be oversighted unless someone asks for it to be oversighted. FYI I was unaware of anyone attempting to out your identity, either past or present. I didn't upload the image to commons, but I tagged it for speedy deletion. It is only because someone has just emailed me that I have any inkling what you're talking about. Keri (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- For reference, it was doxing and anyone who's been here long enough will see it (I've been completely doxed before). It was lame and false, but not unrelated. Second, if you want to cry out that you think something should be oversighted, don't post the accusations and links on ANI. It perpetuates the harassment as do templates that call attention to it. --DHeyward (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've already made it very clear that I don't think any of the main actors from that page are involved in canvassing. The screenshot provided bears no resemblance to your name or anyone else's involved in that page. As for multiple sanctions, yes, I think you should have been sanctioned for edit warring. But that's by the by: you were lucky. The fact remains that an external website is encouraging people of a particular POV to edit the page. The template informs them about consensus and !vote. Keri (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
if dheyward says its doxing, isn't he basically admitted he is the person doing the posting on facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotWolf359 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted. baseballbugs i just registered yesterday bcuz it wouldnt let me provide the screen otherwise last time i posted people asked for a screen why are you being insulting?
- As this can no longer be discussed openly, I have emailed ArbCom instead. Closure seems sensible and prudent as the incidents can't be solved or discussed here. Keri (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, no. I am not posting on facebook. The hideous thing about doxing is the "prove the negative" condition where I must reveal my IRL identity. It's why we have strict policies on doxing which you (patriotwolf) are violating. How much personal information are you requiring me to provide? --DHeyward (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
if you claim it is doxing you are saying someone is providing your identity which means youre the one posting to facebook trying to get people to come slam the rfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotWolf359 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Attempted outing is against the rules, no matter whether the information is true or false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Agree. The consequence for WP:OUTING is severe, and immediate. Let it be executed immediately. Muffled Pocketed 16:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Keri was warned yesterday by admin [16] to stop pursuing. Keri ignored an awful lot to perpetuate this attempted outing including the 3 hatted discussions on the talk page. The warning was specifically for a boomerang. Everything Keri has done including the templates, is to call attention to it. Now Keri is trying to deflect a boomerang by saying she emailed ArbCom but for what purpose? It seems to me as if that's an attempt to only bring it to another forum in the hope that it will deflect an outing sanction here that she was warned about. --DHeyward (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the editor that was blocked for edit warring, that Keri was supporting, has now been indeffed for being a sock [17]. His previous socks have a history of creating Joe Job accounts as "proof" of recruitment and collusion [18]. Had Keri heeded the warning, the socks agenda would not have been advanced. --DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The warning was directed at PVJ, not me. My response in that thread is here. For someone who is so concerned that they are being outed, you really are the only one who is still waving a banner and drawing attention to that which you claim outs you. You haven't requested any oversights, it was me that requested the screenshots on Commons be speedied, and after I was emailed by another editor making me aware of pertinent information I said this should be closed, and emailed ArbCom instead. I think you are a thoroughly unpleasant person, and your behaviour throughout this dispute has been appalling; I wouldn't attempt to deliberately out you, however. As you have effectively trumped any discussion about off site canvassing, I suggest you drop the stick. Keri (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, Keri, my behaviour was not appalling and was quite reserved considering the invective and accusations being launched at me by the now indeffed PVJ. I didn't see the image until I saw you linked it here. I don't particularly care about the information being oversighted. I do care about the behaviour that continued to thoroughly enable unpleasant editors like PVJ to continue their crusade. I'm sorry you don't see your role in this mess as enabling a now banned Joe Jobbing sockpuppet. Previously, under a different account, he doctored IRC logs to make it appear as if a WP editor was canvassing him. There simply was no canvassing - it was a ruse to foment discord. I realize you were likely duped by this person and not being malicious but if you come out of this with a polarized view, then his trolling was successful. --DHeyward (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Making bogus "outing" accusations is most certainly appalling, and it is offensive to those of us who have suffered legit outing attempts. At the very worst, you had someone impersonate you off-wiki and post your (not private) information on Facebook; at best, you engaged in off-wiki canvassing and are trying to blame it on someone else. This very clearly is not outing, and the fact that someone who doesn't like you has been blocked for sockpuppetry is an off-topic red herring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- What part of outing policy didn't you understand? If I posted on-wiki to a facebook post by someone named Hijiri and claimed it was you, that's outing. It's not a hard policy to understand. Impersonatiton is also classical harassment. It's reprehensible that you are supporting it and even giving it credence. --DHeyward (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a nebulous area. I have had one oversighter claim that providing links on-wiki to off-wiki profiles is not outing, then a different oversighter claim the opposite. From casual conversation it appears some are under the impression that on-wiki "DHeyward is person 'Dobby Heyward'" would be outing, but "DHeyward is account 'dobbyheywardfacebookprofile' is not. The relevant part of WP:Outing is "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- (This entire comment is directed at DHeyward, depite the indentation.) No, if you claimed someone on Facebook called Hijiri was me, I would take it as a joke, as Hijiri is very obviously not my real name. It would technically kinda-sorta fall under the broad definition of outing given on WP:OUT, but even if I tried to get someone blocked for it it probably wouldn't work out for me. Now, if I edited Wikipedia under my real name and someone linked to a post I made off-wiki under the same name, it most definitely would be outing, but if I emailed oversight they would tell me it's my own fault for choosing to edit Wikipedia under my real name (please don't force me to partially out myself by explaining how I know this). Now, if I edited Wikipedia under my real name, and I posted publicly on Facebook about my Wikipedia activity, in a manner that violated Wikipedia policy, and someone linked to this and said it was probably me, then I would get blocked and or TBANned, and the person who kinda-sorta technically outed me would probably get off with a soft warning.
- Note: I don't think "D. Heyward" is your real name, and I doubt it was you who posted on Facebook. But if it weren't for a load of peripheral stuff related to sockpuppetry and users who were blocked before this even started, I think the user who "outed" you would not be blocked for it, as all they did was post a link to what very much looks like off-site canvassing, which is usually considered to be acceptable even if it is sometimes kinda-sorta in breach of the outing policy. Again, please look at the actual cases I linked to above, one of which came before ArbCom and the other of which involved a CU-enabled editor "outing" a user by connecting their "pseudonymous" account with their real-world identity. This is not as black and white as you seem to think.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- These weasel-worded excuses for outing and harassment are just that. If I posted a like to a real world identity and said it was you, that's a violation of WP:OUT. Unlike your claim, none of the blocks had occurred before this ANI. That's why the drive by poster, (blocked after his comment) was making claims that the FB poster was me. That was done in this thread. Read it. Facebook is real life identities. It would be even worse if I made up s Facebook identity with, put "wiki name is Hijiri88" on the facebook profile and started posting to extremist groups to discredit you. That's what just happened to me. You still think that would be okay? How about if after that, we all just said "It's probably not you but let's put up this generic template just in case." I was fortunate that it turned out the harassers were caught so I wouldn't have to prove anything as you seem to suggest is necessary. And yes, I have been doxxed in much more insidious and direct ways when the wiki part was just the beginning. I am not looking for a block for Keri. She was duped. But the lesson doesn't appear to have been learned given the excuses you keep making. --DHeyward (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not outing You seem to believe that the Facebook post was made by someone who disliked your Wikipedia edits impersonating you, and you may well be right. If you are right, however, then what happened here definitely is not outing. Someone used the information you posted on-wiki to pretend, briefly, to be you on an external site. Outing involves posting your off-wiki information on Wikipedia; posting your on-wiki information on Facebook is the opposite of outing. While saying "Your real name is D. Heyward, isn't it? Are you this person on Facebook?" is a violation of the letter of WP:OUT, if you had been engaged in off-site canvassing it would not be considered a form of harassment, and if it was the person who said this impersonating you off-site then there was neither intention nor effect to out you according to the spirit of the policy. You are the one being a wiki-lawyer here, not me. I am not saying I approve of what was done; I am saying that it is not outing, and that you are using what was done to you apparently by an already-blocked user to attack everyone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- These weasel-worded excuses for outing and harassment are just that. If I posted a like to a real world identity and said it was you, that's a violation of WP:OUT. Unlike your claim, none of the blocks had occurred before this ANI. That's why the drive by poster, (blocked after his comment) was making claims that the FB poster was me. That was done in this thread. Read it. Facebook is real life identities. It would be even worse if I made up s Facebook identity with, put "wiki name is Hijiri88" on the facebook profile and started posting to extremist groups to discredit you. That's what just happened to me. You still think that would be okay? How about if after that, we all just said "It's probably not you but let's put up this generic template just in case." I was fortunate that it turned out the harassers were caught so I wouldn't have to prove anything as you seem to suggest is necessary. And yes, I have been doxxed in much more insidious and direct ways when the wiki part was just the beginning. I am not looking for a block for Keri. She was duped. But the lesson doesn't appear to have been learned given the excuses you keep making. --DHeyward (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a nebulous area. I have had one oversighter claim that providing links on-wiki to off-wiki profiles is not outing, then a different oversighter claim the opposite. From casual conversation it appears some are under the impression that on-wiki "DHeyward is person 'Dobby Heyward'" would be outing, but "DHeyward is account 'dobbyheywardfacebookprofile' is not. The relevant part of WP:Outing is "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- What part of outing policy didn't you understand? If I posted on-wiki to a facebook post by someone named Hijiri and claimed it was you, that's outing. It's not a hard policy to understand. Impersonatiton is also classical harassment. It's reprehensible that you are supporting it and even giving it credence. --DHeyward (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Making bogus "outing" accusations is most certainly appalling, and it is