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) |
|
Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT
- Couiros22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
@Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.
A sample of some of his recent changes: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.
The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [11][12][13][14]and most recently[15]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.
The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.
- Nick Thorne talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne talk 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since the editor continues to make no response to this ANI report I think it is time for a block to get their attention. Per his talk page, he notices that his approach is being criticized but he intends to make no changes whatsoever in what he is currently doing. On June 12 alone he has made dozens of category changes, with no evident support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- That edit is obviously wrong and shows Couiros22 does not understand how categorization works. Fish of Australia (if they are not separated from Freshwater fish of Australia, and even then there are brackish water species) is a subset of Marine fauna of Australia, not the other way around.
- I tend to steer clear of categories for the most part, because I am not sure I properly understand how they work on Wikipedia. However, fish of Australia cannot be a subset of marine fauna of Australia because not all fish are marine. Freshwater fish of Australia must logically be a sub-set of fish of Australia, so if fish of Australia was to be put in a higher level category then it would need to be something like fauna of Australia, without the "marine" qualifier. C22's re-categorization does not seem logical to me and I suspect it makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for, not easier, which surely is the point of categories. - Nick Thorne talk 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- The whole matter with the common fish names is that Couiros22 does not follow any logic. He picks certain common names at random and pushes those as the only validly accepted ones. It is becoming a mess and while fauna categorization and proper naming or documenting the various common names is useful, those tasks are now not done, "in favor of" wild and rogue edits that do not create a better encyclopedia. He seems deaf for objections, even when they are sourced and well-argumented and this example here above clearly shows he does not grasp the whole concept of categories. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've been gradually working my way back through C22's contributions re-bolding and moving the article title to the beginning of the lead. To be fair, in a few cases, the articles' leads were either always the wrong way round or somebody else had made the change, either way since I'm there I am applying the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are stubs, so I suspect they do not get a lot of attention, but I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go. I'll be spending some time expanding articles about Australian freshwater fish (my area of interest and knowledge) once I've done, but obviously I can't re-write the entire fish area of the Wiki. I had considered just reverting C22's edits, but without spending a lot of time trying to understand how he has been changing the categorization, I did not feel that was a good ides, however, if others think he is making a complete mess of the categories, then I would support such an action. Meanwhile I will continue to try and undo the damage manually, but it will take a while to get through all the edits. - Nick Thorne talk 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've put some notes about C22's editing on my talk page (User_talk:DexDor#Couiros22) and would support action (e.g. block or topic ban). DexDor (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposal for block
@Couiros22: has continued their editing behaviour making over 85 edits today alone, even as this AN/I thread continues, changing categorization despite their approach being challenged. They steadfastly refuses to explain their changes, even when asked, not even using edit summaries. I have specifically asked them to explain their approach on their talk page, but they continues to answer with non sequiturs. See here here and here. I have left a final request for them to explain here, although I expect this to be handled in the same non-responsive way as before. I believe it is now time to act. C22 needs to stop making changes until a consensus has been established, it seems to me that the only way we can get them to listen is a block. - Nick Thorne talk 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- As expected, a non-responsive reply: here. - Nick Thorne talk 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have made a brief comment on their talk page. Basically I can't see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps the communication style is poor, but I do see genuine attempts to explain their rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
using Hibiscus as personal gallery
Not sure I'm reporting this in the right place, but wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Please see this history page. Tried several times to revert the edits, but the editor is adding pics too quickly for me to do so, and I keep getting edit conflicts. Eric talk 03:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Meh. I think it might have been better to address the editor in question before posting here. If the images are high quality and germane, it might be OK. I know I've seen a policy on this somewhere, but don't recall. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't WP:NOTGALLERY apply? Dozens of images, all of Thai hibiscus, appears to be an undue concentration, without explanation of why this is necessary or constructive. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. The additions seem excessive and indiscriminate. When I looked at some of their images, I noticed that they seem to have started out under another username, One World Thailand, and that the metadata lists PHOENIX_AGENCY in the author field. An example of both may be seen here. I've little experience with image metadata; the copyright holder is listed as TRISORN_TRIBOON, and the author field may be irrelevant. I left them notices about the multiple usernames. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't WP:NOTGALLERY apply? Dozens of images, all of Thai hibiscus, appears to be an undue concentration, without explanation of why this is necessary or constructive. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Trisorn Triboon. I just wondering how many picture allow for gallery ? I also want to know if someone allow High Definition image to contributions for free usage and want to be part of create free knowledge would it not allow to have a group of people helping ?
I own advertising company and I believed I could help to support at lease high quality of images. If you have over 10000 images to use for each article how would you upload images as quick as you would ? One World Thailand are partner of our group so they allowed to have my images to help upload for contribution at lease if something happen to me such as car accident or sickness at lease I leave something for the world. not sure if varieties of Plant I put in gallery would be an issue ? if Wiki not allow to have that much I believed Wiki should have solution to have warning directly to author. One more reason I am trying to contribution as you can see Thailand only have around 1xx,xxx Articles while other country have more than millions. So I think with pictures I allowed to use would at lease give inspiration for someone to write more article for more knowledge for next generation. Sorry if part of my answer are not good English but I did my best trying to explain my point of view. and thank you for bring it up as issue at lease we can have better generation of wiki for new user to be part of it and use it the right way. so please let me know if too many of species not allow in gallery I would stop it right away. for other genus. Please also see Adenium and Plumeria gallery and Kindly give me explanation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisorn Triboon (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in, Dlohcierekim, BlackcurrantTea, and anonymous. In my experience, this kind of editing pattern does not come from someone interested in learning about the project and improving the encyclopedia. I just wanted to bring the behavior to others' attention. The system won't let me revert the additions, apparently because of the number of consecutive edits (56 on June 6, 62 on June 11). Eric talk 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- From what I am reading here, the user in question wishes to help, but needs some advice on how to do so in a manner that aligns with best practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in, Dlohcierekim, BlackcurrantTea, and anonymous. In my experience, this kind of editing pattern does not come from someone interested in learning about the project and improving the encyclopedia. I just wanted to bring the behavior to others' attention. The system won't let me revert the additions, apparently because of the number of consecutive edits (56 on June 6, 62 on June 11). Eric talk 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Would it help to create some stubs about the species (most are redlinks) and diffuse some images there? They are indeed high-quality and it is a pity we do not have a use for them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty BITEY, I'd say, and this certainly never belonged at ANI. Urgent! Encyclopedia under siege! Too many hibiscus images! EEng 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- @EEng:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus please kindly look at this page about difference plantae we are talking about
- "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents, chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and too many hibiscus images." Natureium (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Trisorn Triboon: The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, you would need to upload them under creative commons, GFDL, or public domain. You would in effect be giving away your rights to the images. If you are willing, commons would be willing to host the images. that's their mission-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the chuckles, gang. As I said in my first post, I didn't know where I should sound the hibiscus alert, even after searching WP's superbly indexed guidance for the appropriate place. So if it was completely out of line to post here, someone wiser than I could have simply removed my post and told me where to go, so to speak. Re "bitey": This is an encyclopedia, not a personal image showcase, and I think anyone who came here to improve the encyclopedia and took a few minutes to learn how we do things would have refrained from adding 60-plus images to an article in a WP whose language he/she does not master, all with captions in Title Case reading "Colorful Hibiscus Flower". Eric talk 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- They might very easily have come here to improve the encyclopedia and not realized they need to take a few minutes to learn how we do things, and just gone ahead and done something they thought would be helpful. AFAICS you never even left them a talk-page message before coming here. EEng 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- @EEng:Same as Koala eating Hibiscus it actually Eucalyptus not Hibuscus if you check type of leaf before you put title on image--Trisorn Triboon (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- They might very easily have come here to improve the encyclopedia and not realized they need to take a few minutes to learn how we do things, and just gone ahead and done something they thought would be helpful. AFAICS you never even left them a talk-page message before coming here. EEng 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Eric: Humor aside, it could look spammy if one adds too many of one's own images, so I think it reasonable to discuss the matter. We do need to find a best, highest use. Certainly, if one does not mind giving away one's images, commons is the place to do it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Eric:I am wondering on talk page of Eric why he got so many of talked and IBAN ? and nobody answer me if today i give away high resolution of 100 species banana and 100 species of mango and 100 species of herbs and put in the list of banana cultivars article and in the list of mango cultivars article and the list of herb article just because i am lucky that i am business owner of advertising agency dont give conclusion that pictures in gallery i put in or i made would be personal gallery ! because wikipedia are free to improve anywhere anytime and especially anyone. so if someone find difference species or the same species i put in but can improve quality of image which better lighting, better color better mood better tone better resolution, etc. in the same species i did put in feel free to put it up for other people in the world to see and use for education or anything so kindly do so. but do not give conclusion what i put are my personal gallery because anyone can help to improve it but not delete all of it ! so let me know if i got this wrong so i can stop what i am contribute right away. Thank you.-- TrisornTriboon (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the chuckles, gang. As I said in my first post, I didn't know where I should sound the hibiscus alert, even after searching WP's superbly indexed guidance for the appropriate place. So if it was completely out of line to post here, someone wiser than I could have simply removed my post and told me where to go, so to speak. Re "bitey": This is an encyclopedia, not a personal image showcase, and I think anyone who came here to improve the encyclopedia and took a few minutes to learn how we do things would have refrained from adding 60-plus images to an article in a WP whose language he/she does not master, all with captions in Title Case reading "Colorful Hibiscus Flower". Eric talk 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Trisorn Triboon: The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, you would need to upload them under creative commons, GFDL, or public domain. You would in effect be giving away your rights to the images. If you are willing, commons would be willing to host the images. that's their mission-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Adding the photo File:D85 1108 Sunset Through window after rain in Thailand photographed by Trisorn Triboon.jpg to sunset and adding File:D85 0751 Photographed by Trisorn Triboon 50.jpg to photography are representative of one aspect of the problem here. These two photos were added as the lead images for the two articles, but they are not appropriate: the sunset photo doesn't really exemplify what a sunset is, and the flower photo added to photography is only related to the topic in the sense that it is a photo. In a nutshell, Trisorn Triboon is here to highlight his photos in Wikipedia articles regardless of their appropriateness. @Trisorn Triboon: your photos are wonderful, but please be more selective in their use and make sure that they are used only where appropriate (perhaps by using the articles' talk pages to suggest new images and see what other say first). Peacock (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually IMO (unrelated to the specific case) seriously enforcing of WP:GALLERY is way overdue. We have quite a lot of galleries not compliant with the policy, and a lot of images which do not illustrate anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, we don't - I do some patrolling of articles tagged for this, of which there aren't all that many, and a good number are actually compliant. Place articles, especially in Asia, are often bad though. Of course views differ as to interpreting the policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Gallery Policy aside (I personally feel that particular one needs a bit of revisiting), I'd suggest that Trisorn Triboon may wish to take a trip to Wikimedia Commons; lest I am mistaken, Commons welcomes high-quality images of various sorts. From there, usage of the images for various articles could likely be proposed and discussed on the talk pages here; it's not as though many of our plant articles have as many images or as good quality images as would be preferable. (Notably, many seem to lack pictures of, say, the bark for trees, or various other diagnostic structures.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- All his images were already on Commons, uploaded by him. If you mean he should transfer his gallery there, then no - a) we shouldn't tell people what to do on Commons, and b) Commons galleries and "pages" are mostly unhelpful to users, the "pages" in particular being where users end up from a search, which is a major problem on Commons. I'd love to get the lot deleted. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06
My recent interactions with User:Buckshot06 started here: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Tuy Hoa Air Base on 7 May when I questioned them over the deletion of Tuy Hoa Air Base and then later Nha Trang Air Base. Buckshot06 was "presumptively deleting" entire pages as part of the Bwmoll3 CCI. My questioning of Buckshots06's approach eventually led to this response: "I am acting in full conformity with that rule and I am tired of you attacking me for doing my job as an admin. I do not expect to be criticised again for acting in full confirmity with the rules that keep the site legal". I then opened the entire issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145#Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages where I showed on 17 May that Buckshot06 was not in fact following CCI policy. Since opening that discussion Buckshot06 has been hounding me on various pages and issues.
