Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
Sign your post by adding 4 tildes ( Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archives, search) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use |
|
User:Elinruby
- Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Azov Special Purpose Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WP:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment
(I've done my best to have diffs where I can. As far as I know no post has been deleted here, so people can look at any mentioned page and see conversations in full if they feel I may have misrepresented anything or that they need further context than what I have provided. In addition, I have notified all users mentioned by name below, and all who received a D/s notification from Elinruby, which seemed the fastest way to get the interested parties.)
Recently, User:Elinruby and I have been involved in a content dispute regarding multiple issues surrounding the article Azov Battalion. During this time they have demonstrated multiple policy violate and generally belligerent behaviors, most egregiously I would say is their most recent misuse of D/s notifications to tell editors not to vote wrong on an RfD I created.
Our initial interaction came after the creation of this RfC (made unilaterally without prior discussion I might add), in which they expressed unfamiliarity with the source material, but nonetheless had skepticism regarding the article's sourcing for certain claims, specifically regarding the far-right, neo-Nazi character of the unit in question. Later, they would post this source "rebuttal", too which I offered mine own here. The editor would continue to call into question the validity of sources used in the article for ideological claims, alternatively insisting they didn't exist, or that they were unusable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that editors needed to "READ THE RS POLICY" (this one gets repeated a lot).
Not long after, I received this notification for an RSN discussion, technically involving one of the sources above, all though seemingly presenting it as the only source, instead of one of two for a particular claim, and five in that particular sentence. This is also the first time of two that I encountered WP:INAPPNOTE behavior. After I received my notification, I decided to check Elinruby's contribs to see who else they notified, and saw this (it continues on the next older page). Apparently, Elinruby took it upon themself to notify everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page since the last RfC, including several editors (and multiple IPs, SPAs, and blocked accounts) who had not posted on a single unarchived thing on the page and who had absolutely no involvement with the current dispute. This post ultimately went nowhere, as myself and several other editors were unconvinced by his arguments (and several others dropped in rather confused as to why they had been pinged).
The following day, I saw this post by User:Ymblanter regarding the article Azov Special Purpose Regiment. After reviewing the article, I concluded it was a woefully inadequate article, and an obvious WP:POVFORK and so took it to AfD (here). Now, I will admit the article has improved somewhat in the intervening days, however that does not change the fact that it is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK that never should have seen mainspace. It seems fairly obvious to me that Elinruby, dissatisfied with the reception at Talk:Azov Battalion, decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage (at the time of creation of the AfD quotes had not been properly attributed, and seemed to be Elinruby's own voice in the article, I'll likely go back and strike that part of my AfD once I'm done here). Normally, I would expect an editor of their tenure to be more than aware that this is not OK, however they have expressed multiple times to thinking it's just fine to go and make your own article on the same topic if you don't like the coverage at any particular article (including encouraging the proposer of the split to just do it unilaterally during the split discussion, in the case of User:Mhawk10). They seem very fond of unilateral action, having unilaterally moved Russian-Ukrainian information war to Russian information war against Ukraine, causing the conflagration on that talk page (I'm uninvolved in that dispute, and am only commenting on it as a further example of the user's bizarre ideas of acceptable behavior). Finally, during this AfD, Elinruby admitted to WP:CANVASSING Ukrainian Wikipedia for editors to fight my AfD (and seemingly wanting Azov members to escape Mariupol and... set the record straight on Wikipedia?), also calling me a "sneak" in the process.
Now, all of this would have been... fine. Frustrating and annoying yes, but not something to get upset over. There are some serious policy misconceptions and some bizarre personal attacks, but IMO that's not something I really feel the need to come here with. Then however, I received this D/s notification. Now I have already received one of these, in this topic area, but User:Elinruby later apologized for the doubel warning and offered to self-RV, so it's no big deal, if annoying. Of course, after I had recieved this warning I decided to check his contribs once again, seeing if I was a part of another wave of talk page edits, and surprise surprise I was. As can be seen right now, Elinruby apparently took it upon themselves to warn recent participants in the disputes they are involved in of EE D/s, including some rather experienced editors in the area such as User:Mhawk10 and User:Mhorg. Even this, though a fairly obvious attempt at intimidation IMO, wasn't enough to push me here. No, the final straw was this edit, repeated at each talk page (excepting my own) that a D/s notification was placed on. Placing D/s notifications on editors pages and then telling them it was because they voted in an AfD you disagree with (apparently RfC and RfD were meant to be AfD, per this, though they also take umbrage with the existence and voting in of every process in which they are involved in a dispute, and seem to think they are dealing with the same "group" of editors in each case) should absolutely not be acceptable under any circumstances.
Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. The pattern of behavior is consistent and has only been getting worse. I have no idea how an editor with a tenure like this could act like this. Hopefully an administrator can provide some assistance here. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Might I suggest condensing this? You're going to be hardpressed to find anyone to read such a lengthy complaint. Maybe bullet point the issues...CUPIDICAE💕 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I attempted to break it up chronologically by paragraphs, but if you want a TLDR the issues are as follows:
- Multiple kinds of WP:INAPPNOTE
- Repeated and inappropriate spamming of user talk pages
- General belligerence and personal attacks, as well as a habit of projecting behavior and accusations between users, or inventing it altogether (he seems to think I've called him a brainwashed Nazi, when as far as I am aware I've never done such a thing, nor could I find anyone who has in the past few days)
- I figured it would be best to be thorough due to how this has crossed multiple pages and covers multiple issues, hence the paragraphs and diffs, but that's the quickest summary I can give. BSMRD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I attempted to break it up chronologically by paragraphs, but if you want a TLDR the issues are as follows:
This [[1]] contains some PA's "All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC", telling another user how they should have voted in an AFD (not to be a fair major issue, but I see they may have done to same to everyone who did not vote they way they wanted). I think all these need is a mild warning, but they are trying to bludgeon an AFD on multiple talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I support sanctions against Elinruby. They posted this discretionary sanctions notice on my UP: [2] and then, an hour and a half after I deleted that, posted this canvassing: [3] Mztourist (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I also would support sanctions. There behavior on Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine has been sub-par, to say the least, move-warring over the article ([4]) with multiple allegations of personal attacks against another editor ([5], [6], [7]), combined with a general BATTLEGROUND approach ([8], [9]:
It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever
,you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have
) to the topic and whose sole technique seems to be to BLUDGEON the discussion (they have 173 edits to that talk page compared to the next highest at 35; they are also responsible for two thirds of its text). SN54129 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for compiling some diffs regarding Russian information war against Ukraine. I knew there had been drama over there, but my post was already long enough and I wasn't a participant to begin with, so I decided to leave it at a passing mention. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that your diff 145 diplays quite an attitude, but I have never seen that text before and definitely didn’t write it. I assume it was something that was in your editor buffer from some other discussion. I don’t dispute that I changed the article title. The one that was there did not reflect the contents of the article. When it was unilaterally changed back, based on some erroneous notion of the topic, the article-title mismatch again required either a retitling or the move or deletion of a massive amount of cited material. See comment to Buidhe below. As for the amount of work I have put into the article—-in what way is this against policy? It was bad machine translation when I came to it, or at least broken English, with many diatribes about Russian oppressors and Goebbels and at least one BLP violations. But well sourced! So I fixed a lot of language and removed a lot of diatribes and documented what I was doing, shrug. Then I worked to improve it from there, in particular as to what I too initially saw as a point of view problem. This is what we do with WP:PNT articles ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I've read through the entire text above. There are a few things that I'd like to note:
- Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. It isn't a novel POVFORK; Elinruby
decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage
is true only inasmuch as the coverage comes directly from a sister project. - I was surprised to discover this because I have participated in discussions on the Azov Battalion page before, but I can't actually find an EE topic area notification in my talk page archives. I'm certainly aware of the general EE restrictions (I've given the template out to people), but I didn't find it particularly intimidating.
- People should not boldly make moves that they know are going to be contested, especially after people have explicitly written that the move was not supported. I've recently learned that there is a way to request that these be undone at the RM noticeboard without having to open a full move discussion. The way that this actually appears to have played out was that there was a Bold move by Elinruby on March 6, followed by a reversion of the undiscussed move by Buidhe on March 22, followed by Elinruby moving the article to their preferred title for the second time on March 23. I can excuse a bold move, but the second page move is clearly disruptive and out-of-process; gaining consensus to move a page name when it is contested is not optional. Unlike the fork of Azov Battalion, this doesn't appear to be a case where the user is simply importing the title of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article to English Wikipedia.
- Technically you don't need consensus for an article split along the lines of the one I proposed (leaving the source page unchanged but making a second page to cover a subtopic in more depth), since it's more or less the same procedurally as just writing a new article. I also think it's unwise to spend a lot of time on doing so if consensus is against a split, since any such split-off article is going to wind up at AfD and likely be redirected back to the article covering the top. Giving unwise advice isn't exactly disruptive.
- The diff BSMRD links to as evidence of a canvassing confession contains the line
If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway.
Elinruby understands their actions as being opposed to censorship, but also says thatEverything I am doing against sneaks
is in the open, which suggests that the user is intentionally POVPUSHING against people they consider to besneaks
. This attitude is not consistent with the collaboration that is necessary to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.