offensive to those of us who have suffered legit outing attempts. At the very worst, you had someone impersonate you off-wiki and post your (not private) information on Facebook; at best, you engaged in off-wiki canvassing and are trying to blame it on someone else. This very clearly is not outing, and the fact that someone who doesn't like you has been blocked for sockpuppetry is an off-topic red herring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, Keri, my behaviour was not appalling and was quite reserved considering the invective and accusations being launched at me by the now indeffed PVJ. I didn't see the image until I saw you linked it here. I don't particularly care about the information being oversighted. I do care about the behaviour that continued to thoroughly enable unpleasant editors like PVJ to continue their crusade. I'm sorry you don't see your role in this mess as enabling a now banned Joe Jobbing sockpuppet. Previously, under a different account, he doctored IRC logs to make it appear as if a WP editor was canvassing him. There simply was no canvassing - it was a ruse to foment discord. I realize you were likely duped by this person and not being malicious but if you come out of this with a polarized view, then his trolling was successful. --DHeyward (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The warning was directed at PVJ, not me. My response in that thread is here. For someone who is so concerned that they are being outed, you really are the only one who is still waving a banner and drawing attention to that which you claim outs you. You haven't requested any oversights, it was me that requested the screenshots on Commons be speedied, and after I was emailed by another editor making me aware of pertinent information I said this should be closed, and emailed ArbCom instead. I think you are a thoroughly unpleasant person, and your behaviour throughout this dispute has been appalling; I wouldn't attempt to deliberately out you, however. As you have effectively trumped any discussion about off site canvassing, I suggest you drop the stick. Keri (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment Posting a link to off-site canvassing that explicitly mentions a Wikipedia RFC is not in itself a form of OUTing, and indeed is commendable both as detective-work and as contextualization for anything that comes out of said off-site canvassing. Speculating as to the real-world identity of a particular Wikipedia user is a form of OUTing, but depending on the circumstances the consequences need not necessarily be "severe, and immediate". In cases where someone posts in a public forum under their real name and explicitly states their Wikipedia username in an attempt to get around Wikipedia conduct guidelines (including those related to canvassing), linking to this off-site canvassing is indeed a form of outing, but the real culprit and the one who will likely get the short end of the consequence stick is the user who outed themselves in order to engage in off-site canvassing. In this case, it would appear that the off-site canvassing did not mention the canvasser's Wikipedia username, so linking is not itself outing, as there is no attempt made to link a Wikipedia user with a real-life person. (What Patriotwolf did in this thread is indeed outing and blockworthy.) If, as in the historical Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashumon and Fearofreprisal/Jesus historicity/Reddit cases, there is only one user on one side of an on-wiki dispute and this user publicly canvasses off-site and effectively outs themselves, linking to such discussion is effectively outing, but I have never heard of anyone being sanctioned for this. In this case, it would appear that the canvasser did not explicitly connect their username to their real-world identity on- or off-wiki, and there is more than one person on each side of the on-wiki dispute, so whether "outing" took place in the now-collapsed talk page discussions is ... questionable, at worst. Canvassing off-wiki, and then attempting to silence all discussion of discussion of said canvassing by making bogus accusations of "outing" is highly disruptive, and I am certain if this came before ArbCom that would be seen as worthy of sanction. Indeed, if it appears that someone deliberately posted off-wiki using their real name, with the intention of shouting down all accusations of off-site canvassing as "outing attempts", this is a severe offense and warrants heavy sanctions.
- And I don't want anyone claiming I am not sensitive to the nuances of OUTing. I know how bad legit OUTing is. I had my parents' home address posted on-wiki, and I was also deeply involved in the two cases of off-wiki canvassing linked above.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: And I hope you would be offended if someone implied it might have been you posting your parents address in order to game the system. Did you read the talk page Talk:Chris Kyle? Did you see the editor that is now blocked has a history of Joe Job accounts (i.e they went to the trouble of creating two facebook accounts with an attempt to create a likeness to wiki editors). They post to an extremist group, screenshot it and then come to wiki to "warn" us of off-site canvassing with an insinuation that the likeness in name points to a wiki editor. It's the same thing that the sockmaster has done before. Please don't say you understand the policy and then dismiss it. I didn't close any of three discussions that called it outing and missed seeing the evidence as the links were dead. I only called it out when I removed the "canvassing" template was calling attention to it. There is no canvassing as the Joe Job sock account was responsible for it as well as edit warring. Keri keeps claiming the template is okay and has brought it to no less than 3 forums in support of the sockpuppet that only has Keri's support. Please tell me you understand how acquiescing to the demands of the Joe Jobbing sock is disruptive, further invites more doxing attempts and destroys the collegial editing atmosphere. Keri's second sentence in this ANI is "Without naming names or pointing fingers" - is pretty self-evident that she knew the accusations of canvasing was an outing attempt. "Gaming" is very much involved when an editor is aware of an outing attempt but cloaks material support for that attempt and calls attention to it after being asked to stop.
- Here's Keri's edit after the outing attempt [19] - read and tell me if you think there are no fingers being pointed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: I'm confused -- are you accusing someone of trying to frame you for canvassing by impersonating you off-wiki, or are you accusing them of attempting to out you by linking to a post you actually made yourself? These two seem mutually exclusive, but...? Or are you accusing someone of trying to 'out' you by impersonating you off-wiki and speculating that the name you use on-wiki is your real name? Outing, as defined on WP:OUT, would involve posting (or attempting to post) your off-wiki information on Wikipedia, not posting your on-wiki information on Facebook. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: Someone created an offsite account with a likeness to my wiki account. They posted a recruitment message in some group and then came on wiki basically saying it was me. Posting a link to an offsite account claiming it is a WP editor, whether that information true or false, is a violation of WP:OUT policy. I didn't see the post, only the accusation by the IP that it was me. You should read the diff and policy again. Not mutually exclusive. Luckily, they linked the editor to a sock known for Joe Jobbing. Your line of questioning was the logical next step in "proving" it was false is having to answer whether my wiki name is my real name or not. Read the on-wiki diff [[20]]. Pretty clear-cut vio by the IP. --DHeyward (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: I'm confused -- are you accusing someone of trying to frame you for canvassing by impersonating you off-wiki, or are you accusing them of attempting to out you by linking to a post you actually made yourself? These two seem mutually exclusive, but...? Or are you accusing someone of trying to 'out' you by impersonating you off-wiki and speculating that the name you use on-wiki is your real name? Outing, as defined on WP:OUT, would involve posting (or attempting to post) your off-wiki information on Wikipedia, not posting your on-wiki information on Facebook. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not personally seeing any deliberate attempted outing, but I do see cause for concern about the fairly obvious canvassing, posted in several FB places. Since the evidence has apparently been deleted (except for quoted text here [21]), I don't see that there's much further need for non-admins to opine here on the outing-vs.-canvassing debate. Now that the alleged canvassing has been noted, and the article full-protected, and presumably eyes are on the TP and RfC for SPAs etc., I think this whole debate can possibly be put to rest -- or admins should settle it. I'm more concerned about the blatantly non-neutral RfC statement. In my opinion, that RfC needs to be scrapped completely and re-opened without the POV text. It is for !voters to decide what is or isn't a reliable source (and an autobiography certainly fails as an independent automatically reliable source), not the framer of the RfC. This can also be taken up at WP:RSN. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: There was no canvassing. Joe Job sock puppet (now blocked) sowing seeds of mistrust which the template was a part. This [22] is part of the problem. Am I the only one seeing fingerpointing and an attempt to link me to offsite accounts by the Joe Jobber? --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fun fact: PatriotWolf359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a possible sock of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked as a likely sock of SkepticAnonymous - sure brings back old memories. GABgab 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Can an admin please semi-protect Operation Barbarossa? / HarveyCarter socks
It is coming under sustained vandalism by the well known banned user Harvey Carter. Thanks! Irondome (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:81.132.48.174 and User:165.120.240.166 quack very loudly: same HarveyCarter MO, same HarveyCarter location in the UK. The 81 IP is edit warring against four other editors on Operation Barbarossa. I dropped a note on Bbb23's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be around right now. BMK (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:81.159.6.158. BMK (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by Dennis Brown for 90 days. Sorted. Irondome (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, sorta sorted. Dennis also blocked 81.132, but 165.120 and 81.159 are still free to edit. (Sorry, Irondome, I re-opened your close, since there is still an issue not yet dealt with.) BMK (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by Dennis Brown for 90 days. Sorted. Irondome (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:81.159.6.158. BMK (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Valley Center Western Days/Valley Center Days
- Vchero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vcwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Valley Center Western Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Valley Center Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yesterday, new account Vchero started to overwrite content at the Valley Center Western Days article, alleging that the event had been renamed. The website is still up for the old name, and shows a 2016 iteration of the event and plans for 2017. Another editor and I both reverted the changes, with various cautions about providing independent sourcing.
Today, Vchero created an article on Valley Center Days. I tagged that article for A7 speedy deletion; that's still pending.
Meanwhile, the Valley Center Western Days article was nominated for deletion, and I've !voted there. (That's one reason why I'm reluctant to take direct administrative action against the users now.)
Vchero is alternately said Western Days is not an event [23] or not a sanctioned event [24]. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Vchero is editing from a point-of-view position that Valley Center Days is the "rightful" heir to the history of the Valley Center Western Days event.
Into the fray today comes user Vcwd, who hadn't been active since 2013. That user's only edits today have been to my user talk page.
Something squirrelly is going on here, and I'd like extra admin eyes on the situation. (IMHO, it reads like there's been some sort of split or name dispute with two rival organizations putting on Valley Center Western Days and Valley Center Days, and they've taken their dispute to the Wikipedia article(s) now.) My concerns are these:
- Has Vchero's conduct reached a level where sanctions are warranted? Or, can somebody help mentor him through the NPOV (and possibly COI) guidelines?