Starting with User talk:Mztourist#South Korea in the Vietnam War on 13 May Buckshot06 became involved in a debate I was engaged in with an IP User (later registered as User:A bicyclette) regarding purported massacres by South Korean troops in the Vietnam War. Early in that discussion I stated "I find it strange that you as an Admin are siding with an anonymous IP which has made repeated POV changes, may well be a sock for a banned User and is unwilling to discuss the issues on the Talk page." Buckshot06 became involved in the debate, opening the issue of body count. They questioned the reliability of the AFD process and the competence of other Users with this comment "simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place" and assumed without any evidence that I had a US military background and so was inherently biased, "Clearly from your U.S. military background you would, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings." a claim which they subsequently covered up here: [[16]]. Buckshot06 then moved and continued the discussion here: Talk:South Korea in the Vietnam War#Copied over from User talk:Mztourist.
Also on 13 May Buckshot06 began revising categories of various Vietnam War bases leading to this debate: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Military bases of the Vietnam War.
On 16 May User talk:Mztourist#Military articles being deleted by Buckshot Buckshot06 stated "Do you not see (a) that the reason I started keeping an eye on what you're doing currently..." I advised them that "keeping an eye on what you're doing = WPHOUND."
On 31 May I started this discussion:User talk:A bicyclette#Your recent changes which Buckshot06 joined discussing body count. I suggested that the correct procedure rather than edit warring claims on each page was to reach a consensus that could be applied to all Vietnam War pages, Buckshot06 ignored this. Buckshot06 incorrectly asserted that I had "defend[ed] U.S. official body count figures, en generale" and was "saying they should be left in the articles without even giving the other side's figures, which would be equally biased". The dispute then moved to edits to the body count page. I noted that A bicyclette was making changes without providing edit summaries and asked Buckshot06 why he wasn't enforcing this.
On 31 May I opened an edit warring complaint against A bicyclette here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined) regarding his changes to numerous Vietnam War battle pages to insert US claims" etc and Buckshot06 became involved in the discussion addressing underlying issues rather than the edit warring by A bicyclette.
Also on 31 May Buckshot06 posted this: User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970 on my Talk Page to push their view on body count. I suggested that instead "why don't you look into this sudden surge of Vietnam War edits being made by User:A bicyclette and IP: 172.86.241.3 who both appeared out of nowhere 5-10 days ago or don't they concern you because you like their POV and they are causing issues for me?"
Also on 31 May Buckshot06 made various changes to the body count page here: [17] to enforce his views on the unreliability of Vietnam war body counts. I added further WP:RS that were a counterpoint to this on 2 June: [18] and then A bicyclette joined in making multiple changes to try to undermine my changes and support his view of a "Vietnamese Government" document which he claims represents the only truly reliable figures. Edit-warring followed and there were discussions on the Talk page: Talk:Body count#Last edits and Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing. Buckshot06 being involved did not act impartially, not questioning A bicyclette's claims that a 1995 AP story which gave different figures was incorrect nor questioning the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. Buckshot 06 did, thankfully, block the body count page from editing for 1 week, however as soon as that block expired yesterday A bicyclette has gone straight back to making his changes as I have noted here: Talk:Body count#Unbelievable.... Buckshot06 moved the discussion to Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates stating that A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document "This is probably the best source I've seen put forward from the Northern side for whole-war casualties" but finally acknowledged its deficiencies. I suggest a resolution of the entire issue here on 4 June: " I am asking you to adjudicate a final position on PAVN/VC casualties to go in the Vietnam War infobox, I suggest this should be the following range: 849,018 (with A bicyclette's ref when he provides it properly) - 1,489,000 (with Rummel ref). Please confirm and obtain confirmation of this from A bicyclette as he seems to still be contesting all other references other than his Vietnamese document" but Buckshot06 did nothing.
On 5 June due to the ongoing edit-warring I opened a 3RR here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s)) and Buckshot06 was asked by the Admin to contribute and they once again discussed the issue of body counts and my skepticism regarding Vietnamese sources. On 7 June both I and A bicyclette were warned but this did nothing really changed.
On 7 June, as suggested by the Admin I opened two discussions here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages regarding the whole "claims/body count" issue and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties regarding the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. I posted these on the edit-warring complaint, Talk:Vietnam War#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, both remain open and I would have assumed that until they are closed the edit-warring would have stopped.
Also on 7 June A bicyclette made this change [19], which I reverted here [20] commenting "no explanation or justification given for revert, discuss on talk page rather than edits warring again", A bicyclette referted again here: [21]. Buckshot06 made an intervening edit but did nothing to stop A bicyclette making these changes or enforce Talk page discussion. On 9 June I reverted A bicyclette again here: [22], Buckshot06 then reverted my change here: [23] stating "2 to 1 consensus ; accurate; improves context". On 10 June I reverted Buckshot06 here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_allied_military_operations_of_the_Vietnam_War_(1966)&diff=next&oldid=845104222} stating "2:1 is not a consensus, take it to RFC". On 9 June Buckshot06 opened this discussion on the Talk page: Talk:List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)#Mid-2018 threatening me with Admin sanctions. I advised them that "As you should be well aware, I have raised this whole issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages and you should await the outcome of that RFC and ensure that A bicyclette stops making these changes until that RFC is finalized rather than threatening me with sanctions." Buckshot06 then proceeded to block me for 3 days.
I successfully appealed my block as discussed here: User talk:Mztourist#Block and here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block and unblock of Mztourist.
I believe this all shows that Buckshot06 has clearly been hounding me and request appropriate action/sanctions to stop this and prevent any recurrence. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I note that you started a blatantly POV pushing "request for comment" at WT:MILHIST#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages, and have followed up on the complaints about this by starting a RfC which also falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract at WT:MILHIST#RFC: How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented?. That you are giving these as an example of good conduct on your part suggests a lack of reflection on the matter: this is poor conduct which indicates that Buckshot has valid concerns about your editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nick-D you are the first to categorise my RFC as "blatantly POV". Several Users indicated that my RFC was poorly framed and I have attempted to correct that creating a new RFC in the form suggested, how does that "falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract"? I have been getting nowhere in my disputes with A bicyclette and Buckshot06 on US claims/sources/reports/body counts and so am seeking comments/consensus on this issue which I thought was the correct procedure. If not, please explain to me exactly what procedure I should be following there rather than casting dispersions on me here and distracting from my complaint regarding hounding. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lodging a SPI report about your opponent in this content dispute (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam) and then badgering the checkuser [24] and closing admin [25] when it was declined on the grounds that you saw the report as a way of ending the dispute is also poor practice. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nick-D Amanda the Admin who declined the checkuser of A bicyclette said on 7 June "If after a few days no further evidence is provided, I'd recommend closure w/o action". I provided further evidence on 7 June and then again on 10 June but Bbb23 closed the entire SPI on 10 June while I was subject to Buckshot06's block. Once I was unblocked I raised the issue with Bbb23, I don't believe that I have badgered Bbb23, but if so I unreservedly apologise. I believe that I have legitimate grounds for the SPI because A bicyclette's edits follow a familiar pattern and POV to previous blocked Users. I am especially frustrated by the fact that I am receiving so much criticism from so many fronts for trying to follow proper policy and procedures while A bicyclette ignores all policies and procedures and attracts no criticism or sanctions whatsoever. Do the checkuser, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right then I have been sorely wronged. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have to admit I would have done that Checkuser. There is certainly enough evidence (overlaps in editing, time of creation of account etc.) to do so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Body count is a mass of SYNTH and OR (some of which I've deleted). EEng 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that this discussion is underway; I'm signaled my acceptance of the decision regarding the reversed block - clearly I acted too hastily regarding the body count issue in articles; Mztourist has repeatedly got in my way as I have attempted to continue the copyvio cleanup after Bwmoll3; I have grave concerns about Mztourist's POV on Vietnam matters, but I've also had to rollback some of A bicyclette's edits, and to advise him to lodge source complaints with WP:RSN. I believe that both Mztourist and A bicyclette are getting a little too worked up over the issue, and a cup of tea and pause for reflection might be in order. I do finally however note that I do not agree with some of Mztourist's characterisations of our interactions above. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Repeatedly got in my way"? You were not following CCI policy as you repeatedly claimed. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: You should probably consider yourself involved with Mztourist from now on.--v/r - TP 17:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I am somehow surprised that Nick-D's first reaction to the complaint was to comb through Mztourist's entire edit history and try to find faults with them, even going as far as an entirely unrelated SPI, while displaying zero interest in in the very problem that has brought them here, i.e., HOUNDING. It will take some effort to convince me this is not an attempt to undermine the complainant's credibility. — kashmīrī TALK 16:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help, I already warned this user about his/hers disruptive editing, can someone check him out? (Article: Marshmello) Thanks. hueman1 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Just for future reference, it's easier if diffs are provided as opposed to just linking an entire article.