I propose that Elinruby receive a three-month one-month WP:TBAN from making edits that pertain to the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed. All of the disruption appears to be in this topic area, so I think a TBAN is going to be better here than a WP:CBAN. If disruption continues in other areas, then we could expand it, but I don't see evidence of that yet. If disruption resumes following the TBAN's expiration, a longer and more permanent one could be imposed at WP:AE. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 04:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC))
- I appreciate your taking the time to read everything above (I know it was a lot), and taking the time to formulate a well reasoned response. WRT the POV nature Azov Special Purpose Regiment, it's not that I think Elin came up with that article on their own (they obviously didn't), but rather that after being largely rejected at Azov Battalion they decided to simply import the Ukrainian version (which they clearly see as superior) to it's own space, rather than attempting to bring Azov Battalion more in line with its Ukrainian version. This is obviously a fork of Azov Battalion (they cover exactly the same subject, though in different ways), and is clearly done to promote Elinruby's POV, hence my calling it a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps that is not strictly accurate, but I feel it fits the spirit of a WP:POVFORK. BSMRD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Much less here than meets the eye. Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a prolific contributor in numerous topic areas with no blocks in sixteen years. I don't always agree with him, but we have cooperated on major topics in the past and he is tireless in improving topics and cooperating with other editors. Elinruby always has NPOV in mind, and he can get impatient when he runs into a situation where concerted POV-pushing goes on at an article, and he tries to combat it, sometimes feeling alone at protecting the encyclopedia and causing frustration which can come out as crabbiness sometimes. We've probably all been there, and it's disconcerting to say the least; maintaining one's equanimity (not to mention AGF) is hard in situations like that. Unfortunately, that can spill over into other situations, when one sees what superficially looks like similar behavior to what just got one's hackles up in some other topic, but in this case is actually GF editors who disagree on points of policy or content.
- I think that's where we are now. When Elinruby feels that others are acting contrary to NPOV or the best interest of the article, he is vociferous in protecting it. In fact, the whole reason that Eastern Europe/Balkans have an AC/DS alert in the first place, is because there is a long history of bad behavior going on in this area; Elinruby both knows this is the case, and has experienced it, and he may have come into it with his guard up and too ready to see a battleground where there was only (mostly) civil opposition. The initial unilateral page move deserves an eyebrow-raise, the second is clearly against policy and should not have been made. I've commented at his Talk page, trying to calm the waters, and I think we're basically done with the problem.
- Calling for a three-month TBAN is ridiculous; what's needed here is a TROUT for some uncivil behavior under pressure, and a reminder about WP:RM#CM requiring controversial moves to be put to other editors for comment first. Perhaps an admin clarification may be needed on his UTP about when and to whom one may give AC/DS alerts; WP:AC/DS is actually unclear about frequency, and I see nothing on that page that says an editor may not place several or a hundred {{Ds/alert}} templates if several or a hundred editors starting editing at an affected topic (as long as they meet aware.aware and aware.alert, which in one case, they did not; Elinruby has since apologized in that case). Bottom line, other than a reminder and a TROUT, and perhaps a friendly tip to cool off or disengage temporarily when he feels the temperature rising at an article under AC/DS, I see nothing actionable here. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be in your position if it weren't for the comment that broadly referred to their actions as being
against sneaks
. I'm not really bound to 3 months as being the perfect length (I'd prefer the minimum amount of time that allows for the user to cool down), but I think the editor needs some time to cool off before returning to this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be in your position if it weren't for the comment that broadly referred to their actions as being
- I am involved in the discussion around Russian–Ukrainian information war and unfortunately, I don't think that their editing in this area is entirely constructive. It's understandable that strong emotions are going to come out over an ongoing war, but we cannot tolerate advocacy favoring one side or disruptive editing. I think Elinruby would benefit from taking a break from the Russia–Ukraine conflict, either voluntarily or by a topic ban as suggested by Mhawk. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe, you’ve repeatedly been invited to add anything into the article that you think is missing, or to join the ongoing discussion about is reorganization. The problem is that the original title caused a huge false balance problem, which would be even worse if restored now as none of the sources *I* have found say anything about Ukrainians hacking Russians, as you seem to think is happening. The ones you put at the top of the request for merge don’t say that either, and one of them is already cited in the article. I have no objection to the other sources or any other reliable sources being added to the article. Alternatively if you want an article about what the Ukrainians are doing, or about what the Ukrainians are doing vs what the Russian doing, please do write it. I’ll even point you to some recent material for it that only came out this week afaik and so far is only on the talk page of the Russian disinformation page. But look. A title is supposed to reflect the contents of the article and if we name this one “Russian-Ukrainian information war” then a lot of information will need to be removed about the Russians because with the exception of the material mentioned above, the Ukrainian information war so far has consisted of Zelenskyy making speeches Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I never said that Ukraine hacked Russians. Misrepresenting other editors and constant bludgeoning is not cool. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree! Not cool at all! So great! Now, buidhe, can you please explain why you think there should be a Russian-Ukrainian information article? I might possibly even agree with you about that also. But more to the point, what I don't understand why it has to be this one, which is currently on a different topic. Alternately, if sources support whatever it is you think is happening let's add them in, by all means let's use them, and maybe it even *could* be this article. But if not Ukrainians hacking, then what is it you think I am not including that should be in the article? I ask in all humility. Again. Btw the new materials I was talking about involved speculation that Ukrainians had disabled the Russians' secure communications system, but industry experts say it's more likely that the Russians did it to themselves by blowing up cell towers not realizing that their Era cryptophones required 3/4G 02:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)