- Is the Valley Center Days article subject to CSD A7, or should it be nominated for deletion discussion as well?
- Does Vcwd need some guidance regarding NPOV and COI?
- Does Vcwd need to change usernames? If so, should they do so now or after the AfD is resolved?
Like I said, a lot of things going on, and I feel too involved to apply the mop here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- This debate has divided our town. There is only one event, and that is the sanctioned Valley Center Days, which includes a rodeo, parade, and festival. VCWD and Justin760 are both from Roadrunner Publications, a privately owned, for-profit corporation attempting to profit off the event by trying to trademarking the name "Valley Center Western Days", which was the previous name of the event, so he could control all media output on the event. This is being legally contested by the true event organizers[1], who are responsible for putting on the non-profit event each year. Justin's 'ownership' of the name is the sole reason for changing it. VCWD and Justin760 (who are actually the same person, in case you're wondering why he magically popped up) own and manage the websites for Valley Roadrunner, Valley Center History Museum, Valley Center Rotary Club, Valley Center Western Days, and countless others. The sources on the Valley Center Western Days pages were published and written by him. He is the only newspaper in town who does not recognize the name change [2] [3]. His ownership of the name prevents him from publishing correct information, as he refuses to recognize the name change due to his financial interests vested in the previous name. He also refuses to recognize other news sources, as his newspaper would be threatened by acknowledging another news source in town. I have documented proof of the name change, recognition from community THIRD PARTY organizations, and the 2016 Valley Center Days parade, rodeo, and festival that just came to a conclusion. There is no rival organization, there is Valley Center Days (the true event organizers) and the owner of Roadrunner Publications (who has NEVER organized the parade, rodeo, or festival). There is no Valley Center Western Days anymore, Valley Center Days used to be Western Days, but it had to be changed. There was no Valley Center Western Days festival this year, and there never will be again due to Roadrunner Publications. Vchero (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- A sad story, but for any of it to be included in a Wikipedia articles, you are going to need citations from third-party reliable sources to back it up. We cannot go by what you "know" is true, nor can we accept your interpretation of events at face value - or theirs, for that matter. I suggest that the article be rolled back to a previous version before the brouhaha began, and fully protected from editing until things can be sorted out. Edit requests should not be accepted if they're not accompanied by unaligned third party reliable sources. BMK (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have cited multiple reliable third party sources, unlike the other user, who only uses self-published sources. All of my references in my article are verifiable- you can contact ANY of them, and my information will be backed up. If you contact the sources on VCWD, you will only be in contact with Justin760, the owner of Roadrunner Publications. I am not affiliated with any private corporations. I have proven without a reasonable doubt that the event is named Valley Center Days, and that the attempted trademark of the name by Justin is illegal, especially considering it isn't even connected to the event anymore. Check my references on Valley Center Days, everything is in order and everything is true, and I can verify that. Vchero (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here is proof that he is the owner of the Valley Roadrunner and Roadrunner publications on another one of his self-promoting wiki articles[4], here is proof that he is attempting to trademark the name "Valley Center Western Days" and is being legally contested [5], here is proof that he purchased ficticious business names for events, organizations, and businesses he does not own [6] [7] [8] [9], here are editorials on another news source condemning his actions [10] [11], here is other news sources and community organizations recognizing the event as "Valley Center Days" [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], here is an article asking for Valley Center Days parade entries using the correct website [18], here is the announcement for the name change on another news source in town[19], here is where he 'donates' the trademark "Valley Center Western Days", which he DOES NOT OWN, to the Valley Center History Museum (whose website he owns and manages) [20], although he still filed the trademark under Roadrunner Publications, Inc. [21], this is his OWN PUBLICATION claiming that Valley Center Days is the new name for the event and that he owns and manages westerndays.org, which is not the offical website [22], and here is the official Valley Center Days website, owned and maintained by the cordinators of the true event [23]. If this is still not enough for you, then I have no idea what could convince you that Justin760 is posting articles on wikipedia for his own financial gain. He even acknowledges the change in his own newspaper [24]. I urge you to delete all wikipedia articles he has started that reroute to his newspaper with his self published sources, including Valley Center Western Days, Valley Center History Museum, and Valley Roadrunner, as they are blatant advertising and meant to deceive the community. Vchero (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark
- ^ Veterans Sought for Parade
- ^ About Men Behaving Badly
- ^ Valley Roadrunner
- ^ Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark
- ^ Ficticious Business Names Under Roadrunner Publications, Inc.
- ^ Ficticious Business Names Under Valley Roadrunner, Inc.
- ^ Ficticious Business Names Under The Valley Roadrunner, Inc.
- ^ Ficticious Business Names Under Salter, Justin
- ^ About Men Behaving Badly
- ^ VC Magazine Flouts Journalitic Integrity
- ^ Veterans Sought for Parade
- ^ Valley Center Days Event Listed on Church Calender
- ^ Invitation to Valley Center Days
- ^ Valley Center Chamber Recognizing Valley Center Days in May, with Official Website Cited
- ^ Shuttle Bus Available for Valley Center Days
- ^ Valley Center Chamber of Commerce Supports Valley Center Days Parade and Program
- ^ Valley Center Days Parade Applications Due by May 7th
- ^ Valley Center Parade Co-chair Participants Re-brand Community Event
- ^ Roadrunner Donates Western Days Trademark to Museum
- ^ Request for Extension of Time to Contest Trademark
- ^ Western Days is Out, Valley Center Days is in: Bill Trok Announces New Name for Festival
- ^ Valley Center Days Official Website
- ^ Western Days is Out, Valley Center Days is in: Bill Trok Announces New Name for Festival
- Note. The individual typing info above is associated with ValleyCenterHappenings, a local blog that has been extremely threatened by the larger media organization. The individuals have consistently attempted to discredit their competition, with to no avail. The newly created user clearly is attempting to have their competion, a real newspaper and publishing business that covers numerous community's and city's, and legit article, removed from Wiki. In addition, this newly created user is attempting to have the local museum page/article removed. This shows malice and true agenda and should be considered a violation of wiki NPA policy and new page violation of ATP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcwd (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the solution is to delete both of these articles and encourage the two sides to take their argument elsewhere. We don't need to play host to play-by-play coverage of a small-town spat over a festival. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note. I am not affiliated with any news source whatsoever. Valley Center Happenings is not a blog, it is a local e-news source and competition for the printed paper so he refuses to recognize it (especially considering it has been drawing more people and sponsors than print), and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I would be happy with Valley Center Days being deleted, but ONLY if all articles (and future articles) affiliated with Valley Roadrunner, Valley Center History Museum, and Roadrunner Publications (i.e.: Justin Salter/Justin760) are deleted as well. Vchero (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I say delete both pages, and if they are recreated in their current sorry state without reliable third-party sources then salt them and block whoever it was who recreated them. No opinion on the other pages the new account wants deleted, as I haven't looked at them -- they may be just as bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree delete We are not the colosseum; WP:TNT those articles until editors independent and removed from the festival and its partisans want to work on it. Muffled Pocketed 10:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Check the other pages I mention, (Valley Center History Museum and Valley Roadrunner). 4/5 of the links on Valley Roadrunner are self-published by Justin/Vcwd, and 3/4 of the links on Valley Center History Museum are as well (Note: he owns anything made by Valley Roadrunner, Times Advocate, or Valley Center History Museum/Valley Center Historical Society. Also, he refuses to allow up to date information of Valley Center Days on the Valley Center, California article. I've proven that anything citing Valley Roadrunner or the History Museum is only meant for ambiguous advertising. Valley Center Western Days does not exist, it has been proven multiple times that the new name of the event is Valley Center Days, recognized by everyone except the Roadrunner. I can provide whatever you need to validate that, unlike Justin, who can only provide self-published sources. As long as "Valley Roadrunner", "Valley Center History Museum", and "Valley Center Western Days" get permanently removed, as well as "Valley Center, California" having the correct, up-to-date information on our Memorial Day event (Valley Center Days), I do not mind "Valley Center Days" being deleted (it is not notable or global enough to be mentioned, but neither is a small town newspaper, a tiny museum, or an event that no longer exists). But if the other pages stand, which is clearly advertising for Roadrunner Publications, there is no reason to remove my article, especially considering none of my sources are self-published, and all are from reliable third party associations which validate my claims. Vchero (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like he also has another page, "Times Advocate", which is also ambiguous advertising for Roadrunner Publications. Anything citing Valley Roadrunner, Roadrunner Publications, or Valley Center History Museum should be deleted instantly. Vchero (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note. I apologize to the admins reading the drama created by this new user. As the admin stated, nobody cares who owns what. There's an apparent agenda by this new user. Valley Roadrunner and Times-Advocate are both physical