I've also notified the user of this ANI report on their talk page. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
User:Brad-XXVII
Help, this user uploaded non-free images (I guess) and claiming it as his own work. hueman1 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide diffs for this report. I've also notified the user properly as a warning on the users talk page is not sufficient in my book. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
hueman1
Sigh... the above two reports are disingenuous. I see no talk page activity from HueMan, only edit warring. Suggest a warning that consensus and sources are required for such statements. --Tarage (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shevonsilva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Shevonsilva has been creating a lot of stubs with a lot of problems. A lot of time has been spent on their talk page by PamD, Vexations, Nick Moyes, Imaginatorium, and me. They have issues with things like sourcing information, mass creation of stubs with the same misspelling, bad titles, and using Wikipedia as the source for article creation. Despite a lot of patience, things have now devolved into personal attacks like:
I never expect you as a big liar.
[...]You have no idea about the subject there
[...]You do not appreciate other, and, telling lies and discourage other. If you cann't understand the article it is fine. STOP LYING to other people.
[...]This is dis-graceful. You are attacking me personally. I am very unhappy about you, now. I hate liars.
[26]You like to involve in arguemnts with me and impress others while others are supporting me and suggesting me important things like bots and stuff. You only created two pages (according to your page), look like you got no idea how much effort we have to put to create pages
[27]- and the ironic
Your English is much like Gangster English.
[28]
I suggest they be banned from creating articles due to WP:CIR and strongly warned about civility. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just to note that I am on Kenya constituency stubs (actually, already for three days) and I am steadily improving them. No need to intervene in this area. Just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is about me. I will post the full discussion. There were personal attacks towards me and my work. I will post the full discussion. Creating stubs are something else.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the whole mess. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Here are the full discussions:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mass_additions
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shevonsilva&diff=prev&oldid=845405728&diffmode=source
Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Indeed, Shevonsilva has created more than 1000 stubs on subdivisions of Africa over approximately 6 weeks. Many of these have included lots of careless errors (each one mass-duplicated); the most recent couple of samples I looked at did not have any obvious errors. So I find it easy to assume good faith, but I cannot see how all this effort is improving Wikipedia. For many of the countries concerned, there is absolutely minimal information, and some sort of list of subdivisions (e.g. Departments of Gabon): putting this list in tabular form, adding information such as "Capital" or "Population" would obviously be an improvement. But instead what happens is a mass of microstubs, giving the same information in less convenient form. Worse, when there is an occasional division with a useful article there is no way of distinguishing it, since every division has a microstub link. A few other points:
- Shevonsilva does appear to be engaged in a bizarre "point scoring" exercise. When it is pointed out that many of his pages (for example from a previous mass-creation of "units" pages) have been converted to redirects, we get comments like "Re-directions are regarded as a creation."
- The history for the page M'Bagne Department is curious. (See User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mauritania_now). Originally there were eight extra paragraphs after the usual boilerplate, the first duplicating the boilerplate (with the usual punctuation errors), the rest of an oddly poetic style. Shevonsilva replied to me that this "was in another source", and progressively deleted the last three, then the last two paragraphs. I cannot imagine how anyone capable of reading the text could truncate it progressively in this way; it simply makes no sense.
- Many people (from the very first comment on his talk page) have asked Shevonsilva to "slow down"; the response to these requests has always been evasive. It is very difficult to cooperate with an editor with this approach. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I had no idea about point scoring thing. I don't need any point. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- These issues wouldn't be a problem if they weren't repeated by the hundred. The title of almost all of the stubs need to be changed because they all end in the descriptive word as though it is part of the title. Ex, Farafangana District. District is not part of the proper noun. There are hundreds of articles that need to be moved. I informed them about the title thing a few days ago and they are still creating new articles with the same problem. Natureium (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- That is very very motivational, please refer full discussion (the approaches are well discussed there): [29]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Please_get_your_bot_to_take_a_little_more_care!. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, FYI, I stopped stub creation of administrative divisions. Anyway, I am glad to discuss naming issues of the articles with policy makers and we have re-structure naming of over 10,000 articles (I never created or edit those) if we are going to make a change on naming. I am thinking to focusing on my own works. Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The issue here is whether Shevonsilva should be sanctioned for their conduct. I lean toward an indefinite block based on a mixture of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT. Shevonsilva has over 5,000 edits. They didn't start editing in earnest until 2014, and in the three years 2014-16, they made between 350 and 700 edits each year. In 2017 they had one edit. In less than half of 2018, they have made a whopping 3400 edits, but apparently mostly not benefiting the project. I don't see a temporary block as serving any purpose, other than perhaps to slow them down, as I don't expect their abilities to improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh Talk 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would give thee time to practice editing, expanding, and sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- can anyone kindly, confirm me, in Districts of Madagascar do I have to change the naming for the articles which only I have created, or, do I have to change the naming of all pre-existing ones too with the syntax, "name department"? Shevonsilva (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, then, I will move articles I have created as this is everyone expects and that is my responsibility to do it as I am the creater. Heavy work. I will follow the pattern e.g. name (department). I will try to move other pre-existing ones (a heavy bulk, which I never created or edited, over 10000 articles) if I have a free time. Hope this is what all are expecting. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear, dear, I am very sorry. Just now I saw your message. I changed the naming for the articles I have created as everyone was expecting it(except for Kenya as someone was in it). I really feel this is breaking the Extended metaphor. I think we have amend the policy of naming related things like this. Anyway, no worries. I will revert the naming if it is helpful. Anyone can easily trackdown the pages through my user page which has all the link for the articles. I am always here to help and go with consensus. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am a Senior Software Engineer and Researcher. There are a few cases. In user interface design (including web pages), we always follow the same metaphor to make the user less confused. The other part is search engines give more weights for URLs sometimes. If we use name (department), search engines have to use lexical analysis and probably gives a less weight, but, if we use name_department, it will filter the underscore, and, easily pick it. And, as I know it is a common practice to use name department than name (department). One good example is we call Hydrogen ion not Hydrogen (ion). To be honest, I only tried to help. I am getting nothing with these changes, only tried to help you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh Talk 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- One of the saddest aspects of all this is that this flood of stubs are so ridiculously minimal. "X is a [type of unit] in [country]." and nothing else, except an infobox giving the same information (except when it's mangled, as for Madagascar). Even where the sources cited clearly state the intermediate unit(s) (eg Regions in Madagascar), Shevonsilva will not add that extra information which could transform a pretty useless stub into one which enables the reader looking for "X district" to find out roughly where in the country it lies, and get more information about the area. I've upgraded Sakaraha District from the original version, using the source provided. I've pointed this out several times, to no effect. The flood of all-but-useless stubs, many of which would be much more useful as a redirect to an existing sourced and informative list of administrative units, has continued unchecked until it finally arrived at ANI.
- There's a huge amount of cleanup to be done, which ought to be done by Shevonsilva before they are allowed to create any more mess.
- There is also a need to add navigation links - thus Sakaraha District should have a hatnote link at Sakaraha, and similarly every article called "X [unit]" needs a link by a hatnote, dab page entry or redirect from "X". If this editor had the interests of the readers at heart, they would be making these links. It looks as if their sole goal is to add to the length of the list of "Articles" created, seen on their user page.
- Editors with long memories may remember a slightly similar set of problems around obscure units of measurement a few years ago - over-enthusiastic stub creation based on a very dodgy source, and necessitating a lot of cleanup. PamD 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- yes, as I promised, now I am going to improve the articles I have created as the second round, after resolving the naming issue with moving articles. These are really my responsibilities. Thanks all. After resolving all the issues, I am really going to focus on my own stuff. I will try to finish all the issues tonight. I am measuring myself how fast I am. Thanks everyone. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I will go for coffee and come back address all the issues. :) [As, I am in a break of my job, I really tried to help Wikipedia.] :) Shevonsilva (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Title problems are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sub title problemsa are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Added additional information for all the minimal stubs (as my stage 2 work). Hope things are fine now and resolved the issues. I am thinking to take a break now.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- That description for Ibanda was in French encyclopedia as I remember (I check it later again). Yes I will re-scan all the stubs again and do another clean up for the content. Every work was Manuel, but, I use some different techniques to speed up (that is why I removed that description from the conversation as readers get wrong idea. Sorry.) I will do the clean up today (I have to do these as I am the one responsible for creating) :). Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Shevonsilva: Yes, the description of Ibanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo is in the French wikipedia, at fr:Ibanda. It is unsourced there. You have stolen the intellectual property of the editors of that French article by dumping a poor translation into English of their exact text into the English encyclopedia and claiming it to be your own work. That is unacceptable behaviour. Also, the two references you have cited might support the first sentence but have no mention of the rest of the content, so you should not have placed the references after the unsupported content. And you didn't bother to link to any other Wikipedia articles except "Commune" and "Congo", while the French article linked to Bukavu, Lake Kivu and Rwanda, so that your version of the French article was even less useful to the reader. This shows very little understanding of how to contribute to Wikipedia. And of course there needs to be a hatnote at our article on Ibanda, a Ugandan town, so that readers have a chance of finding the new stub about the DRCongo place. There just seems to be constant series of problems here. PamD 16:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- As we operate under a creative commons license, and it is just a translation from the French Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, nothing has been stolen. Derivation, alteration, and usage of one's work on Wikipedia in perpetuity is something one can and should expect, and translating from one language to another is rather standard practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- While that is technically true, Icarosaurvus, we do have guidelines for translation that should be followed. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is true, and I wish to state that best practice was certainly not followed here; I likely should have stated that above. However, calling it theft of intellectual property struck me as rather disingenuous. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link of we do have guidelines for translation. I noted a good point here, I can try to develop a more efficient bot to cross reference the missing bits across different encyclopedias with varied languages. Thnanks all.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is true, and I wish to state that best practice was certainly not followed here; I likely should have stated that above. However, calling it theft of intellectual property struck me as rather disingenuous. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's good that you're trying to improve these articles now, but you're making upwards of 50 edits per minute. How is this possible? Natureium (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am using my own automation which is much more technical. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's good that you're trying to improve these articles now, but you're making upwards of 50 edits per minute. How is this possible? Natureium (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- hi all, :) I improved the content of the articles, and, localized information, and, citations tag when it is more required. Hope thigs are better and fine now. Thanks all. Anyone please suggest me a place (in wikipedia) to discuss re-structuring issues like article naming specially with administrators and policy makers and other relevent personnels, or, this is the place for it? Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa could be a good starting point. And pls stop editing until the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, and, thanks for the link. I am too more interested about the naming consensus too. Anytime, I can surely help to revert all the namings with the top categories if it is required (for the articles I have created, and, if it is needed if i can help for other articles too). I too like to join with the naming consensus discussion too. Sorry for asking this in a different angle again. What would the better place (in wikipedia) to discuss a matter which is affecting whole Encyclopedia (e.g., if we take naming about all the areas in the wolrd or universe [which has hierarchies in classifications) or, here will be the better place for a discussion? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Shevonsilva, no, unfortunately the latest suite of articles you have just mass-edited at 17:56 UTC today still contain flaws. e.g. Matadjana and c.80 others all contain a url in the published field, which displays red in references. Can't you see this? Please explain why you didn't create one page, check it, and then carry on if it looked OK, or corrected it if not? I think WP:MEATBOT is relevant here - please read it and note that all bots require approval from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. So, I'm pinging @Cyberpower678: to take a look at this issue, as I believe you've strayed into territory that needs involvement from an administrator with experience in that field. You tell us you are editing manually, but also that "
I am using my own automation which is much more technical.
" Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)- Yep. Clearly an unapproved bot is at work here, and a very controversial one at that. I approved Qbugbot, and I ran it through numerous stringent trials to ensure the community would accept it once approved. Shevonsilva is to stop using their automation immediately before they land themselves an indefinite block. If they want to run a semi-automated/fully-automated process at such a speed, they need to file a BRFA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi all, thanks for letting me know about @Cyberpower678:. I am really looking forward to develop some useful approved bots for wikipedia and I may need his support in some point in future. Thanks for letting me know about reference url error (template is not allowing me to add an url, I was trying to find a way to include it in the template). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- HEY Shevonsilva Multiple people have told you to stop with these mass edits and you are continuing to run your bot at this very moment. STOP. Natureium (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. Clearly an unapproved bot is at work here, and a very controversial one at that. I approved Qbugbot, and I ran it through numerous stringent trials to ensure the community would accept it once approved. Shevonsilva is to stop using their automation immediately before they land themselves an indefinite block. If they want to run a semi-automated/fully-automated process at such a speed, they need to file a BRFA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa could be a good starting point. And pls stop editing until the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi all, I fixed url issue too. :) Hope things are fine now. :) Anyway, let me know if there is any missing thing. Thanks all for your support. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ooooops, and, we are still discussing title naming consensus. It will be interesting thing to discuss too. Thanks Shevonsilva (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi all, kindly refer the following, based on the feedback from some contributors, I have moved some administrative units in the format, for example, ame (department) even though it is directly breaking existing standardards of other relevent administrative units.
- Kindly refer:
- Departments of Burkina Faso
- Communes of Burundi
- Departments of Chad
- Districts of Djibouti
- Departments of Gabon
- Districts of Ghana
- Districts of Madagascar
- Departments of Mauritania
- Arrondissements of Senegal
- Now these have amalgamated two standards (i.e.: e.g., Name Department and Name (department)). This is not what I expect from my work on administrative units which are missed in the encyclopedia to create less-user friendly-ness during the navigation by an ordinary user who is not aware of the wikipedia formats (here now there are two formats). Kindly, please everyone, present your ideas over this matter. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO: Non-neutral editing and inappropriate behavior
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings, all. I hereby assert that editor SPECIFICO has engaged in a series of baseless and non-neutral edits in an article. More importantly, though, is the pattern of his behavior here in Wikipedia, which is consistently hostile, antagonistic, and far from civil. SPECIFICO seems to have certain ideas that he's extremely keen to promote in Wikipedia, mostly by deleting content of opposing notions, with typically arbitrary assertions. SPECIFICO acts like a person on a mission.
"Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018" SPECIFICO has removed large parts of informative text along with the respective sources, passing personal judgement on the content of the removed text. Here are samples, with diffs and SPECIFICO's self-revelatory summaries inside brackets:
- "Removed blithering nonsense about Irving Fisher" (removed whole Bloomberg article about the referendum's background)
- "Remove commentary from primary-sourced staff working paper" (that was an IMF paper that was removed; nothing "primary" about it)
- "Shorten and remove mixed up note that has some misinformation" (removed part of paper by UMKC economist; removed reference to other PK economists)
- "Remove opinion cited to non-RS" (removed the source to the paper behind the referendum!)
- "Remove trivia primary-sourced to crank website" (removed reference to similar initiative in the United States, known as the NEED Act)
And so on, and so forth.
SPECIFICO has some very strongly held viewpoints about Economics, like lots of people have, but seems dead set on imposing those viewpoints on Wikipedia articles without the least concern for balance! All this, served with hostile, when not insulting, language, a standard piece of the repertoire, e.g. "You have nothing constructive to add there", "You belong in a nutshell", etc.
Searching back in time, I found that SPECIFICO is a regular feature in ANI reports (here, May 2013, 31 hr block); (here, when the evidence against SPEC was so overwhelming that the process ground down, June 2013); (here, off with a warning, May 2018); (here, June 2018, again a warning); there's more. The title of one particular complaint more or less sums it up: "SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending". Trying to humor SP (e.g. here, where SP ended up accusing me of "defending SPAs") apparently does not work.
Topic ban proposed: I suppose a few months long cooling-down period from any Economics-related topic would be helpful to all concerned. Wikipedia contributors will better use their time; the conditions for a constructive and collaborative environment even (and especially) among persons with opposite viewpoints will improve; stressful interaction will decrease; and SPECIFICO might possibly take it easier coming back. -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was honestly hard to take this complaint seriously after seeing that the first diff you present as evidence is SPECIFICO removing an obviously false statement of fact from an article - Irving Fisher never received a Nobel of any kind. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Bloomberg report, which SPECIFICO deleted, along with other text, contained this one factual mistake. And the mistake could have been deleted from the Wikipedia article, or simply not been mentioned. (Or, if quoted, tagged with a 'sic'.) Instead, and because that Bloomberg article presented the views of those who initiated and supported the June 2018 referendum, SPECIFICO deleted the whole thing. If the purpose was to remove "blithering nonsense about Fisher", SP would have merely deleted the mention about a Nobel; but no, everything went out the window. SPECIFICO has gone on a rampage of mass deletions in the article, over and beyond the one you mention, all with the same exact intent: so that false prophets do not have a stand in Wikipedia, so some such reasoning. SPECIFICO's work is in gross violation of the balance principle. Whether SPECIFICO's views on Economics are correct or not is irrelevant. We cannot have crusades in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk)
- I've looked at the diffs, the article history and the talk page and I'm concluding that no action is necessary (based on what I've found). Removing material is not, in itself, an offence. Moreover, I don't see most of these removals being contested either in the article history (there's a minor back and forth between BBCLCD and SPECIFICO that hasn't been touched on the talk page, mutual fault at worst) or on the talk page. I did note the nebulous POV claim that The Gnome levied on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to have resulted in anything productive. Moreover, I see a serious assertion of
his behavior here in Wikipedia, which is consistently hostile, antagonistic, and far from civil
that has not been adequately substantiated (or at all). The five years apart threads at AN/EW (which is for edit-warring) and AN/I (which resulted in warnings only and for AP2, and the AE didn't result in a warning but a reminder) don't come close to that claim. Even if they did, there's none of that at either the article or talk page in question. You want a months long TBAN from economics for this? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- The totality of SPECIFICO's text deletions are one-sided. The edit summaries speak for themselves, and anyone who looks at the history and the diffs can see this. SPECIFICO tried to have the article deleted (the AfD resulted in a Keep decision) on the basis of the subject being "promotional narrative device for a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists." However, Wikipedia does no favors to any particular idea or viewpoint; it's all about balance and verifiability. SPECIFICO disputed the subject's notability (wrote "[these people have] been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade with zero public notability to show for it"), a patently untrue claim, as evidenced by the myriads of sources.