- I never said that Ukraine hacked Russians. Misrepresenting other editors and constant bludgeoning is not cool. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe, you’ve repeatedly been invited to add anything into the article that you think is missing, or to join the ongoing discussion about is reorganization. The problem is that the original title caused a huge false balance problem, which would be even worse if restored now as none of the sources *I* have found say anything about Ukrainians hacking Russians, as you seem to think is happening. The ones you put at the top of the request for merge don’t say that either, and one of them is already cited in the article. I have no objection to the other sources or any other reliable sources being added to the article. Alternatively if you want an article about what the Ukrainians are doing, or about what the Ukrainians are doing vs what the Russian doing, please do write it. I’ll even point you to some recent material for it that only came out this week afaik and so far is only on the talk page of the Russian disinformation page. But look. A title is supposed to reflect the contents of the article and if we name this one “Russian-Ukrainian information war” then a lot of information will need to be removed about the Russians because with the exception of the material mentioned above, the Ukrainian information war so far has consisted of Zelenskyy making speeches Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- After reading this comment I think an indefinite ban for all Eastern European topics is correct. The user is too involved in a political defence of Ukraine, his\her work risks being manipulative. The user also left me a DS on my talkpage (which honestly I still don't understand what it is for), perhaps to intimidate me?--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- An indef ban on all Eastern European topics is way too broad. I don't see how that comment (or any others) reasonably shows that the editor cannot edit on topics involving the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, or even for that matter relatively mundane topics (such as rapid transit systems) involving Russia or Ukraine. The limits of the disruption are very clearly related solely to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, so I don't think that a ban on all of Eastern Europe would be anywhere closes to narrowly tailored towards prevention. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhorg: Re: the DS alert, no, I don't think they were trying to intimdate you; it was probably because the vast majority of your editing is in Eastern European topics... SN54129 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mhawk10, you are right, perhaps limiting the ban to the Russian-Ukrainian question is right, my proposal was excessive.
- Ok SN54129, thanks for the explanation. Anyway maybe I have problem with the translation from English, I can't understand well the functionality of the DS. I have to read it better. Mhorg (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhorg: DS allows administrators to block users for less severe conduct violations than they would normally be able to if the violations pertain to specific topics. The notice Elinruby posted on your talk page is simply informing you need to be more careful how you edit within that topic than you normally would. Although people sometimes take it as a personal attack, it is merely intended as a courtesy. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot to add one thing: the accusations of INAPPNOTE by the OP is belied by the OP's own statement at WP:RSN: "As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants)." (diff). That is the very definition of WP:APPNOTE. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but pinging everyone who has posted on a talk page in the past six months (most of whom had nothing to do with the dispute in question) is textbook 'spamming' per WP:INAPPNOTE BSMRD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there. I have been seeking help with BSMRD’s uncivil and retaliatory behavior from Drmies on his talk page for a couple of days now. The editor’s utter refusal to actually read the Reliable Sources policy figured prominently, although I did not mention a name.
- For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.
- In fact there had been an RFC on whether neo-Nazi should appear in the lede. The prior RFC the editor refers to: I went through it rather carefully when I was sending out notices, and I did not see a conclusion that neo-Nazi should be in the lede. I am not prepared to say it isn’t there, and I can’t research this right now as I am overdue in dealing with urgent RL matters, but if it seems important I will look again later. What I did see was somebody trying to close it with a conclusion that it should not. I thank the editor for finally realizing that the article is not an editorial in my personal voice and but meanwhile a dozen people have voted to delete the article based on the editor’s false statement. I am not particularly injured that the editor did not read the article closely enough to notice the translation tag and the discussion of a translation issue on the talk page, but I would think that this might have seemed an important thing to do when trying to delete an article, you know? Read the talk page?
- So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.
- Mhawk10 probably sincerely believes that I have done something wrong at that article, since a couple of editors who were also in the Reliable Sources “discussion” at Azov Battalion are saying so over and over again. The requested move would require the deletion of almost all of the article’s material and 299 references, so I have objected to it fairly strenuously. The editors from Azov Battalion who are trying to do this have not discussed any of the matters raised elsewhere on the talk page, including a proposed reorganization, which is on hold lest the editor doing it also be dragged over here. AGF, I question whether either editor has read the full article, although on March 21 one of them did fix two typos in one section.
- I really need to go do some paid work where they won’t call me names, but before I do I’d like to mention that the comments about the light of day were not about the creation of the regiment article but were instead a reply to the suggestion that I should not for some reason have notified editors at the Ukrainian Wikipedia of an effort to delete a translation of their work.
- I hope I have answered enough to demonstrate that there is a lot more to this than has been presented to you, and will be happy to answer questions or discuss anything when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Repinging Drmies for you; your attempted fix of a typo in a previous ping will not work, per WP:NOTIF. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERs this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.
- What I actually said. You still have yet to present a convincing reason why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS disqualifies the sources in question. You can't just say "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS go read the RS policy" and expect that to be enough.
So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.