print legally adjudicated newspapers. Admins Vchero contribution and talk history should be reviewed. As a new account, there are a lot of spam/vandalism alerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin760 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note I apologize that you all have been lied to and deceived to the point of believing the user above. I also apologize to take up your time, but this person has been causing an unholy amount of problems for the Rodeo Committee and other organizations putting on the event. The church and Optimist Club in charge of the parade has been met with unbridled criticism and hate on Justin's many deceiving pages, which are only designed to reroute back to Valley Roadrunner. Note how all citations that Justin and Western Days provides are affiliated with Roadrunner Publications in some way. Also, most of the "alerts" left on my page were put there by Justin, and many are just small cliparts of random pictures and some hyperlinks that he throws around. All of my edits were constructive and entirely correct. I even tried to cite a reference on a museum expansion, but since the newspaper was not under Roadrunner Publications, he deleted it. It is very obvious that he only has articles up to support his own paper and add links that all route to the Roadrunner. If you notice, he has made it so that whenever someone attempts to find the correct informations, they always somehow end up at his misleading pages. He told many parents that they could just show up with their kids for one of the children's events in the rodeo, which was false (you have to sign up), and they had plenty of screaming, sad kids and upset parents due to him. He also sold advertising in his unofficial program under the impression they were sponsoring the real event. This is absolutely insane. I can prove everything I have said, and yet Justin has absolutely no basis for an argument. It shouldn't be so hard to have a non-profit event intended for benefiting the youth of our community, and Roadrunner Publications should not try to intercept the proceeds that are meant for scholarships and various youth activities. Vchero (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is a significant conflict of interest issue here. If User:Justin760 is the Justin Salter who owns the Valley Roadrunner, he should stop editing that page or any related pages, and should certainly not be inserting external links to his businesses or websites. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- For example, in this edit, Justin760 reverted Vchero's insertion of links to an apparent competitor's website with the edit summary "Spamming of References," but in this previous edit, Justin760 inserted links to the commercial website he apparently owns. There are no clean hands here. We have two sides of a small-town argument each trying to use Wikipedia articles to fight their battle, and both Justin760 and Vchero should refrain from it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will cease all edits and turn my article "Valley Center Days" over to admins so long as Justin Salter and all of his affiliates (Justin760, VCWD, and probably countless others) are banned from further editing as all of his edits have been to promote his private business and attempt to retain the previous name (that he owns). If all of his articles containing or citing Valley Roadrunner / Roadrunner Publications (Valley Center History Museum, Times Advocate, Valley Center Western Days, and Valley Roadrunner) are permanently deleted from Wikipedia, I have no problem with whatever the administrators decide to do with my corrective article. Vchero (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it primarily seems to be a content dispute, but there's the ancilliary issue of whether one (or both) of the parties are editing with a COI. Superficially, the answer seems to be "yes". BMK (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please refer back to my four concerns at the top of this report. Yes, there is a secondary content issue, in that I was asking for an independent administrator to confirm the CSD A7—but only because I did not feel sufficiently uninvolved to delete it myself. My primary concerns, though, were a mixture of NPOV and COI, plus a username concern. This is now compounded by some possible privacy concerns. If this were an ordinary content dispute, I'd never have brought this here; however, the interplay of COI, username concerns, and repeated reverts made it seem like it was better to come here for "one-stop shopping" rather than file multiple reports at WP:COIN, WP:UAA, and WP:AN3.In all honesty, if I could figure out the IRC system, I'd have asked for help there and never started a thread here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it primarily seems to be a content dispute, but there's the ancilliary issue of whether one (or both) of the parties are editing with a COI. Superficially, the answer seems to be "yes". BMK (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, there are several issues here. First, I'm not sure why DGG declined the speedy deletion of [25] of the "new" article Valley Center Days created by User:Vchero. True, C.Fred's original rationale of A7 (no indication of importance) did not apply but it clearly qualifies under A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). This article was created 2 days ago duplicates the topic and basic content of Valley Center Western Days which was created 4 years ago and is now at AfD. Someone now needs to start an AfD for the new article or speedy delete it under A10. In the interim, I have drastically copyedited the version of the new article by User:Vchero. This, was entirely unacceptable to state in Wikipedia's voice. It also used original research and primary sources and incorporated copyvio. Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article's creator even admitted in this thread that he/she did not create the article because it's topic is notable and encyclopedic (it was created to "balance out" the other article that it mirrors) and can be deleted if the other article is (and several other loosely related articles are) also deleted. COI editing on the part of Justin760 is actually a relatively minor issue in this case, as none of the articles he wrote appear to be especially promotional or otherwise biased in how they are written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not actually a minor issue, because the issue is that Justin760 has edited the various VCD/VCWD articles in a manner which apparently promotes his company's particular point of view with regard to the apparent dispute over the festival, and removed other sources which happen to contradict his company's point of view. And no, I can't believe that I just typed all that, because it means Wikipedia has become a battleground to argue about the name of a small-town Memorial Day festival. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, NorthBySouthBaranof, both Vchero and Justin760 (+assorted IPs) have been editing the articles to support their opposing points of view. But note that the name, the local print newspaper, and the original website for this event and their addition to Valley Center Western Days, long predate the current newspaper owner's acquisition of it. Also Vchero, Do NOT speculate about or post on Wikipedia the purported real-life identity of other editors as you did here and here. Cut it out, now. But yes, both articles should be deleted—pure hummus (apart from the attempted outing)—and not notable. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- This needs to be settled the traditional way - team Morris danceing. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have suggested on the relevant article talk page that we solve this issue very simply: By removing and/or deleting all mention of this small-town Memorial Day festival from the encyclopedia. There's no evidence the festival is notable in any way significant that would distinguish it from thousands upon thousands of other holiday parade/festival/whatevers, and what sourcing is out there is all highly localized and trivial. This spat has wasted enough of everyone's time — just nuke it all from orbit. tl;dr: delete the two pages and remove all mention from the community article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not actually a minor issue, because the issue is that Justin760 has edited the various VCD/VCWD articles in a manner which apparently promotes his company's particular point of view with regard to the apparent dispute over the festival, and removed other sources which happen to contradict his company's point of view. And no, I can't believe that I just typed all that, because it means Wikipedia has become a battleground to argue about the name of a small-town Memorial Day festival. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article's creator even admitted in this thread that he/she did not create the article because it's topic is notable and encyclopedic (it was created to "balance out" the other article that it mirrors) and can be deleted if the other article is (and several other loosely related articles are) also deleted. COI editing on the part of Justin760 is actually a relatively minor issue in this case, as none of the articles he wrote appear to be especially promotional or otherwise biased in how they are written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- As a member of the board of directors of the Valley Center History Museum, the event name is Western Days. The name for the Parade was changed for this year only. There is no point of view of our local newspaper. The information is available on our museums website as historical data. The parade is one event of many during the Western Days week. The event website is WesternDays.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.67 (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, everything regarding the event should be deleted, and so should Valley Roadrunner, which is advertising for his newspaper. There is no reason that a small town newspaper should be mentioned in wikipedia, especially when all sources are self published. "Valley Center Days", "Valley Center Western Days", "Roadrunner Publications" and "Valley Roadrunner" should simply be blacklisted from wikipedia and all articles/mentions should be deleted. Vchero (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes per the OP this is totally COI driven, all the accounts are WP:SPA promoting the town and doubly conflicted as we have a RW conflict dragged into WP. One side with Vcwd and Jason760 (to spell it out on the slim chance that anybody has missed it, Valley Center Western Days which was and still is in part owned by Jason Salter - note I am not making any claims on identity - just whose interests are being represented), which may be operated by one person but are surely MEAT if they are two people, on one side, and Vchero ("Valley Center hero" - the folks opposing Jason in the RW depict themselves as little guys standing up to the big guy), on the other. All the edits by both accounts are promotional for the town and its institutions, and of course their own POV on those things. (Here is how the Valley Center Western Days article looked when it was created - it is literally an ad to come on down to the festival.)