- Again, with patience: This is not about the subject's merit. This is not about the referendum's proposal being correct (or not). This is about SPECIFICO, using language that is peristently confrontational, aggressive, and non-constructive, engaging in crusades against "false news", "phoney ideas", and whatnot. Being an economist, I have my personal opinion on all such subjects (and I happen to agree with SP's views on some of them). But I do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground for ideas. I'm here to offer a balanced viewpoint to the user; not assert and promote. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- If this is about SPECIFICO's 'language' and behavior then some solid evidence for that would be useful i.e. behavior which violates policy like WP:NPA etc. Right now this complaint reads to me like a content dispute being wrapped up as a notional behavior issue. So far you have presented the removal of a sentence falsely stating Fisher won a 'Nobel Prize' and a source used only for that; What looks like a throw away bill from the U.S Congress which was likely UNDUE; Something from the CFA Institute, whose website is filled with a bunch of buzz-words but, on brief examination, does not seem to be much of a monetary policy commentator, etc - Which contain pithy edit summaries. All in all, I believe this complaint needs some actual evidence of sanctionable behavior. If you see a 'ballance issue' take it to WP:NPOVN, if you disagree on sources take it to WP:RSN. I will note that Wikipedia seeks neutrality not ballance and we do not give equal time to fringe or 'crack-pot' viewpoints. Whether the material under discussion is such is a content issue. Jbh Talk 12:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Who exactly is the arbiter for a viewpoint being "crackpot," Jbhunley? We have articles about the Earth being flat and chemtrails in the sky that are more balanced than this article. And that's because their text, rightly, presents both sides' views per sources, including the case made by the believers. As it happens, and as expected, the sources are overwhelmingly labeling such theories as invalid; and, well, that is what is presented. Here, we have serial biased deleting of one side's arguments, even when presented by established reliable sources, e.g. Bloomberg. This is strongly biased editing and I'm sorry if you accept that biased editing can be the norm here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- By definition, the sources are the arbiters of what is fringe and what is not. We do not give flat Earth theory or chemtrails any weight in articles which are not about those topics. Any time they are discussed we make it very clear they are fringe so I really do not get why you bring them up here? Is the information SPECIFICO has been removing as … shall we say … eccentric as flat Earth? If it is even close then it has no business in that article without clear caveats that it is not accepted by main stream, or even a significant minority, of those who are qualified to have an opinion. Jbh Talk 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. By the way, Wikipedia seeks neutrality and balance. Just for the record. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BALANCE simply discusses the weight given to each POV. If the view under discussion is mostly held by the fringe then we do not give it undue prominence. That would mislead our readers. Jbh Talk 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Who exactly is the arbiter for a viewpoint being "crackpot," Jbhunley? We have articles about the Earth being flat and chemtrails in the sky that are more balanced than this article. And that's because their text, rightly, presents both sides' views per sources, including the case made by the believers. As it happens, and as expected, the sources are overwhelmingly labeling such theories as invalid; and, well, that is what is presented. Here, we have serial biased deleting of one side's arguments, even when presented by established reliable sources, e.g. Bloomberg. This is strongly biased editing and I'm sorry if you accept that biased editing can be the norm here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- If this is about SPECIFICO's 'language' and behavior then some solid evidence for that would be useful i.e. behavior which violates policy like WP:NPA etc. Right now this complaint reads to me like a content dispute being wrapped up as a notional behavior issue. So far you have presented the removal of a sentence falsely stating Fisher won a 'Nobel Prize' and a source used only for that; What looks like a throw away bill from the U.S Congress which was likely UNDUE; Something from the CFA Institute, whose website is filled with a bunch of buzz-words but, on brief examination, does not seem to be much of a monetary policy commentator, etc - Which contain pithy edit summaries. All in all, I believe this complaint needs some actual evidence of sanctionable behavior. If you see a 'ballance issue' take it to WP:NPOVN, if you disagree on sources take it to WP:RSN. I will note that Wikipedia seeks neutrality not ballance and we do not give equal time to fringe or 'crack-pot' viewpoints. Whether the material under discussion is such is a content issue. Jbh Talk 12:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- In lieu of a boomerang, it might be worth giving a friendly warning to OP here, not to use article talk pages to disparage other editors and to bone up on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines so that he might channel his energy more constructively in the future. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please keep your "friendly warnings" to yourself. This ANI report, my first after more than ten years onboard, has been made only after your behavior and manners have gone totally overboard. I'm simply trying to rid Wikipedia of bias, from any side. Your series of removals is completely out of line. If reporting blatantly abusive behavior and arbitrary, baseless, and biased editing will get me boomeranged, then so be it - it'll be another step in my education in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you should explain yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comments re: the "behavior" piece of this report: I'm not sure the person filing the report formed it in the best manner, but their explanation follow-ups in this thread ring true and are reminiscent of similar previous complaints, not just recently but also in the past, regarding SPECIFICO's reverting and edit summary habits. For the most recent issues, I'll leave these diffs that include an AN3 where the party in question received a strong and final warning from NeilN both at the noticeboard [30] and at SPECIFICO's talk page.[31] Neil stated there: "This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [32], [33] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." The biggest point raised beyond the edit warring behavior is the blatant dishonesty in SPECIFICO's revert, edit summary, and answers given to why they felt the revert was something it actually wasn't. There's also this similar concern just a few days later from JFG.[34] [35] And now, less than a week after the AN3, this report. It's not the first time SPECIFICO's behavior toward other editors and tendentious editing practices have been seen as a serious issue with strong warnings issued. The following ANI stated in the close, "User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban...User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion".[36] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be ANI without a stalker showing up, cherrypicking this and that, and canvassing, would it? 😎 SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- With this unrestrained attitude of name calling and ad hominems you are indeed the best witness for the case against you. Is it that difficult to own up and change your ways? -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would be best if everyone could remember that not all editors share the same view point or values. This is why civility is impossible to enforce outside of egregious transgressions. Trying to enforce one's own view of proper interaction on anyone other than one's self leads to nothing but frustration, disappointment and, if it becomes disruptive, sanction. The community at ANI and elsewhere has not formed any consensus that, in general, incivility beyond repeated or egregious violations of WP:NPA should be subject to sanction at ANI. It would also be best, but beyond realistic expectation, if editors with prior unresolved grievances did not show up at ANI threads to continue those conflicts. It almost never helps resolve anything and, more often than not, lends more heat than light to the discussion. Jbh Talk 14:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reminder about unfounded accusations made above [37]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- With this unrestrained attitude of name calling and ad hominems you are indeed the best witness for the case against you. Is it that difficult to own up and change your ways? -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- A case was presented which doesn’t appear to be actionable. But, if the participants continue, the may all get sanctioned. I suggest they all take a step back. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- If past indiscretions are brought up then that is worth documenting here as they demonstrate a pattern and this forum is needed to demonstrate that the community has been informed and maybe tried but failed to resolve a behavioral or similar issue. There is enough to recommend the OP shoot this to arbcom where they can either accept or decline a case.MONGO 14:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- JFG also brought up some problems with SPECIFICO's behavior here. Maybe he would like to weigh in? Natureium (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- (pinged) Within our behavioral guidelines and dispute resolution mechanisms, it is difficult to properly address long-term patterns of low-level disturbance. Given my experience watching SPECIFICO's behavior at American Politics articles, I am not surprised to see her questioned for a similar pattern in another subject area. I have no involvement or opinion about this particular complaint, but for context I can point observers to the comments I made in a May 2018 AE case against her: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#SPECIFICO. (please open the discussion by clicking "show" and scroll to section "Statement by JFG.") My summary assessment was:
Overall, SPECIFICO's interventions contribute to the toxic atmosphere in the AP2 area, especially in articles about political "current events", which are contentious enough without her fanning the flames. Her snide comments and threats have had a chilling effect on healthy debate towards article improvement. Some of the attacked editors have quit (and SPECIFICO is proud of that). Warnings have been tried, and had no lasting effect on her behavior. A topic ban is in my opinion long overdue.
Note that I also defended SPECIFICO in other circumstances, e.g. at another recent AE case. Her cavalier dismissal of a commenting editor above[38] is typical of the "snark" she has been admonished for. Will this thread yield yet another warning? Probably so. — JFG talk 14:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- (pinged) Within our behavioral guidelines and dispute resolution mechanisms, it is difficult to properly address long-term patterns of low-level disturbance. Given my experience watching SPECIFICO's behavior at American Politics articles, I am not surprised to see her questioned for a similar pattern in another subject area. I have no involvement or opinion about this particular complaint, but for context I can point observers to the comments I made in a May 2018 AE case against her: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#SPECIFICO. (please open the discussion by clicking "show" and scroll to section "Statement by JFG.") My summary assessment was:
- Someone familiar with Wikipedia policy needs to look at that article: the 'historical context' section is almost entirely WP:OR (and not exactly neutral either, though there is nothing unsurprising about that, given the propensity of the Austrian School fanclub to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their fringe economic theories). 86.147.197.65 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Austrian School? SPECIFICO already has a topic ban for Ludwig von Mises Institute Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee.– Lionel(talk) 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- The von Mises Mises Instetute isn't mentioned in the article. And if it wasn't for WP:OR, the Austrian School probably wouldn't be either. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing whatsoever in the article (at least as it stood before been trashed by SPECIFICO) that advocated anything related to Austrian economics. In fact, I challenge "new" editor 86.147.197.65 to provide specific examples of their allegation. What's "Austrian" about the article? The Historical section in the article is, of course, anything except "original work", since it is fully cited and entirely relevant.
- Personal stance disclosure : The referendum proposal is/was based on a totally fallacious understanding about money, the state as monopoly creator of the national currency, banking and central banking operations, and a host of other foundational notions in Finance. However, we are obliged to proffer to Wikipedia users the full rationale and context of the initiative. I advocate against such proposals elsewhere online, under my real name. But this is Wikipedia. We don't do advocacy here. It's an encylopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Challenge accepted. Specifico made his first edit to the article here [39]. The article at that time began the 'Historical context' context section with a single-sentence paragraph: "Criticism of fractional-reserve banking has been prominent in such circles as the Austrian School for over a century." And yes, the section is WP:OR because only the contributors responsible for it have decided that it is 'historical context'.
- Austrian School? SPECIFICO already has a topic ban for Ludwig von Mises Institute Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee.– Lionel(talk) 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- And I'd appreciate it if you stopped dropping paranoid hints about me being Specifico. I'm not. Feel free to file a SPI if you think otherwise. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can see that this has something to do with aspects of liberal-versus-conservative politics, although I'm far from an expert in economics. The entire subject area of post-1932 (or whatever year it was) US politics is an absolute toxic waste dump, despite the Discretionary Sanctions put in place by ArbCom. I've been dealing with it at another, very different page, and, well, facepalm. Whatever else, admins need to recognize that there are certain editors who keep showing up on both sides of this stuff, quite ready to use noticeboards to advance content disputes. If you notice a pattern in who is on one "side" of this ANI thread and who is on the other, you aren't just imagining it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tryp - does that include your appearance here? 😂 Atsme📞📧 20:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I know you are kidding me, but given the venue, I feel the need to point out that I did not take a "side" in my comment above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Tryp - does that include your appearance here? 😂 Atsme📞📧 20:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- This article like others relating to this fringe, now decisively rejected, referendum in Switzerland, was heavily edited by sockpuppet and SPA accounts that added a lot of poorly sourced, POV, and OR content to them. The sock was banned, and my involvement in this article consists almost exclusively of trying to remove the worst of its edits and salvage whatever is noteworthy in the remainder. OP in this complaint apparently became frustrated at this and launched listed a set of content concerns on the talk page that he mis-described as behavioral transgressions. The thread is here [40]. As can be seen, I ignored the WP:ASPERSIONS and addressed the content, but then he quickly jumped to this ANI. A few editors who follow my talk page have commented. That's ordinary course for noticeboards. Then other editors, who as Tryprofish says, have had content disagreements with me in unrelated topic areas, have come here hoping to paint a dark picture of me or even to canvass OP to open an ARBCOM case against me. This Swiss referendum article is just about orthogonal to American Politics. It's kind of a green party cum fringe anti-banking cause celebre that's now run its course. The article will most likely be deleted, but it may survive a while first while we see whether there are mainstream post-mortems or any other fallout. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
have had content disagreements with me in unrelated topic areas
- The community chooses to legitimize that tactic, and so be it. One is allowed to discredit the complainant(s) by simply stating that they usually oppose you on content, with absolutely no requirement for evidence that that is their actual motive. And it usually works, in my experience, which is one of the reasons ANI is broken. The obvious corollary is that editors who agree with you on content issues are far less concerned about your behavior, far more likely to look the other way or actively defend you in a behavior complaint. You can't have one without the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment this is mostly a content dispute that isn't ripe for ANI. Regarding SPECIFICO's edits here, when I look at a diff like "Remove trivia primary-sourced to crank website.", removing a paragraph about Dennis Kucinich proposing a bill that wasn't discussed at all in the US Congress is a reasonable position for an article on a vote in Switzerland, especially with no reference tying it to the Swiss effort. Whether that material is sourced to a primary source or a secondary source (or a "crank website" source) isn't relevant. SPECIFICO certainly isn't the only editor to focus too much on finding a very weak "policy reason" for removals, rather than simply saying it is an editorial opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Alssa1's harassment of Garageland66 and lack of competent editing
Original, longer version of complaint by Tanbircdq |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"*No As above, WP:COMMONNAME. @Garageland66:It's only a controversial claim amongst self-identified "Communist(s), trade unionist(s) and anti-austerity campaigner(s)." Its existence in the Labour Party is not denied."