- All I said was that you unilaterally moved the article title (twice apparently, which I neither realized nor incuded in my original post), thereby inciting the current drama, which is by all accounts factually accurate. BSMRD (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Based on my communication with user Elinruby, I would oppose to sanctions beyond a warning. She/he is agitated and
probablybehaves like a new and very inexperienced user, but I do not see them sufficiently disruptive to warrant sanctions, at least based on my interactions with them. Other users might have a different opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)- User:Elinruby has 65,446 edits, and has been editing since 2006. They know better. BSMRD (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @My very best wishes: Elinruby has >65,000 edits. I also think you may be missing a "not" in the second sentence of your rationale. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) was coming in to say that. I don’t usually get involved in wikilawyering though, so apparently I had some misconceptions about procedures. I erred on the side of notifying people I disagreed with as well as those I didn’t, when apparently I should not have notified at all.Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since I was notified of this discussion and I've been one of the most active editors regarding the invasion, I feel like I have to throw my 2 cents in. That said, from my limited interaction by being on the periphery, my view is simply that Elinruby didn't get the consensus they wanted at Talk:Azov Battalion and got upset by it, created a new mirror page, and then that mirror page got shit on at AfD (rightfully in my opinion, as it was pretty clear that it was made to circumvent the consensus from the main Azov page in order to push Elinruby's preferred objectives; additionally, it was a bad translation and still a work-in-progress that would have benefitted more from being in draftspace). Now, that's not necessarily inherently disruptive, and it's been handled easily. Considering that Elinruby is an editor-in-good-standing and has been a longtime contributor without incident, they should be sternly warned not to pull that shit again (i.e. trying to circumvent consensus without further discussion), but a TBAN is just an overreaction at this point, in my opinion, especially if it is a full EE TBAN. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is just a mild problem of a POV-pushing OWNership with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Turning to Russian-Ukrainian information war, recently renamed "Russian information war against Ukraine" by Elinruby after his editing had turned it into a one-sided indictment of Russia:
- Elinruby chose WP:Move war, and then attacked both Buidhe and me (as first commenter I guess) saying e.g. "If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there."[10]
- Elinruby comments on Buidhe's RfM (to the article's original name): "sigh. Another canvass of people who haven’t read the article they are commenting on." [11]
- Elinruby edit wars to strikeout parts of Buidhe's RfM statement that he considers personally attacked him [12][13][14]
- Elinruby removes from Buidhe's RfM her statement " In the event of no consensus, it should revert to the original title." [15]
- Somewhere in there, Elinruby added 2 new sections to my talk page, "Edit warring and vandalism" and "You believe some strange things"
- Somewhere in there, Elinruby changed article talk page section header from "Discussion" to "Editor tantrum"[16]
WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. The project suffers when bullies are left to thrive. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support sanctions against Elinruby: I disagree with Mhawk10's argument that
Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group
. Editors are expected to follow WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for an already existing article. They are expected to gain consensus and expand existing article and not start a povfork. A neutral reader of wikipedia would get a different picture of, say, Narendra Modi's article on english wikipedia or the 2002 Gujarat riots vis-à-vis the Gujarati-languange wikipedia articles on the same subject. What if I or someone else decides to misuse the policy to start a fork article to suit my narrative. Elinruby's comments like this and this show that this user is more than happy to muddy the waters with emotional appeals and ramblings and use the talk page as a forum for chitter chatter. Combined with their forumshopping on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion and canvassing and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment, I strongly believe that this user cannot be neutral on this subject and deserves long/indef sanctions on this area. - hako9 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Request Is there any way we can break this up to address one page at a time? Because all these accusations are moving targets. First I wrote an editorial opinion, then I translated an article with bad sources, then I unilaterally renamed an article that nobody seems to realize began life as bad machine translation, and now I am being lectured on the proper procedure for contacting a translator.
- I am a translator. Almost all of my edits involve translation and/or remediation of machine translation. Russian information war against Ukraine had been languishing for a very long time at WP:PNT, which is where I wikignome. I contacted everyone listed as a Ukrainian or Russian translator before beginning, and have contacted editors with Russian skills about the reliability of specific sources and specific translation problems.