- In my view none of these editors are here to build an encyclopedia. I propose a topic ban for all three accounts on all things related to Valley Center We can sort out the content peacefully without their disruption. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there needs to be a topic ban in place. Once Justin760 (and all of his affiliates who are also involved in the Valley Roadruner, including vcwd, BrandonVC, and other miscellaneous IP addresses) is unable to publish any misleading information regarding Western Days/VC Days, I will recede and withhold any future edits on any pages whatsoever. But if he continue to vandalize and sabotage Valley Center Days by routing people to his own websites instead of the official page (valleycenterdays.org), I will once again bring this to your attention. Please place a topic ban on all editors involved, and prevent anyone from starting a "Valley Center Western Days" article. Vchero (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Vchero, you don't seem to understand that the suggestion for a topic ban includes you. You are just as at fault as the other two for editing with a conflict of interest and not adhering to a neutral point of view. For these reasons I support Jytdog's suggestion of a topic ban for User:Justin760, User:VCWD, User:Vchero and anyone else connected with this brouhaha. The probable deletion of Valley Center Western Days should help, and I see no reason for a deletion of Valley Roadrunner, which appears to be a legitimate article about a legitimate newspaper. BMK (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there needs to be a topic ban in place. Once Justin760 (and all of his affiliates who are also involved in the Valley Roadruner, including vcwd, BrandonVC, and other miscellaneous IP addresses) is unable to publish any misleading information regarding Western Days/VC Days, I will recede and withhold any future edits on any pages whatsoever. But if he continue to vandalize and sabotage Valley Center Days by routing people to his own websites instead of the official page (valleycenterdays.org), I will once again bring this to your attention. Please place a topic ban on all editors involved, and prevent anyone from starting a "Valley Center Western Days" article. Vchero (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- SPI update: Justin760 had two socks, NewsRunner and BrandonVC; all three are indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- In terms of content, all the articles created by the socks, which were only to promote Roadrunner Publications, Inc. (speedied) and things connected to it have been AfDed, some by me, some by others
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times-Advocate
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Center History Museum
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Roadrunner
- and of course the article at the center of this dispute Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Center Western Days
- So all that is remaining here is the disposition of editors Vchero and Vcwd, each of whom has only been here to promote the town etc, and VChereo only to argue as well. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, yeah. I'm frankly surprised Vchero hasn't already been indeffed many times over -- he/she has already admitted numerous times in this thread to being the very definition of WP:NOTHERE. Anyone who says "I don't mind being blocked, as long as you block this other person and delete all their articles permanently" is clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. Vcwd is a little greyer, but not that much; he/she is a NOTHERE SPA whose agenda, from what I can establish from reading their comments in this thread, is to promote one news organization and attack a smaller news organization. Block them both indefinitely; see if Vcwd posts an unblock request promising to contribute to the project and refrain from all COI editing from now on, and if it seems at all possible that they are being honest then unblock them; Vchero should be SBANned (i.e., an admin cannot choose to unilaterally unblock) for six months. Honestly, I'm inclined to give them WP:ROPE, as all the articles look set to get deleted and salted, so the odds of either of these accounts doing any significant damage in the future seem somewhat slim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- actually since Vchero was only here to fight and their chief opponent has been indeffed, and vcwd was dormant and only came b/c some notification was triggered the drama is over and we can probably let this drift into the archive. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What if some other SPA that can't be CU-linked to either Justin or Vcwd shows up down the road and continues the dispute with some "new", "reliable" sources? Vchero will just come back and fight some more, and claim that his "opponents" in this case were blocked and he/she wasn't. We need only look up this page to the "off-site canvassing"/"outing" thread to see someone claiming that because one of their opponents was a sock-user it means they are right in making their attacks on everyone else. Heck, what if Justin says six months down the line that they will not use sockpuppets and will not make COI edits and gets unblocked -- Vchero will almost certainly return and cause more trouble. It's a simple matter of blocking a user who has already admitted to being NOTHERE to prevent such problems in the future. I do not know if it's standard practice to allow NOTHERE users to go unblocked because it's possible (or even probable) that the damage is already done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- actually since Vchero was only here to fight and their chief opponent has been indeffed, and vcwd was dormant and only came b/c some notification was triggered the drama is over and we can probably let this drift into the archive. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, yeah. I'm frankly surprised Vchero hasn't already been indeffed many times over -- he/she has already admitted numerous times in this thread to being the very definition of WP:NOTHERE. Anyone who says "I don't mind being blocked, as long as you block this other person and delete all their articles permanently" is clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. Vcwd is a little greyer, but not that much; he/she is a NOTHERE SPA whose agenda, from what I can establish from reading their comments in this thread, is to promote one news organization and attack a smaller news organization. Block them both indefinitely; see if Vcwd posts an unblock request promising to contribute to the project and refrain from all COI editing from now on, and if it seems at all possible that they are being honest then unblock them; Vchero should be SBANned (i.e., an admin cannot choose to unilaterally unblock) for six months. Honestly, I'm inclined to give them WP:ROPE, as all the articles look set to get deleted and salted, so the odds of either of these accounts doing any significant damage in the future seem somewhat slim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
User:RFX Dealers
RFX Dealers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'd like to assume good faith on this one, but this "new" user has been around all of five days, and has made contributions such as this, this and this. They seem to know about GA/FA from their edit history, are quick to use prod tags without knowing about the notability concerned, and based on that last diff, I suspect they are a sock of User:KgosarMyth. Their talkpage is already awash with warning messages, and words fail me for their actual user page. If someone could take a look, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sock of TeaLover1996? Muffled Pocketed 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: TeaLover1992 isn't a registered username. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)- Sorry for the confusion Anarchyte and thanks for pointing out the error. I assumed I'd got the year correct when it showed up as a blue link. Odd! I'm not sure it is him actually, now; similarly busy userpage, but this editor seems to have a slightly stilted use of language, whereas (I think) Tealover was native. Muffled Pocketed 11:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sock of TeaLover1996? Muffled Pocketed 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I filed a report on WP:AIV for this user here but I later realised that wasn't the best way to go about it. The user has been readding false claims of user rights, which is against the rules. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:RFX Dealers certainly seem to be edging into WP:CIR territory but for what it's worth I do not think they are either of the users mentioned. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone. If nothing else, the Fissan article certainly needs looking at. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm almost certain it isn't Tealover1996 - a large percentage of Tealover's edits were to football articles, and this user doesn't have any. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Fissan has the feel of a copy and paste, particularly as User:RFX Dealers's English doesn't appear to be very good. In fact, the first two sentences beginning "Fissan was founded in 1930..." appear to be copied from a Google translation of fissan.com/Chi Siamo and the rest from a Google translation of the article Fissan on de.wikipedia. The page is up for deletion at AFD so further input can be provided there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Cambalachero – bias and vandalism
Hello. I would just like to inform you that the user Cambalachero has repeatedly, and by multiple users, been accused of POV pushing and vandalizing articles, particularly ones related to Kirchnerism, such as the pages Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Both Cambalachero and Jetstreamer have participated in the use of uncyclopedic language. One of the best examples of what I would describe as such would be Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner#Political image, which contains, for example:
"The Kirchnerite administration used its aligned media and the communication outlets of the state for advocacy of the figures of both Cristina Kirchner and the previous president, her husband Néstor Kirchner. This advocacy, which describes the Kirchners as leaders of a revolution, is usually called the "Relato K" (Spanish: K narrative). The political life is described as a conflict between good and evil, in a manner similar to religious faith." The last claim, in particular, is a really strange addition to what is, after all, an encyclopedia, especially when it's unsourced.
Cambalachero has previously come with statements such as:
Such views are perfectly fine to hold – the problem is that Cambalachero is unable to keep his views out of his articles. Should someone like that really be allowed to remain the main contributor to articles about Kirchner? While the user has made great contributions to many articles here on Wikipedia, and has proven to be experienced and resourceful, his influence on Argentinian politics articles simply isn't good for anything. I have asked for both third opinions and peer reviews, which caused the reviewing user to label sections of Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as non-neutral.
Simply taking a brief look at the edit history of any of the articles mentioned unveils endless edit-warring and lengthy discussions, which I frankly think are clearly solely due to Cambalachero and Jetstreamer's inability to write factually and non-biased. I do not hold much knowledge about Kirchner or Argentine politics in general, and I've never participated much on Argentine politics articles; I am just asking – begging – for some attention to the unserious nature of Cambalachero and these articles, and some form of sanction to make it stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Μαρκος Δ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- How come in Argentina the wives are always getting into the act? EEng 06:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- First, the content issue. According to Μαρκος Δ own admission just above, he does not hold much knowledge about Argentine politics. I have improved the articles of Raúl Alfonsín and Adolfo Rodríguez Saá to good article, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa and Eduardo Duhalde are awaiting reviews, and, although they are not ready yet, I'm the editor with the most edits of Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Mauricio Macri (note that those are all the presidents of Argentina from 1983 to date, regardless of political alignment). So yes, I do hold some knowledge about Argentine politics. For those who don't, Cristina Kirchner was the president of Argentina from 2007 to 2015, and her style is similar to that of the Venezuelan Hugo Chávez. The thing described in the paragraph cited (which is referenced) is not a new phenomenon: it's a system of propaganda built around a cult of personality. I know, it's not pleasing for her supporters to say it that way, but that's what it is, that is what we are talking about here. In any case, the article is fully referenced, and I can provide any clarification required.
- Now, let's see the user behavior here. The user makes a huge page blanking, I reverted it, and we head to the talk page. Common WP:BRD so far. Here, in just the second message, he accuses me of having an agenda, and here, the third one, he is already threatening with asking for moderation. Yes, I got carried away by the accusation and made a sarcastic one about his userbox that identifies him as a socialist; it was a mistake. He blanked the article again, and here he asked me to leave it that way so that he could write an alternative version and then discuss it. I told him that in those cases it is better to write the alternative in a sandbox, and we left it that way. His last edit on the matter was on May 16. I left the article with the blanking in place. As you can see in the article history, the discussion ceased until May 24. You can see in his contributions that he made absolutely no edits to create an alternative article since that point for many days, so I re-added the content a week later. A week later. He can't say I was impatient with him. It is only in June 2 that he finally makes the so promised sandbox version. We discussed about it, as I thought that the use of the word "alleged" was incorrect. He headed directly to peer review (misused, but I thought that if I pointed it he wouldn't take it well) and third opinion. He deleted my comment from the peer review page, claiming that I should not be commenting there. Robert McClenon provided his third opinion, and pointed that the use of the word "propaganda" may be problematic. Although I still thought that we should call a spade a spade, I removed the words "propaganda" and "cult of personality" from the article, as a middle ground compromise. I also incorporated the only meaningful content of the sandbox into the article, giving due credit, as it didn't really contradict anything already written (I only changed the title "Approval ratings and popular support" to the more neutral "opinion polls").
- Happy ending? Issue solved? Not at all. Here he keeps calling me on having an agenda, and here he accuses me of whatever for trying to find a compromise. He also said that one of the authors was not reliable because of a quotation that he had read somewhere, and deleted all the references to the author, without discussing it first. He also did so at the main article. He deleted many other references in the process, including Mary O'Grady from the Wall Street Journal because of being right-wing. Yes, you have read well, he considers the Wall Street Journal an unreliable source. Here he accuses the user Jetstreamer of not allowing the neutral point of view (as he reverted his removal), and here he edit wars with him over my comment at the peer review page. Here he tries to recruit the user Sushilover2000 to the discussion (surely because he's visible at the previous discussions in Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), and mentions that he plans to canvass even more people. He also mentions the comment of Robert McClenon as a support to his point, fully ignoring that I had already acknowledged it and edited the problematic word out (and he knows that). Here he said that this last comment "was a plea for technical assistance" because he could not find where to ask for moderator help; read the post yourselves and decide if that is what it is.
- I know, my comment about him being a socialist was wrong, and will not happen again. If you think that something else I did in this discussion was wrong, please tell me so I will try to see it fixed. Cambalachero (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- He has created tens of erroneous substubs, examples:Elephas recki recki is not a species but subspecies, Antilohyrax is a genus. Ordathspidotherium - doesn't exist according to Google.