"You don't get to ascribe your interpretations to a WP page like that..."
"@Garageland66: furthermore I feel I have to make an accusation of WP:NOT HERE because of this edit your political opinions as to what makes a "Israeli advocacy...organisation" is totally irrelevant to any discussion."
"Familiarise yourself with WP:NOT HERE."
"It's concerning that Garageland66 thinks it's acceptable to label an organisation as a "Israeli advocacy" group simply because it uses a definition of anti-semitism he doesn't like. I note from his block log that this not the first time he has engaged in edits that could be described as going against WP:NOT HERE; he clearly is not learning..."
"I really wouldn't make accusations of edit warring given your history and your recent WP:NOT HERE edit."
"Reverting edit by repeated WP:NOT HERE editor Garageland66.]"
"Again, you are not in a position to have 'suspicions' of anyone given your history and your repeated WP:NOT HERE edits." "Take it to talk, it's already been discussed there. It's removal was done by a someone who has made a series of WP:NOT HERE edits."
"You've actually been banned for a series of WP:NOT HERE edits."
"... Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think they are not WP:FRINGE? We don't include fringe groups simply to provide a 'neutrality' that fits in with your previous WP:NOT HERE edits."
"What you seem to fail to grasp (among other things) is that your "analysis" is totally irrelevant to wikipedia."
"I also would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem comments about editing history and repeated accusations of WP:NOT HERE is unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here." The editor acknowledged receipt of this here. "To be honest, I don't think Garageland66 will ever accept a page that criticises his espoused political viewpoint as neutral. As a cursory glance of his talk page history will show, he's quite adept at engaging in numerous edit wars when his views are not implemented." "I love how every time you come up against a definition for anti-semitism you don't like you instantly assert that the source is a "well known advocate for Israel". You did this for the ADL in this edit. Please remember that WP is not here for you to forward your political viewpoint."
"Alssa1 please note WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF".
"...Rather than telling others to note "WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF" why don't you note WP: DGF?"
With the edit summary "Previous edit was not original research. In fact, it constituted WP:V which therefore makes it legitimate to include." Edit warring it back into the article when RolandR removed it here. At the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here.
The editor ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here.
Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated.
|
- @Tanbircdq: If you want more than a very small chance of resolving... whatever it is; I suggest that you try to express your complaint concisely... say less than 100 words with 3-4 diffs to support it. Also, please specify what kind of action/resolution you are looking for. I really doubt anyone is going to spend the hour or so it would take to dig through the wall of text. My best advice is to pretend you have 60 seconds to convince someone, verbally, that there is a problem what you think should happen. Clarity and brevity are essential to resolving issues here. Jbh Talk 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, promoting the theory that
evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party prior to 2015 doesn't seem to exist
multiple times this month, but ignoring requests from both me and Alssa1 to find reliable sources that discuss this, and then returning to bring up the same point again in a new discussion. Alssa1 is right to say thatit's your responsibility to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements
, but Garageland66 refuses to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 08:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)- If Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour then this should be addressed directly with reference to previous discussions. Bringing up Alssa1's right to say that it's Garageland66's responsibility to find sources that meet WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements appears to be a disingenuous strawman attempt to deflect the overarching point here regarding the continuous disruptive personal attacks not the point of contention regarding the content. I feel there is no justification in Alssa1's interaction with Garageland66 over the past few weeks. I feel Garageland66 has displayed quite a lot of restraint in not retaliating at repeated provocation which a less an editor may have done. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jbhunley, thank you for your advice, I realise it was far too long, if the above is WP:TLDR then below is a concise summary of all the key points into two separated headings:
- HARRASSMENT
Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 has accused Garageland66 of WP:NOT HERE at least seven times on talk pages and edit summaries:
Alssa1 accusing Garageland66 of WP:NOTHERE: here and here.
Making reference to the Garageland66's editing history and WP:NOTHERE: here, here and here.
Further accusations of NOT:HERE in edit summaries: here and here.
Alssa1 made a what appears to be a unfounded WP:NOTHERE accusation against another editor here.
After I put a general warning being put on the page here, which Alssa1 editor acknowledged here but has still continued with the PAs here and here.
Even after Garageland66 highlighted WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF here, Alssa1's response was to basically deflect the issue back to Garageland66 with an accusation of WP:DGF here.
Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming, inappropriate for the encyclopedia and clearly disruptive. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated.
Given the fact this has been highlighted to Alssa1 twice which appears to have been ignored, I'd like an admin to issue a formal warning that if this continues strong action will be taken in the form of a topic ban from these articles. Tanbircdq (talk)
- INCOMPETENT EDITING
Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS.
Alssa1 claims to be aware of "WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements" here but added a YouTube video as a source to push a POV on the George Galloway page here. Tried to WP:EDITWAR it back into the article when it was removed by RolandR here whilst at the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here. Despite a talk page discussing being started about content on Momentum (organisation) page here. Alssa1 ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here.
I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT.
I think it's right that this should also be noted so should this editing behaviour continue action may be taken by banning Alssa1 from these pages. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- It takes far less time to check Garageland66s block log and contribution history than it does to read the walls of text above. POV-pushing, IDHT, edit warring, tendentious editing, misleading edit summaries, POV-railroading... Mildly surprised that they [Garageland66] haven't already been topic banned from Politics-broadly construed. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry that you don't have the time to examine the actual point of this report. Are you saying an editor with a previous history of being blocked remains stigmatised with this (in this case over six months ago), therefore, is fair game of being abused with extreme prejudice?
- I'm still waiting for anyone to provide their opinion on Alssa1's actions rather than joining in the WP:WITCHHUNT to discredit Garageland66 which is what Alssa1 has been doing at every given opportunity for the past three weeks here. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
in this case over six months ago
Well, that last block duration was 6 months... Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can I just explain that the 6 month block was for edit-warring on the Eton College page not on any political page. I've done my time. I've learnt my lesson. I now have the right to edit. I've done nothing wrong and there has been no suggestion that I should be blocked again for anything I've done. I treat other editors courteously and feel that this current issue is because of differences of opinion. This is inevitable among editors and differences should be dealt with amicably on the Talk Pages. Garageland66 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've been aware of a situation at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party for some time, though I haven't followed it in great detail. The article is a WP:COATRACK filled with pro and anti-Jeremy Corbyn material only tangentially related to the titular subject. I expect there are multiple editors problematic enough at that article to be sanctioned; it would take me 2-3 hours to determine this for sure. Based on a quick look at the talk page, Tanbircdq's comment appears to have some merit; most of Alssa1's comments are acronym soup claiming Garageland66 is WP:NOTHERE without any real evidence to support that, or any constructive participation in discussing how to improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment without going into further detail I would remind @Alssa1: and the others that accusing an editor of being NOTHERE repeatedly, outside a sanctions discussion and without evidence to back it up is very likely to be seen as a personal attack and, should it be repeated, I am reasonably confident an administrator would sanction you for such. Jbh Talk 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alssa1: diffs or knock it off, @Garageland66: Sources or knock it off, @Neil S Walker: Fix your signature, it violates WP:SIGLINK. You have an extra space between the colon and the N. It wrecks bots. Also, we expect a little more investigative effort than counting lines in the block log.---v/r - TP 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Roth Capital Partners
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Infochief1 has repeatedly undone stable, well sourced material on Roth Capital Partners and replaced with promotional material using unreliable sources. The account appears to be a single-purpose account with an affiliation to the subject.