- This and more can be found in the “chit-chat” on the talk page that Hako9 so dismissively refers to. I documented questions that arose, discussed things undone that should be done, and occasionally got an answer. I would like to start there, since this request for merge is preventing work on that article from proceeding. I am still on deadline for paid work, but was able to take a moment to make this procedural request. If this sounds ok to everyone will come back with some diffs and links about this article when I get done with the paid work. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is reflective of the problem a lot of users are talking about, it's not one page or one issue. Rather it is multiple issues, over multiple articles. What you need to do is take on board the idea that you can't just create POV forks because you cannot get your way. That you should not tell people how to vote in an AFD, or RFC. That you should not actively canvas users to vote (or change their vote) the way you want. That you should not attack other users, either by calling them names or questioning their neutrality if they disagree with you. Nor should you wp:bludgeon a discussion either directly on a talk page or indirectly by WP:FORUMSHOP or over multiple talk user talk pages. That (in essence) you will agree to not do any of the things users have complained about here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that I do those things and urge editors not to rely on the erroneous statements made in these complaints. In particular, while I am here, let me mention that I haven’t told anyone how to vote. I did as a parenthesis to another statement tell a handful of people that I thought their vote was mistaken and offer to explain why. Nobody said please do, so I have not. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Question BSMRD, having refused to hear this all the way to ANI, has finally registered that the regiment article is a translation and not in my voice, and has struck that out of the AfD request, which is progress, but editors have still voted on the basis of the statement. Also, the editor has now substituted another inaccurate statement, that its sources are not reliable. The most often-cited source is Ukrainian Pravda, which has a stellar reputation per the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in particular my recent query there about it. I have recently been educated to realize that an AfD statement does not have to be neutral, since the requestor doesn’t get a vote, but shouldn’t it at least reflect some version of reality? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to make clear that I did not say that the article as a whole was in you voice, but that it was peppered with comments in your voice. What lead me too that conclusion was lines like
Yes, most of the guys present in the Azov Battalion have their own perception of the world. But who told you that you can judge them? Don't forget what the Azov Battalion has done for the country. I spent many hours talking to Azov fighters. There is no Nazism or swastika there.
which in your initial copy had no attribution or indication at all that it was a quote. Such indication has since been added, and I have retracted my statement in the AfD. I did not say the sources are not reliable, I said that they do not support the idea that "Azov Battalion" and "Azov Special Purpose Regiment" are separate topics. While Ukrainian Pravda may be reliable, that does not mean all the sources are. Indeed, a fair few of the cites are directly too Azov themselves. Additionally, I did not "replace" my struck comment with anything about sourcing. I added this:I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied
. For someone who complains so much about editors misrepresenting the truth and not reading, the least you could do is bother to do it yourself. BSMRD (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to make clear that I did not say that the article as a whole was in you voice, but that it was peppered with comments in your voice. What lead me too that conclusion was lines like
- pretty sure it was always attributed in the text above it, BSMRD. I am still confused about why you would ever think I would blockquote anything in my own voice or for that matter use my own voice? Also, yes, it is copied and edited machine translation, which does not bring over the markup. No “poorly” about it. References have to be translated by hand. I said this already when I was explaining why the AfD was premature. Would have been fixec long ago if you hadn’t decided to bring wiki procedures rather than actually read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. But I see that some other people are looking into reliable sources at the Battalion article, and have deleted some Russian propaganda (according to them - not verified by me) so I would like to deal with the inappropriate merge request at the more important article first (Russian information war against Ukraine) and let that effort proceed before commenting further. Elinruby (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I do not really have an opinion regarding sactions, but I have to admit when I read on here that Elinruby had been editing from 2006 I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a new user who mistakenly thought it is okay to just translate an article from another wiki, even though it is very likely that it might not have been written with a WP:NPOV, considering the current events and the wiki it was written on. So, perhaps Elinruby should have taken this into account, as they could/should know better. My stance on any sanctions is neutral however. This is just my two cents. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Request block until Elinruby acknowledges that other editors on Wikipedia are entitled to disagree with him without being bludgeoned or attacked. His utter carelessness about facts in his talk page arguments does not suggest good things about his work in article space, for example:
- Accusation that I have never edited the page, posted in 3 different places.[17][18][19]
- Random insults including a false accusation that I wrote the March 2 article lede, an accusation also made without checking the article history[20]
If you did not write the lede then I will apologize, pending verification of that statement....By the way I see that you did in fact correct two typos in one section of the article on March 21...I have not had a chance to verify whether it was before or after I asked you why you were trying to rename an article you had never edited.
[21]You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process?
[22]- Focus on PAs rather than improving the article:
welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true ...I am in a car in a wilderness area and not in a position to verify your statements...So who is owning the article?