- He doesn't answer any critics.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Xx236: please inform users you report here, as it mentions at the top of the page. I have done this for you. I'm not overly sure what to make of these stubs (eg. Elephas recki ileretensis, Elephas recki brumpti etc) which all have the same content - "
Name is an extinct species of large herbivorous mammals that were closely related to Asian elephants.
" -- samtar talk or stalk 12:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)- It's a series of misinformations, probably more than 100, not an error. The author is probably a child.
- He hasn't ever reacted.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- 51 in total, each of which will need to be considered before they are deleted - some of these may be notable with some improvement, and shouldn't just be blanket CSD'd -- samtar talk or stalk 12:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a good example of WP:CIR. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- 51 in total, each of which will need to be considered before they are deleted - some of these may be notable with some improvement, and shouldn't just be blanket CSD'd -- samtar talk or stalk 12:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Xx236: please inform users you report here, as it mentions at the top of the page. I have done this for you. I'm not overly sure what to make of these stubs (eg. Elephas recki ileretensis, Elephas recki brumpti etc) which all have the same content - "
- I have removed all the misplaced CSD tags for these as A7 does apply to species or genus. From looking through the list most appear to be legitimate extinct species and genus. The subspecies can be redirected to the species or genus (depending on what we have articles for). There might be a few synonyms which are also legitimate redirects. The rest obviously need expanded, corrected and references added but there is no reason to delete. I will got through them and add what I can/redirect as needed. I started to redirect the Elephas recki subspecies to Palaeoloxodon recki as this is where Elephas recki redirects to but searching on Google seems to suggest that both are legitimate names. EOL lists both and doesn't mention one as a synonym of the other, so I'm a bit confused about that one and will need to look into it more. I don't think this is a case of WP:CIR but more of someone copy/pasting a boilerplate sentence to quickly create lots of stubs. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ordathspidotherium was a typo of Orthaspidotherium. The typo originates not from this user but from the page Phenacodontidae; I have fixed it wiki-wide. However some kind of semi-automated cleanup may be necessary. Is there an automatic script/bot to add taxoboxes? Intelligentsium 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
User circumventing block again
User Mikequfv was blocked for his disruptive editing last month. He broke his first block and then, as a result, had his block length increased to "indefinite" and had the IP that he used to circumvent the original block, blocked as well. (Reports are here and here.) Since the original two blocks, there have been edits from other IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that match his style of editing and thus seem to be him. Today there has been a renewed effort to push his changes on articles where he's previously made attempts that were reverted, at Victoria, BC and Arica with this IP. Air.light (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Strange account giving strange awards
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would someone care to investigate Epic Fails (talk · contribs)? He's given me an "award", but I can't help but feel that that is not a cause for joy. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see where this is headed. SQLQuery me! 04:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm only a kid RGloucester (talk · contribs) Epic Fails</span[[User talk:Epic Fails|5:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- This account is clearly WP:NOTHERE, in the most obvious sense. Please block it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I think that the username "Epic Fails" makes clear that the "thanks" was not any kind of "thanks" at all, but instead some sort of WP:NOTHERE game. Assuming good faith in such a case as this seems like suicide, but I suppose as I'm the only victim, it isn't of anyone's concern. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think suicide might be taking things just a little too far, R. Gloucester? I thought that was a lovely cup. And quite a jazzy signature, too, for "just a kid". Shows immense potential. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC) ... just to remind people that episode was the one where "his psychiatrist, Nolan, suggests that House take up a hobby that can channel his focus."
- To be clear, I think that the username "Epic Fails" makes clear that the "thanks" was not any kind of "thanks" at all, but instead some sort of WP:NOTHERE game. Assuming good faith in such a case as this seems like suicide, but I suppose as I'm the only victim, it isn't of anyone's concern. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- A Technical note - as the user's name matches on the title blacklist - they cannot receive messages except from admins and template editors - and I'm not sure that they can reply. It might be best for them to choose a new username. SQLQuery me! 02:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"Proof" in the context of sockpuppetry
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Firstly, I thought it was pretty clear that an IP who makes an edit that Beyond My Ken made and restored an attack that Beyond My Ken made was being used by Beyond My Ken. However, that report was closed by someone who said "no evidence presented that the IP and BMK are the same person", while other commenters had said "Sock accusations need proof; there is no proof", and "not seeing any unambiguous proof to back up the sock puppetry accusations". I asked several times what they were looking for but no-one replied. If coincidental IP replication of problematic edits happens often, what other evidence do you find indicative of sockpuppetry? What is the standard of proof you're looking for? Balance of probabilities? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Secondly, if my report was somehow lacking, it would have been nice for someone to explain why. What was not nice was that several users appear to be accusing me of trolling.[26] And one of those users subsequently undid some of my edits, seemingly to take some kind of revenge on behalf of Beyond My Ken. These were this one, where I'd moved a template that was incorrectly placed on the article page to its talk page, and the entire removal of which violates the attribution clauses of the content licenses; and this one, where I'd removed some extremely biased material, such as a description of the subject of the article as "a scholarly tour de force". I do not think the user thought very hard about whether they were making the encyclopaedia better or worse; I think it's obvious that they just made these edits to piss me off. They accused me of trolling, and then decided to troll me. I think that's unacceptable. 83.52.84.186 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Given your previous complaint was closed with no action - opening another straight away is unlikely to get the result you are looking for. As your editing history resembles the pattern of a banned disruptive editor you would be wise to look at that LTA page and see where edit warring and insults (I see calling another editor 'sycophantic' in your editing history) will take you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, because no action was taken before, no-one will explain to me what they consider to be proof in questions of sockpuppetry? That doesn't seem particularly logical. Why don't you try to answer the question instead of trying to derail the discussion before it's even begun like this?
- As for where edit warring and insults will take you, it seems to me to lead to general approval, when it's Beyond My Ken doing the edit warring and insulting. He can call me "clueless" and refer to my edits as "shit", and clearly violate the 3RR, and everyone's his pal. Is that the lesson I should be learning here? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- RE Sockpuppetry - if an IP and a registered user revert you, that is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Its evidence 2 people disagree with you. Evidence of sockpuppetry would be actual evidence that links the two - either significant behavioural or technical. RE civility, in short yes. The civility policies are rarely enforced against long term registered editors unless the personal attacks are particularly bad. Best case given the evidence you presented is a verbal slap on the wrist. Also referring to your edits as 'shit' is not a personal attack. Referring to you as clueless is, but again, no admin is going to seriously consider blocking BMK for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Asilah1981
Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) I came across this editor after a recent report on ANI and found their edits questionable.
- removal of sourced statements (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), which now seems to be devolving into an edit war.
- A questionable statement on White Puerto Ricans, which I reverted was answered by this and this. More prodding on my side finally started a discussion and as it turned out, the statement was an example of WP:SYNTH.
- The editor in question seems to have a history of disagreements, amongst others in Afro-Puerto Ricans, Spain (See the talk page),
- The straw that broke the camels back, however, was this.
Regards, Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Kleuske has been for some strange reason tracking my edits, and automatically reverting them. A hostile behavior which is fine. Only issue is his decision to remove 10 sources which support an undisputed and uncontroversial claim because he clearly very much doesn't like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or more likely doesn't like me.
- [27]
- [28]
- [29]
- The curious thing is that the more sources I add which solidly back an uncontroversial claim which is replicated and well-sourced in a number of articles on both English and Spanish language wikipedia (that Puerto Ricans have African ancestry inherited from the Guanches of the Canary Islands), the more insistent he is on deleting it. I don't really know how to discuss with him on Wikipedia since he seems not to be even aware that the Canary Islands are in Africa or that the Guanches were an African ethnic group. His strategy is quoting extracts for which he doesn't provide the source and blankly denying the content of the ones provided.
- Both his disruptive behavior on the said articles and this rather pointless Notification seems to me to be motivated by personal reasons of a user who is picking for a fight with someone (in this case me), since he clearly does not understand nor have a desire to understand the topic discussed. I would like to point out that the last someone opened an ANI against me the editor in question was immediately blocked, so yes I have a history of dealing with disruptive editors. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above is indicative of this users attitude towards dissent. I would like to point out that i've waded through all the sources Asilah1981 provided, and came to the conclusion that none of them supported the statement I contested. If Asilah1981 thinks differently, one source which does support his claim, would suffice. Kleuske (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ah... "His strategy is quoting extracts for which he doesn't provide the source and blankly denying the content of the ones provided.", the extracts i quoted were taken directly from the sources Asilah1981 provided. The fact that they seem unfamiliar to them is telling. Kleuske (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Asilah1981 has long been disruptive on both the White Puerto Ricans article and many articles relating to Spain, Puerto Rico, Canary Islands and other Spanish possessions - especially in regards to race and ethnicity topics. The user steadfastly refuses to read others' retorts and explanations and thinks themselves above all WP policies or even above reading the articles they are trying to link to to presumably make their fictitious point (which tends towards OR/Speculation/Synthesis) when it, in fact, undermines it, cf. The earlier dust-up on the Talk page of the article these two users are currently embattled over - Asilah1981's obstinate use of the word "Caucasian" despite repeated emphasis that that word was not a synonym for "white" and the subject of the article was "white", etc. User is combative, aggressive, and a very strong applicant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I confirm the above statements. Asilah1981 has a very long record of disruption to the WP, a close check to his edits and personal page history, visible and removed, should suffice. I will not dwell more on all the issues related to this editor, just the latest evidence I could spot some days ago, here, and followed by my reply, pretty upset, here. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've also encountered difficulties with Asilah1981. I've considered a number of his edits to be on the dubious side since I encountered him/her from the beginning of the year, but carried on cleaning up refs, etc. on a number of articles surrounding the subject of Latin America following AGF and, I'm sorry to say, without checking the changes as thoroughly as I usually do if my nose starts to twitch. I hadn't noticed that content and refs were being added and removed on one particular article until a comment was made here on the Afro-Puerto Ricans talk page. While the comment was unwarranted (and I did make a note about inappropriate interaction on the relevant editor's talk page), after checking through Asilah1981's changes, I couldn't qualify it as being incorrect. Most of the activity went on from early March until about 28 March when I checked back over the changes being made during a period of time I'd spent confirming cites, fixing dead and corrupted links, and finding substitute sources where possible, hence my not noticing edits being made in between my reading and translating. A pattern of an uncomfortably racially motivated POV has emerged in Asilah1981's behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- With some dismay, I have to conclude that the edit-warring and POV-pushing continues on White Puerto Ricans, Bullfighting and Spaniards, arguments are being misrepresented in Talk:Spaniards ("Germanic" is equivocated with "German", Spanish with "proto-castilian spoken in Northern Spain") and WP:FRINGE-sources introduced (Steward Synopsis, Racial Amnesia. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- We actually have an article called White Puerto Ricans? Seems a bit SYNTHetic and/or "X in Y"-ish. EEng 14:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Old discussions being changed
While cleaning up mildly malformed references, an editor is making changes to old closed AfD discussions and various Noticeboard discussions. The changes are not limited to fixing the references but include correcting spellings in other editors' contributions. The example I came across was this (on my watchlist) where I suspect that "Blatent nonsence
" may indeed have been what the editor intended to type: in any case, that's what was said in the 2008 discussion and that's what should remain. The editor has said that the spelling corrections were "unintentional", which makes me wonder how many other unintentional "corrections" have been made to words within quotes, media titles, etc. The objective was to clear articles out of Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list.