Left messages here and here. Cypresscross (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article was pretty bad but Infochief1's edits seemed obviously promotional as well. I stubbed the article and remove a BLP violation.[41] Jbh Talk 14:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks I think those are good changes.Cypresscross (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Massive disruption by Fuad Rəcəbli
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fuad Rəcəbli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, Fuad Rəcəbli is involved in huge disruptive editing on Wikipedia in numerous articles (he adds some Azerbaijani ethnicity/claim but without providing a single source for that), just some examples : [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. An admin should maybe take a close look at the editing profile of this user. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- As user continued after a final warning, I gavea short block for adding unsourced content.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Victor Miller page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the announcement yesterday that an injunction was filed to cease all new created content for Friday the 13th: The Game, the page of Victor Miller (writer), the creator of Friday the 13th, has been relentlessly edit-attacked. It is now semi-locked in an egregiously vandalized state. It needs to be reverted to the most recent edit made before the announcement on June 11th, and locked there. I tried, but could not. Please have someone watch over this page until the anger dies down? Thanks. Schmendrick (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was protected and I just reverted all the crap. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Schmendrick (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Someone added a bunch of crap to the game's page now. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Im Westen nichts Neues".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Someone added a bunch of crap to the game's page now. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Russian vandalism in Adolfas Ramanauskas page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, last Commander of the Lithuanian partisans Adolfas Ramanauskas remains were just recently discovered, who was tortured and secretly executed by the KGB. Some Russian troll is currently attacking his page and I believe there could be more of them in the future because he most likely soon will be buried as a Head of State of Lithuania. I request protection from non-registered users for his Wiki page because he is hated by many Russians and other pro-soviet personalities in the East and his page currently is very vulnerable to them. Proofs: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593363&oldid=844828496 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593587&oldid=845593363 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593728&oldid=845593587 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593848&oldid=845593728 -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Pofka: I have undone those edits. We do not protect pages preemptively, if issues resume then please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Fish+Karate 09:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: Thanks for your quick actions. I will watch his page. -- Pofka (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
See Also
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an issue with wikipedia policies related to "See Also" sections. In [56], it is mentioned "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.", and, some contributors tend to take it literally for the time. According to my knowledge "See also" is designed for cross-referencing (e.g., refer: [57]). Shall we modify the policy to imply it is not enforced in such a way?(Note [the sentences in the policy]: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." and "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." are contradicting each other too.) Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You probably want WP:VP for that. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand how that's contradictory. Did you ask at WP:VP like suggested? Natureium (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Hi all there is an additional link in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#See_Also too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Forgot password, need to edit the former account's user page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have forgotten the password for my other account User:WikiImprovment78, I need to edit its user page to redirect to this new one but of course, this is a new account so I cannot edit the old account's user page. Is there anyway you can help with this? ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello again, ImprovedWikiImprovment. That page is not protected, so you can edit it as you wish. I recommend that you add a note stating that account is now inactive, with a link to your new userpage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's an edit filter which prevents non-confirmed users doing that, which is what this user is experiencing. The choices are: become autoconfirmed in another four days, or persuade an admin to make them confirmed, or get someone to make the edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that is what I’m experiencing but I’ll just wait the four days I think. Thanks, ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's an edit filter which prevents non-confirmed users doing that, which is what this user is experiencing. The choices are: become autoconfirmed in another four days, or persuade an admin to make them confirmed, or get someone to make the edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
122.11.188.2
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Keeps adding unsourced content on Zhou Tong (Water Margin) (without edit summaries), even after being warned several times. See the entire revision history: [58]. 100.2.98.246 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible for an admin to look into this this user, 87.102.116.36. I've noticed that he has an issue with articles particularly concerning the European Union, and after having a look through his edit history, appears to accuse anyone and everyone of having WP:COI conflicts. Here's his latest rant on Nuclear power in the European Union, which is still standing as a clean up notification on the article:
'Piss-take' (Partisan, possibly Irish Republican) map self-supplied by the article-creator in 2008 with his own arbitrary, unique or pedantic definition in order to specifically single out Northern Ireland as some sort of 'All-Ireland nuclear-power-free zone' (resulting the Isle of Anglesey, the Islands of the Outer Hebrides and of the Inner Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, Ceuta, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Rügen, Öland, Gotland, parts of Stockholms Lan, Slovene Istria and the Prekmurje region all shown as having declared themselves as 'independent nuclear-power-free states', despite being integral parts of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden and Slovenia respectively); the Isle of Man wrongly included despite having always been formally considered as being outside of the EU (or even the UK).
The edit is a few days old and still standing. I was led to his case by finding this on the European Court of Justice talk page following an archival of talk page notification:
[2] "Only the versions of the documents published in the ‘Reports of Cases' or the ‘Official Journal of the European Union' are authentic. The other documents available on the Institution's website are given for the purposes of public information and are subject to amendment." So, basically, it can be legally-speaking false or factually misleading or incorrect! Nice legal disclaimer here (such as this one [3])! The original assertion was inserted by one editor [4], on 1 February 2009, completely unsourced anyway! You are just a (paid) EU civil servant public-relations (PR) spin doctor with NO background or education in law! Stop wasting MY time here, I am out! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
His edit history demonstrates similar behaviour. I'm not sure if an official warning has been given, but it might be an idea, along with, obviously, a revert of his contributions on Nuclear power in the European Union. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- He has a point, to a degree, in that I'd agree the map at File:European Union map Nuclear Energy Countries.png is shit. Fish+Karate 08:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- That may be so, although the article does provide an explanation in the picture description and someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to say why it was done like that:
European Union countries (contiguous land mass) employing nuclear energy for electricity generation are marked in orange. Those without nuclear power stations are shown in pale blue (including islands belonging to countries that do have reactors but no presence on this island).
- His behaviour is to say the least unimpressive, but the map is genuinely bad so I have just deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Jonathan. Glad to see it wasn't just me. Luxofluxo, I absolutely agree the behaviour is not helpful. Are you aware that you don't need to be an administrator to discuss this with the user - you can find their talk page at User_talk:87.102.116.36. You can find a list of templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, or just talk to them like they're a normal human being. Fish+Karate 10:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just see his comments in User talk:Oshwah, then you all will know what's happened with the five pillars. Sænmōsà 11:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chintanboman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since 2010 and has managed to contribute not a single edit in article space (AFAICT). I became aware of this after nominating a page full of external links to assorted instagram accounts, which I tagged as CSD-U5. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- True, O King, but—they haven't actually edited at all for six and a half years :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- You can't see deleted edits. They edited today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Phew... For a moment I though I was going crazy. It's "O, Queen" btw. You can address me as "your majesty"... Kleuske (talk)
- Oops! Sorry about that, your maj :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, 75% of their edits are deleted! But where did they edit? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- You can't see deleted edits. They edited today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
24.159.60.138
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin. take a look at these edits? The anon. has added unnecessary piped links to multiple film articles, all of which need to be reverted. I can do it manually, but a mass rollback would be quicker. There's no reason for a piped link for [[TriStar|Tri-Star]]. This is just tedious. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- TheOldJacobite - I've reverted those changes and left the user a message to let him/her know that these edits aren't necessary. Let me know if these edits continue and I'll take another look. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Donnowin1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Donnowin1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active on Wikipedia for quite some time. They seem to make fairly small, gnomish sorts of edits. They're mostly ok, but looking at their talk page, there have been a few problems. But the main reason I'm starting a thread here is because the editor has consistently failed to leave edit summaries for any of their edits, despite notices asking them to do so. I even asked for an acknowledgement on their talk page to see if they understood, but they've just kept editing with no such acknowledgement. I really don't want to see a block, but I'm not sure what else I can do besides coming here. There have also been numerous other little things on their talk page, and not a single one has been responded to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- The editor has over 65K edits, mostly to main and template spaces. They have used an edit summary a little under 45% of the time. They rarely talk. They have almost 13K edits at zh.wiki. They've never been blocked at either project. Unless you can come up with something more substantively disruptive, I'd forget it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: That 45% value isn't accurate because edits to sections get left with an automatic summary (like "→ Section name"), which is counted in that total, but really isn't a true summary. If you take a quick peek at their last 500 edits, you'll see that actual summaries are very few and far between. Again, I wasn't asking for a block, and if you think nothing should be done, then I won't push this any further, but I've been under the impression that continued refusal to leave edit summaries is in itself inherently disruptive, as is the lack of communication. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lack of communication plus disruption is problematic, but other than mentioning "few problems" and "other little things", you haven't prevented any evidence of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Bbb23 - the lack of communication and edit summaries is bad practice and perhaps concerning, but if the user isn't causing other disruption and isn't failing to communicate when doing so is needed (i.e. dispute resolution), this is not a violation of policy and not something that this user can be blocked exclusively for. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Bbb23 - the lack of communication and edit summaries is bad practice and perhaps concerning, but if the user isn't causing other disruption and isn't failing to communicate when doing so is needed (i.e. dispute resolution), this is not a violation of policy and not something that this user can be blocked exclusively for. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lack of communication plus disruption is problematic, but other than mentioning "few problems" and "other little things", you haven't prevented any evidence of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: That 45% value isn't accurate because edits to sections get left with an automatic summary (like "→ Section name"), which is counted in that total, but really isn't a true summary. If you take a quick peek at their last 500 edits, you'll see that actual summaries are very few and far between. Again, I wasn't asking for a block, and if you think nothing should be done, then I won't push this any further, but I've been under the impression that continued refusal to leave edit summaries is in itself inherently disruptive, as is the lack of communication. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Bizarre edit summaries / hounding on 13 Reasons Why
I reverted User:TimmyAU twice over the removal of production info in the lede of the 13 Reasons Why article. His response has been simply bizarre, as can be seen in the following edit summaries:
- here - "Chaheel Riens" is clearly a character from a book and not a real name: you are distorting articles for the purposes of advertising and not a real person
- here - added citation qualifying description whilst defending integrity of wiki by calling out false name of marketing assistant using character name from Alan Dean Foster's novel, "The Man Who Used The Universe"
- here - cleaned up coding dirt whilst watching interaction and attempted intimidation from marketing assistant using false name from obscure old novel to hide fakenews activities
- here - minor paragraph edit: have placed a 48 hourly alert on my iphone to remind me to check the aggressive edit-warring of the falsenamed promoter of brand names not directly relevant to the wiki article and especially not appropriate to the initial search summary on Google
- here - every48hrs: abridgement of linguistic reference to recordings to unify millennial generation with previous generations: watching you, fake novel character, every 48 hours
- here - linguistic abridgement: researching in depth the influence of a certain fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising
I have no idea what to do about this - I don't think ignoring it is appropriate. Are they personal insults or accusations of paid editing/COI? I'm pretty certain they come close to hounding, but, well - it's just weird. Editor informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here's another one: clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis
- Seems to be making small edits to the article, purely so they can comment on my contributions/identity as they do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Chaheel Riens - Have you tried creating a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging the user? Have you tried discussing the content dispute with the user directly? I'd do these if you haven't already - create a new talk page discussion and ping the user, then leave a message on the user's talk page and point them to that discussion. Let me know how this goes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- At the Teahouse, I've directed the user to go read WP:AGF until they understand what the problem is. Oshwah's also right: you could have started a talk page discussion to explain things more thoroughly than an edit summary would. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the changes to the article that concern me, it's the edit summaries, and the apparent belief that because my name is taken from a novel that makes me ineligible to contribute, and the insinuation that I'm a promotional editor: fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising, fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis. and intimidation from marketing assistant. Accusations such as those are no longer the province of a content dispute, surely? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hah! consider the source. I'd not let it bother me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone think Timmy needs a PAID or COI warning?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not immediately seeing why. If anything, he's downplaying corporate involvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Those actions are a failure to assume good faith, which has not been explained to him until just now. If he refuses to understand WP:AGF's application to this, then I'd start considering further accusations to be personal attacks. Once I see what his response is to me telling his to "read WP:Assume good faith until you understand the problem here", then we'll have more to go on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Chaheel Riens: I've left a message on TimmyAU's talk page explicitly spelling out the situation as it applies to him, just in case he doesn't check back on the Teahouse or misses the point of my post there. I've added the article to my watchlist. If he continue accusing you of being some sort of "fake account marketing assistant" or whatever, I'll treat it as a personal attack. I could imagine that his argument implies that WP:UNDUE might apply, which is why I'd be happy to see some discussion on the article's talk page instead of just in edit summaries, but I'm not immediately thinking of a developed form of that argument that I believe so I'm not gonna expect it.