[23] You are berating me ...I am begging you to please please please please please read the article you want to rename. One of the other referenced your buddy wants me to use in the article is also in fact used in the article, or at least profoundly informed my thinking on the topic
[24]- A claim that "she" (Buidhe) and "her friend" (me) are telling Elinruby to re-write the article and
telling me to use sources as if the article doesn’t have 299 independent references
[25] - More bludgeoning, more PA unsupported by fact
it would be great if you would read it so we can talk about how to summarize the article in a title, because the move you support is not it
[26]
Rather than using this ANI to continue content disputes, Elinruby needs to review WP:CIVIL and start to be more collegial. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would love to do so and in fact have just made a superhuman effort to be polite while asking this editor the purpose of another plaintive post saying that I am shortchanging Wikipedia readers by omitting subtopics at Russian information war against Ukraine, which as a matter of fact are included in the article. They also appear to still believe that the article is about disinformation, which is only part of its scope. They nonetheless claim to have read the article. I am now saying for the sixth time that if they feel the article is missing something then gee, why don’t they add it, as opposed to parachuting into the article and telling me it doesn’t include factoids that the sources don’t support. All I ask is a freaking source and a specific proposal. Their sources are pretty good, but their point remains mysterious. Since they have now wasted a couple of hours of my typing time and goaded me into replying here again, I suggest that if this most recent effort does not reach HouseOfChange then perhaps a topic ban is in order for that editor, as they appear to be seriously WP:NOTTHERE on this topic. They haven’t and they show no signs of doing so. Although I am not here to do HouseOfChange’s bidding, I am feeling sufficiently harassed that I probably would, if only I could figure out what it was. And while we are here, I’d like to mention that yes I did tell this editor that they believe some strange things, and I stand by that statement. In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. AGF they do not travel through wilderness often enough to realize that this meant I was losing cell service, and in retrospect I didn’t owe them an explanation and should have merely ignored them, but it’s a bit...sensitive...to run to ANI with an incivility complaint rather than just ask me what the heck I was talking about. I don’t have time for the rest of that list and neither does anyone else most likely, but perhaps if the editor tried starting from AGF they would not get their feelings hurt so much when other people don’t acknowledge their inability to ever be wrong. Yes I am annoyed. I have stuff to do and the editor seems bent on preventing me from doing it Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- also yes, It is true that HouseOfChange corrected two typos on March 21. I missed this the first time that I looked and apologized, because hey, this is constructive as far as it goes. But it isn’t exactly a substantive contribution and still doesn’t entitle them to tell me what the article is about, especially since they demonstrably do not know. I am unavailable to read silly accusations for the rest of the day now. Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Concerning Elinruby's latest utterly false PA:
In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me.
Your statement that you were "in the wilderness" and unable to fact-check my statements[27] did not reflect anyhomework assignment
from me, because I have never given you even one "homework assignment." The uncivil part of that diff is not being "in the wilderness," is it the accusation without proofwelp the problem with that is that it isn’t true
. - Now see if what I actually said meant that being "in the wilderness" was itself uncivil:
Elinruby, being harried or busy or in the wilderness, etc. does not exempt you from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
[28] If you are so careless about facts in attacking other users, I shudder to think what POV-pushing you've done in article space. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Concerning Elinruby's latest utterly false PA:
- Support TBAN After the above refusal to get it, and in fact the claim they have been " made a superhuman effort to be polite" (or the same amount of effort everyone else has made here) I think it is clear they need cooling of period. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve spent entire days trying to get the user to read the article he wants to rename. Yesterday was one of them. He appears to believe that discussing Russian military doctrine (as cited to NATO and the United States Marine University and its own information warfare manual) is somehow being mean to the Kremlin. And has now deleted a huge chunk of carefully cited material about it without any attempt to discuss. Then edited my talk page post about it. Slatersteven I have already advised you not to rely on the way he portrays events. I don’t think it should need to be my full-time job to explain NPOV to this user, and he definitely isn’t listening anyway.Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- And he does not want to rename it, he wants to delete it, and I have seen your (and his reasons), and I have made up my mind based on both sets of arguments. I would ask you to start and wp:agf. And I reiterate what I said above, this tells me the user can't edit in this topic area in a way that is conducive to collaborative editing. Please do not try to badger me into changing my mind again, it is having the eclty opposite effect (as you would have relasied had you bothered to listen to what people are telling you). Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve spent entire days trying to get the user to read the article he wants to rename. Yesterday was one of them. He appears to believe that discussing Russian military doctrine (as cited to NATO and the United States Marine University and its own information warfare manual) is somehow being mean to the Kremlin. And has now deleted a huge chunk of carefully cited material about it without any attempt to discuss. Then edited my talk page post about it. Slatersteven I have already advised you not to rely on the way he portrays events. I don’t think it should need to be my full-time job to explain NPOV to this user, and he definitely isn’t listening anyway.Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Nope, he wants to rename it. You are confusing him with another editor who pinged him to this page, and what she wants to do about a different, although related, page. Based on his talk page I am also not the only one who has recently had these problems [29] with him. I do realize that there is a dizzying array of accusations here Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are three different editors that Elinruby is abusing on this talk page, all three of whom he calls "she" and treats with utter contempt, although he has been marginally more polite to me since I notified him that I am a "he."