I've rolled back a small handful of these edits but then realised that there's an hour's worth of similar changes, to files in the "Wikipedia:" space, from 00:34 to 01:36 this morning. Should they all be rolled back? Or does fixing reference format in non-reader-facing areas matter more than leaving editors' comments intact? PamD 11:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Sounds like a hit and run editor to me. I have seen Dcirovic's changes on articles on my watchlist, but just shrugged them off as being harmless and trivial. I think as long as we can prove that the meaning of the discussions hasn't changed (and the one you linked to didn't), we are probably best off leaving them be for the time being. If I spot Dcirovic fiddling with spellings on ancient talk page discussions with rapid-fire again though, then a block would be helpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means let's casually threaten to block someone with a quarter million edits and 6 years service if they ever accidentally change the spelling of some long dead pages again. Reason #75934 why people hate admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with blocking somebody for ten minutes so the AWB script they accidentally ran doesn't change 5,000 pages they didn't mean to, then unblocking them immediately afterwards with a "sorry about that" note. After all, don't bots have a "click this to block in case of malfunction" button? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Dcirovic and I (and a few others) have been working on this backlog, so I watch their talk page.
- Dcirovic, you can remove non-mainspace pages in AWB by right-clicking anywhere in the article-list -> Remove -> Non-main space.
- Whether or not non-mainspace articles should exist in the maintenance category is an issue to bring up at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (I'm not sure if that can be controlled, but someone there would know).
- Finally, non-supervised editing requires a bot flag, which is a stringent process, but avoids problems like this. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I tried as hard as I could to confine my edits to reference updates. The meaning of those old discussions is not changed. Nevertheless, I would gladly roll those edits back, if that was the preferred course of action. --Dcirovic (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The bigger concern is not paying proper attention to each AWB edit. "As hard as I could" isn't going to win many sympathies, because each part of each edit is under your control. You can even turn off typo/spelling correction altogether. It looks like there were many spelling corrections in project space, including many instances of editing other people's comments. I only clicked on a random sample, but noticed that, for example here you changed Bluerasberry's signature to the "correct" spelling of "raspberry" and, as just brought up on your talk page, there were also some obvious errors in articlespace re: spelling. I think this talk of a block above is crazy, but what people need to hear is a commitment to do more than "trying", making a lot of mistakes, then offering to roll back. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I had a small concern about Dcirovic's edits, and they were very responsive to my complaint, so I do not think a block is in order. I do think that D. should not make any spelling changes in comments on talk pages, and I presume, knowing next to nothing about AWB, their script can be adjusted to accomplish that. BMK (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Greek Macedon and his editing of Macedonians (Greeks) and edits by other users.
User:Greek Macedon is making contradictive edits to the lead of the Macedonians (Greeks) article while flatly refusing to discuss his issues on the talkpage. As can be seen here, here, here, here, and and here. He is apparently supporting the edits made by now banned user: 199.7.157.125 and some of his suspected sockpuppets like user: 199.7.157.70, User: 199.7.157.23, User: 199.119.233.157 and User: 199.119.233.20, who I also believe to be sockpuppets of User:99 Harry, User:199.119.233.240, User:199.7.157.82 and User:99.243.33.88 See also this sockpuppet report. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pace your suggestion of course; but this seems like a content dispute which has descended into an edit-war. And whilst the SPI might prove something, until it does, any mention of it here comes across as muddying the waters I'm afraid. NAAR. Muffled Pocketed 14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Fortuna Imperatrix, The origin of this is indeed an edit dispute. But there is the added dimension of the consistent refusal to engage in talk, which is basically why I reported it here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Hebel: I totally agree with your analysis- the behaviour at the article was outrageous. I just think that SPIs should probably be left to do its thing- In emergency break glass. In any case he has been temporarilly neutralised. Muffled Pocketed 15:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your insightful comment Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Basically I can sometimes be an impatient person that worries too much. The SPI has been going on for more than a week now and in that period I have been adding stuff. Could I have done something wrong administratively there? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 and Mike V:- they might be able to help you with that one. But I will say, accounts aren't usually linked (publicly, anyway) to IPs, as it would be a form of WP:OUTING. But there's probably more to it than that. Muffled Pocketed 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again. I will ask them because I am worried I may have done something wrong there. I don't know how long these things normally take and I certainly won't be complaining about that or about the eventual outcome, but it's better to know than to just be guessing... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)}}
- @Bbb23 and Mike V:- they might be able to help you with that one. But I will say, accounts aren't usually linked (publicly, anyway) to IPs, as it would be a form of WP:OUTING. But there's probably more to it than that. Muffled Pocketed 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your insightful comment Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Basically I can sometimes be an impatient person that worries too much. The SPI has been going on for more than a week now and in that period I have been adding stuff. Could I have done something wrong administratively there? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Hebel: I totally agree with your analysis- the behaviour at the article was outrageous. I just think that SPIs should probably be left to do its thing- In emergency break glass. In any case he has been temporarilly neutralised. Muffled Pocketed 15:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Fortuna Imperatrix, The origin of this is indeed an edit dispute. But there is the added dimension of the consistent refusal to engage in talk, which is basically why I reported it here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pace your suggestion of course; but this seems like a content dispute which has descended into an edit-war. And whilst the SPI might prove something, until it does, any mention of it here comes across as muddying the waters I'm afraid. NAAR. Muffled Pocketed 14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The article appears to be tended by numerous COI accounts. There are several issues here in addition to conflict of interest, including the likelihood of sock or meatpuppets editing the article, promotional tone and long lists of products and awards. So I'm requesting assistance in dealing with WP:SPA contributors, and with trimming the fluff as well. Given the recent edit history, my sense is if I go about this alone we'll have an edit war. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I could use some assistance, even if it's to suggest reporting at SPI or COI. I've come here because those issues are allied with the article's content problems. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't remember which beer I drank from Green Flash with some regularity a few years ago. It was pretty tasty, I remember that. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Threats made by IP 85.101.176.167
(Note, they were not directed at me.) See this diff. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hard to do anything. It's from 2 days ago, and there's little evidence the same person is still using that IP address. I'm not sure any block would have any useful effect at stopping anything, since nothing more has happened. --Jayron32 02:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with Jujutsuan - Edit was two days ago. Blocking the IP would do more harm than good at this point. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Eisenhower
Seven minutes after his block expired, Mr. Eisenhower repeated the behavior (copyright violation, impersonating an administrator) that got him blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- So after I fixed Guy Macon's edit so the link pointed to a user instead of a non existent page, I looked at this dude's contributions. Mr. Eisenhower is certainly not building the Wikipedia equivalent of the Interstate Highway System. I'd say a NOTHERE indef is in order. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have to concur, and have done exactly that. Anyone is free to unblock should we see some sort of credible response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Requesting Two-Way IBAN
I am requesting that a two-way IBAN be enacted for User:ScrapIronIV and myself. In the past few months, there has been a significant amount of conflict on both ends, and though I do not get along with ScrapIron or even like him, I do acknowledge that he, like myself, is very useful to the Wikipedian community in several ways. So, rather than asking that he be blocked, or asking that I be blocked (which would be a little ridiculous), I feel an interaction ban is necessary to stop the conflict between us. I consider the main problem to be that he has recently (and remotely) reverted my edits without a clear reason why, other than that I made them. He also made this change[30] in my userspace earlier today, which I found to be highly contentious, unnecessary, and ridiculous. Since when do users need to source personal information about themselves or where they live? As if I would cite a source revealing my home address on a public level... So, in summary, I ask for this not to win a conflict or defeat an enemy, in fact, I cite peace as my main reason. I no longer want to be involved in conflicts while trying to edit my userspace or the mainspace with any users, and I feel that this action, originally recommended by User:Ian.thomson, is necessary. Thank you, and happy editing. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say I suggested rather than recommended. I will note that both of them could spend all day trying to dig up dirt on each other but I haven't really seen enough to go "ok, that's it, I'm blocking one of you" (though I have not cared to sift through the mounds that both could dig up). I'm not really gonna discuss this much more than what I just said because of exams (starting another one right now). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Setad article
Hi,
Can WP admins review the edit history of this article and add it to their watchlist? I don't want to enter into "WP:edit wars".. If not, this may rapidly decay into a tool for (Iranian) propaganda and this is against WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance for your review. 86.106.23.246 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Extra Administrator eyes required on articles containing information about the Northern Ireland Flag
There's been a recent upsurge in heated activity on various articles containing information about the Flag of Northern Ireland. I'm trying hard to get editors to start discussing content rather than complaining about each other, but I feel I am losing the battle as the sole administrator who seems active at the moment on the articles. I have an additional problem of having got into a wrangle with a rather persistent editor who I consider is taunting, sarcastic, is gaming the system as well as throwing out insults about my actions, and generally being disruptive by being overly persistent and leading one into a labyrinthine set of twisty passages of fine wiki-lawyering points and loaded questions. I am now not convinced that I could be justifiable in wielding any future discretionary sanctions against this editor by virtue of my interactions with them making me involved. I would be grateful if some extra help could be given on the following articles: Countries of the United Kingdom (where I have actually succeeded in getting editors to generally contribute to finding reliable sources rather than complain and edit war within the rules), and Flag of Northern Ireland. Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm on vacation right now – just taking a look at the dramaz while drinking coffee – but I recently had to protect Flag of Northern Ireland after an RFPP report, and I see that the edit warring resumed right after that protection expired. This is only the most recent of a rash of WP:TROUBLES problems we've had of late, and the whole thing may be beginning to gather steam again. Katietalk 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
TheLiberal.ie
The article TheLiberal.ie has a problem with an editor, Imthenumberonefan, that appears to have a WP:COI - possibly the owner of the website in question or an employee. E.g., only "favourable"/positive information added, criticism removed even though it's referenced, and they have added information that does not appear to be otherwise in the public domain. Typical edit: diff
They have been warned for WP:3RR. Now an anonymous IP has shown up and is removing referenced material with an incorrect edit summary.