- Until there's further action from anyone involved, I'm not seeing anything to be done at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, with regard to this edit summary from TimmyAU "clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis" I would like to ask him to provide oh, let's say five examples of when I've embedded ads in links for promotional purposes. Even if this wasn't about me, I'd be interested to see what the results were, and what were considered to be promotional editing. I must be pretty good if I've gotten away with it for nine years... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the changes to the article that concern me, it's the edit summaries, and the apparent belief that because my name is taken from a novel that makes me ineligible to contribute, and the insinuation that I'm a promotional editor: fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising, fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis. and intimidation from marketing assistant. Accusations such as those are no longer the province of a content dispute, surely? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Godrestsinreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Chewy (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernie44
- COI complaint about Bernie44 which mentions Godrestsinreason
- closed DRN
I'm well on my way to being done with this issue, but before I am, I would like to discuss some of the overly aggressive warnings that were left on my page that were made in bad faith by Jytdog. This user was in a conflict with another user, levying attacks and accusations of COI editing. I've made more than a few missteps in reporting this issue as I continue to learn the Wikipedia platform, but I believe I finally ended in the right place. I'm happy to list all the details as I saw them.
I joined Wikipedia to make a few edits to a few pages I had my eye on: WWE, Steven Universe, and Chewy (company). I saw there was a user that was making a few edits to the page, and it was all about pretty insider information he was adding to the page, so I looked him up to see if I recognized who he was, and if he was affiliated with Chewy. I saw that I didn't recognize him, but I also noticed he was involved in an active dispute with user Jytdog, who was levying personal attacks, and calling him a "smooth talker" in regards to his apologies for his COI issues with his edits. He ended up being permanently blocked from editing. I questioned why he was being personally attached in his talk page. I then went back to the Chewy page, and found that roughly 75% of the content was stripped, with most of it coming from reliable sources, under Wikipedia's policy. Nothing was left on the talk page about this, so I reverted them, believing them to be vandalism from a user who was actively in a dispute with another user, in bad faith. When I reverted his edits, three things happened on my talk page:
1. Warning for "edit warring" 2. Bad faith accusation of COI with Chewy 3. Bad faith sockpuppet accusation
I've more than discussed this with the user, who continues to levy these accusations against me, and overall, I would like to have these warnings removed from my talk page, and be done with this issue once and for all. Godrestsinreason (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog was correct. However, you can remove warnings from your page yourself, but the historical record will remain on the page history. -It's God's Fault. barcus 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've added some links to the head of this report to help explain what it's about. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I’m of the view that Godrestsinreason is clearly a sock of someone, and I don’t fault Jytdog here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I became aware of this dispute when User:Godrestsinreason filed a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request at DRN, claiming bad-faith editing and bad-faith allegations by User:Jytdog. I closed the dispute both as a conduct issue (and DRN is for content disputes) and as already pending at COIN. I advised GRiR that, if they wanted to pursue a conduct allegation, they could file here at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. So they filed here. What I see now is that a supposedly brand-new user went immediately to editing an article with a history of paid editing, that they accused a respected stubborn editor, User:Jytdog, of bad faith and of vandalism, and that they went straight to DRN with a conduct dispute. I also see that they are not physically using the same IP addresses as any of the Bernie44 socks, and that they deny a conflict of interest. (I don't believe the denial, but the policy is to assume good faith, although the subject didn't.) Heading straight for DRN with a conduct dispute is neither a newbie error nor the error of an experienced editor, but an intermediate-user error; a real newbie doesn't know where DRN is, and an experienced editor either knows what DRN is, or at least reads the banner that says it is for content disputes. The filing party appears to be a new account by a previous editor. Jytdog is not a vandal, and there was no reason to claim vandalism, except that yelling vandalism is a tactic of some combative editors. Those are my comments for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I really don't know what to make of this account. Bernie44 is rhetorically very skillful. I cannot decide if all this drama and flailing around is just that person or their buddy jerking us around, or is this some actually-new user who has no connection to Bernie44 or Chewy (as they say they are) who just happened to stumble onto two paid articles and the talk page of the paid editor, where they just happened to defend that person (diff) and lash out at me diff, diff), and who happens to have a very thin skin. The number of coincidences necessary for the latter to be true are very improbable. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't bring this at SPI but look at the history of Chewy starting on May 25, and you will diffs by an IP (who then pretty apparently creates the OP's account) and Bernie44 taking turns editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, In case you haven't looked, note the whois for that IP address. —DoRD (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is this a problem? I'm a low level employee of the company, which is why I was watching the page in the first place, and only made edits updating publicly available information. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you repeatedly said you have no connection to Chewy. You lied. diff, diff, diff.
- Likewise your statement that you have
no connection to Bernie
is also blatantly misleading Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)- I can only apologize for misleading you in that regard. I have no authority to make any statements on behalf of Chewy, and didn't want my job linked to this issue. That being said, I've made no COI edits, and have only retaliated against your combativeness. Again, I have no connection to Bernie whatsoever. If he was paid by Chewy to write articles for the company or the owners, that's waaaaay beyond my paygrade. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, In case you haven't looked, note the whois for that IP address. —DoRD (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is becoming a bit of a joke. The assertion that I've made "intermediate" mistakes for too new of a user is just silly. I Googled "Wikipedia Dispute Resolution" and found the page, and at this point, a followed the link to here when the dispute was closed. I can assure you, a multi billion dollar company isn't paying me to stumble around multiple dispute noticeboards, having an internet argument with veteran wiki editors. I feel I was dragged into a needlessly vitriolic dispute between two other veteran users, and simply wanted the BS to be removed from my talk page. Now that I know I can simply blank it without it being considered vandalism, I'm just going to be on my merry way. If it makes you guys happy, I'll make no further edits to the Chewy page, and will focus on other pages of personal interest. Thanks. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please indef this person. They have lied in the course of trying to maintain promotional content about their employer and the CEO of their company, and in the course of defending their employer's paid editor who dumped that slag into WP in violation of our policies and guidelines. They have wasted a bunch of our time with dramaboards. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever. This has been a farce from beginning to end. I'll accept any punishment from admins involving both the COI board and this. That being said, I'll leave you with this. You began this BS with your combativeness and all around horrible attitude toward new users. I started a personal account for me, to make minor edits to the page, and other pages. You still haven't proved that I was here making promotional edits, and have only reverted your edits. You can justify your crap attitude with my "thin skin" however much you want, but at the end of the day, you've been a jerk to myself and multiple people for no real reason, and have refused to assume good faith. I haven't lied, but I've ommitted personal information about myself on a public forum to avoid real life ramifications. This is the last edit I will make on Wikipedia in general, and will continue to use it as a personal user, rather than a contributor, regardless of the outcome. I can only imagine a day will come where your assumption of bad faith will catch up to you, and you make the wrong edit, and are found to be adversarial to those who were here to help build the encyclopedia. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- That was never you, was it. My questions (and they were questions) to you were well grounded and in fact the answers were "yes" not "no" as you said, repeatedly. The only vitriol has been from you. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to think that anyone who sticks their toe in for one second to defend someone you were spewing toxicity at is either the same person, or a COI buddy of theirs. Sorry reality doesn't fit your narrow minded vision of how things played out. Again, I've made no promotional edits whatsoever, and have no connection to Bernie whatsoever. Never met him, never associated with him, don't live in the same state, nothing. I've made MINOR edits to the Chewy page, and then updated the C-level execs to current, sourced right from the Chewy page. As a low level employee, I have very little access to any information outside of any random person. The only thing I did was revert your edits and request a discussion in the talk page, when I was met with back to back warnings. You need to admit that you threw your weight around so heavily, and it was unnecessary. Godrestsinreason (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- That was never you, was it. My questions (and they were questions) to you were well grounded and in fact the answers were "yes" not "no" as you said, repeatedly. The only vitriol has been from you. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposal - Site Ban of User:Godrestsinreason
I didn't believe GRiR when they said that they didn't have a WP:COI. Now they have stated that they are only a low-level employee of the company. They have also explained that they used Google to find DRN, and that they have therefore made newbie mistakes (and I have learned a lesson about mistakes that look like they show experience). I now believe everything that they have written. They are not a sockpuppet. They are an inexperienced paid editor, and they lied blatantly about conflict of interest, and about paid editing, and the latter is a policy with legal consequences. Based on everything that they have written, we cannot accept their apology, and the appropriate action is a Site Ban.
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support I have zero interest in continuing to deal with this. I don't know anything about legal consequences. I'm not being paid to edit. I tried to apologize, and I didn't understand the gravity of what I was doing, and I honestly want nothing at all more to do with this. This is a personal account, and I'm more than happy to prove this in any way that I can. But I will accept any punishment. Godrestsinreason (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support. ((edit conflict) with the closer of the thread.) At 18:44 14 June UTC, Godrestsinreason finally acknowledged being an employee of Chewy,[59] after repeatedly denying having any connection whatever with the company: I told you no plenty of times. I don't know how to make it any more clear. 'No. There's no connection. Your witch hunt is misguided.' (Bold in original.) And now, after having the admission of working for Chewy screwed out of them, they're still lashing out at Jytdog and blaming J for their own untruthfulness. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC).
Venezuelan deletion nominations
- 2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2601:644:400:52F7:515F:6593:5CBC:B19A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2601:644:400:52F7:F447:90DD:72DB:F24 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2601:644:400:52f7::5042 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 67.164.93.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Possibly other undetected IPs or anonymous directions acting in Venezuelan articles.
The IPs and anonymous directions listed have removed the "articles for deletion" template, voted to keep and in some instances engaged in blanking in the articles Marco Aponte, Carmen Moreno de Aponte, Actors of the World and their respective nominations for deletions, as well as Harvey Hernandez', David Allen Brooks' and Victor Romero's, most of which are related to Venezuela, specifically to Marco Aponte, starting on 12 June up to today. Article protection may be in order, but since there are several involved and because of the pattern, I imagined this noticeboard was suitable. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range for disruptive editing. The IPv4 listed here appears to have just been adding AFD comments, so I've left this one alone for now... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
User:OAbot is malfunctioning
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page is pushing opinions as scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6800:2120:D980:3163:C6B2:A5 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can you provide diffs with examples of what you believe are malfunctions caused by this bot please? Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Visual editing of Talk pages and other similar discussion pages
How long do we have to wait for this and how are the people involving in developing the API? :) Shevonsilva (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shevonsilva - I believe the Village Pump is the proper place where you should ask this question. This noticeboard is for reporting behavioral or problematic issues of other users that need administrator intervention in order to solve :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)