Could we get page protection or an admin to otherwise have a look? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see anything wrong with an edit that removes contentious (and possibly libelous) information sourced to Twitter and Reddit. Whilst the editor is a bit promotional, I am amazed that experienced editors are restoring crap like that. I have removed said material from the article. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The tweets (including some by journalists who had their articles plagiarised) include screenshots of plagiarised articles! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was more concerned with the claims that the competitions were fixed - which was only sourced to Reddit. The Tweets didn't even need to be there as the plagiarism claim was sourced to reliable sources already. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The tweets (including some by journalists who had their articles plagiarised) include screenshots of plagiarised articles! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks. Will try to find additional sources for the allegations of fixed contests. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- And again, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I'm not edit warring - I've restored referenced content, have not approached 3RR, engaged on the talk page, and raised the issue here. But thanks for your concern. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Legal threats on talk page of hoax article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article creator (evidently a kid) has made a legal threat at Talk:Lachlan Hodge, in this edit. It's a repeatedly re-created hoax article, and should be salted. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, salt, point out the block imminent on any further breach of WP:NLT. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also see this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnlegend45. Harry Let us have speaks 11:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pot House Hamlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pot House Hamlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user "Pot House Hamlet" is blanking the article "Pot House Hamlet", claiming the content is copyrighted and stolen. However, the talk page indicates that OTRS permission was given for the content on the page. Kelly hi! 12:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- If the OTRS notice met our requirements, then the GDFL release from 2008 is irrevocable. Has anything in our rules changed since then to suggest that this release is actually revocable? Even if the answer is no, is there a reason why we would not just reduce the article to a stub and remove all of the offending text? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- On a related note, is a gmail account *really* considered all thats needed by OTRS as proof of releasing rights? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it's the e-mail listed on the website (showing that they have control of both), maybe. There's a reason smarter people than I handle OTRS, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- What was so contentious about the material anyway. Except for that fourth *slightly bizarre* paragraph about the rose cultivator, which could come under BLP, the reast of it was just history- and that can't be copyrighted. Muffled Pocketed 13:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Photos I believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That was my guess as well. It's almost as if things would be simpler if the editor actually explained their concerns. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks both, that makes some sense. But I still can't believe we're giving credence to this. Remove the images by all means, if they're under contention, and that BLP bit; but everything else? The categories? Reflist? See also? Dismbiguator??? Why isn't this being treated as vandalism. We're basicly being bullied. Muffled Pocketed 13:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The original author now wants to remove the page. 8 years after it's creation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks both, that makes some sense. But I still can't believe we're giving credence to this. Remove the images by all means, if they're under contention, and that BLP bit; but everything else? The categories? Reflist? See also? Dismbiguator??? Why isn't this being treated as vandalism. We're basicly being bullied. Muffled Pocketed 13:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That was my guess as well. It's almost as if things would be simpler if the editor actually explained their concerns. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Photos I believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- What was so contentious about the material anyway. Except for that fourth *slightly bizarre* paragraph about the rose cultivator, which could come under BLP, the reast of it was just history- and that can't be copyrighted. Muffled Pocketed 13:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it's the e-mail listed on the website (showing that they have control of both), maybe. There's a reason smarter people than I handle OTRS, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- It would be possible to re-write with other sources, I think - the site is a scheduled monument and Historic England has a brief history of it.[31] The user also claims the images were "stolen" - apparently referring to File:The Old Mill, pot house hamlet, silkstone.JPG and File:Pot House Hamlet, Silkstone.JPG, both on Commons. Those images were the only contributions of the uploader there (Commons:User:Horsfe). If necessary, they could be replaced by this photo from Geograph. Kelly hi! 13:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- On a related note, is a gmail account *really* considered all thats needed by OTRS as proof of releasing rights? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Nothing sinister here at all. I would simply like the page removing please. No need to look too deep into this. The wiki page interferes with the businesses FB page as FB create auto generated pages. It is very misleading and is causing real problems on the ground. Peoples businesses are taking the brunt of this confusion and its really creating a problem. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing sinister? Telling people what they can and cannot read on Wikipedia? We are not, after all, guardians of your businesses or their facebook pages. Please desist from your vandalism. And while we're here, could you explain your connection to the Pot House Hamlet account? Cheers. Muffled Pocketed 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- (ec)In that case I would suggest we rename our article to Silkstone glassworks based on the Historic England reference above. "Pot House Hamlet" the business is probably non-notable by our standards. This is the first time in many years of editing that I have seen a business NOT want a Wikipedia page. Kelly hi! 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds fine to me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies. Muffled Pocketed 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how it does: both of the sources in the article before stubification talk about the glass works at Silkstone; I don't think (from a quick glance) either of them mention "Pot House Hamlet"... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies. Muffled Pocketed 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds fine to me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple trustees who are trying to sort this out hence beck2008 and PotHouseHmalet.. We are not telling people what they can or can not read on wiki. Whoever wrote that comment needs get off the high horse. We are simply asking for a page to be deleted as it is misleading. The relationship of the wiki page to what is actually going on on the ground is not correct. Changing to SIlktone glassworks dd further confusion as its does make sense to the situation either. Deletion of the page will solve everything please. Why would people want to vandalise others livelihoods by not helping a real concern here is cruel. Its not such a big thing that a business does not want to be misrepresented and is trying to rectify that. Please can the page be removed and if at a later date we wish to input a page again it will be listed correctly. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. Muffled Pocketed 14:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Beck2008: Please note that it is unlikely the page will be deleted as the subject of the article is very notable and because Wikipedia is not censored. The most you can expect is content changes within the article - deletion is highly unlikely. -NottNott|talk 14:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@NottNott Even if this account started the page it cannot delete it? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, because you do not own the page. As stated above, a number of editors have made changes and edits to the page over the course of 8 years. At this point, the article stands on it's own as a notable subject and a valid article. Had this been say 8 MINUTES after creation and you requested deletion, them there is more of a chance it could be deleted, but not after 8 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Beck2008: Unfortunately in your case, nobody WP:OWNs an article on Wikipedia. By making any edit to the site, you release your addition under the WP:CC BY-SA Creative Commons license. -NottNott|talk 14:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Can the name be changed to be something that is relevant instead of misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Yes, it will be changed to Silkstone glassworks, I expect. Muffled Pocketed 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I boldly moved the page to Silkstone Glassworks. Obviously if this was not to be done, please revert me, but I feel this might be the best way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good move RickinBaltimore, but shouldn't it be a lowercase 'g'? Muffled Pocketed 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is? Honestly I'm not 100% sure, if it is, feel free to move it. I thought it was a capital G, but if not make it right :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good move RickinBaltimore, but shouldn't it be a lowercase 'g'? Muffled Pocketed 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I boldly moved the page to Silkstone Glassworks. Obviously if this was not to be done, please revert me, but I feel this might be the best way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kelly said above that the page could be moved to Silkstone Glassworks, as that seems to be the better known name. Community consensus however would be the overall factor in seeing if it would be moved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- And there you have it; thanks, RickinBaltimore. Muffled Pocketed 14:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment And that, as they say, is that. Sorted, finito. Now we can all get back to what we're meant to be doing- building an encyclopeadia, protecting business's Facebook pages, whatever Muffled Pocketed 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Beck2008: - as the page has been renamed here, I suggest you get with Facebook to address this concern with them. Good luck. Kelly hi! 14:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks in AfD nomination
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger's Rapist
- Accompanied by this diff
It's notable that the editor User:DracoEssentialis was blocked earlier this year for personal attacks.
I tried putting a collapsible table around the attack but was reverted by a third party. Requesting either a caution or a temporary block to encourage this user not to use processes like AfD to be a jerk to other users. (I've never filed an AN/I before, so not sure about process.)--Carwil (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)