[30][31] The other two are User:Buidhe, a prolific and distinguised editor in the military history space, and BSMRD, a newish editor for whom WP:BITE would be relevant. Editors who identify as "she" are rare on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that Slatersteven didn't realize Elinruby uses this ANI to bludgeon three different editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did notice that Elinruby felt a little more... hostile (perhaps hostile is the wrong word, maybe 'took things more personally') when referring to Buidhe or myself as I was digging through diffs and talk pages for my initial post. I didn't want to add it and still am not comfortable making any sort of direct accusation (I do actually believe in WP:AGF), but since you brought it up I will say it is something that crossed my mind. Also, and this I am comfortable saying directly, Elin seems to mix us up and cycle between us with annoying regularity, though they usually catch themselves before long. BSMRD (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are three different editors that Elinruby is abusing on this talk page, all three of whom he calls "she" and treats with utter contempt, although he has been marginally more polite to me since I notified him that I am a "he."[30][31] The other two are User:Buidhe, a prolific and distinguised editor in the military history space, and BSMRD, a newish editor for whom WP:BITE would be relevant. Editors who identify as "she" are rare on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that Slatersteven didn't realize Elinruby uses this ANI to bludgeon three different editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions beyond a warning or guidance. An established editor with a clean block log should be warned or guided first (if needed). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: I for one would be happy if being
warned or guided
can persuade Elinruby to treat Wikipedia as a group project where collegial editing is a pillar of policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: I for one would be happy if being
So have they been warned yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would consider this whole thread a warning, as there have been multiple comments from others explaining problems with their behavior. Which Elinruby has ignored. A formal warning is just process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds: I guess the "warning" here is for people who got attacked and accused without evidence: WP:CIVIL is NBD for an
established editor with a clean block log
. I'm taking the page I tried to improve off my watchlist. Congrats, Elinruby, you win! Life is short and Wikipedia is large. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds: I guess the "warning" here is for people who got attacked and accused without evidence: WP:CIVIL is NBD for an
- I commented in the more recent RSN discussion[32] about the Azov Battalion lede but am basically uninvolved. I was invited to the
RFCRSN discussion because I had posted a link on the AB talk page. I haven't looked into other parts of the story but I can see that Elinruby has been up against some rather obnoxious editing behaviour. Particularly, Elinruby was right about the rather thin sourcing being used to support an editorialization in the article lede that the AB is currently neo-Nazi. Maybe it is, I'd even say it probably is, but you need something close to WP:RS/AC to editorialize like that, and it still often ends up making us look like idiots. (Example: the article Hunter Biden's laptop currently redirects to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory even though even the NYT finally acknowledges[33] that the stuff on the laptop was real.)The thing about sneaks doesn't refer to any specific editor so it isn't a PA. As a take on the topic area in general, it does reflect known history such as the EEML arb case, which was about off-wiki coordination, i.e. sneaking. It wasn't the most decorous AFD post in history, but I can't get upset about it. Eggishorn's RSN comment
I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to read through the entirety of a complaint that starts with "I am getting shouted down"-type allegations. Please read WP:CONSENSUS
is either naive or disingenuous, since anyone who has been around contentious articles or Wikipedia DR knows that 1) getting shouted down really is a thing, and 2) consensus is not supposed to be synonymous with "mob rule".I can't comment on the wider pattern of Elinruby's editing, but in the small corner of it that I've had contact with, I see a justifiably frustrated editor who doesn't need a sanction. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I move we close this now, as it is clear no warning will be left on their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've made an RFCL posting. Hopefully we can get a proper closure soon. BSMRD (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- 'Support topic ban for Elinruby. For me, this is enough. The comments by the user in this entire thread does not show that they understand any problem with their contributions. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support sanctions of some material kind. Not "warnings", those have been issued, and high-handedly blanked. Not "guidance", which they evidently don't believe they're in any need of. If their "frustration" is "understandable", and justifies their subsequent behaviour, then we're declaring all user-conducts bets off, as clearly other users will be no little frustrated by them. We see rampant incivility; we need blatant derailing of discussions, and incessant creation of duplicate discussions, some of them decidedly "wall of text", of the ones they've elsewhere whatabouted to a halt with their tangency. Whether this should be a page ban, a topic ban, or a block of some duration, or some other actually actionable measure I leave up to the judgement of our infinitely sagacious admin corps. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Rtkat3 close paraphrasing from Fandom without attribution
Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rtkat3 has been copying or close paraphrasing from Fandom (website) (formerly Wikia) without attribution, including an edit after I approached him around a week ago. He was reminded of this requirement in 2020 and 2016 and was blocked for 24 hours in 2015.
Fandom sites generally use the CC BY-SA 3.0 license,[34] which is compatible with Wikipedia, but attribution is required.
- WP:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
- Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text
- WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources
Article | Diff | Apparent source |
---|---|---|
List of DC Comics characters: L#La Dama | 29 March 2022 | https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_(New_Earth) (history) https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_Cardenas_(Prime_Earth) (history) |
Chimera in popular culture#Books (Percy Jackson) | 21 March 2022 | https://riordan.fandom.com/wiki/Chimera (history) |
List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Ripley Ryan | 5 January 2022 | https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Ripley_Ryan_(Earth-616) (history) |
Rtkat3 has also copied between articles without providing attribution as required by the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. He received {{Uw-copying}} warnings in 2020 and 2016.
Article | Diff | Source | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Warcraft#Major races and factions | 21 March 2022 | Races and factions of Warcraft | |
Power Rangers RPM | 15 March 2022 | List of Power Rangers RPM characters | Revision deleted under WP:RD1 criterion |
List of DC Comics characters: G#Grid | 28 January 2022 | Grid (comics) | |
Gotham City | 7 January 2020 | List of mayors of Gotham City | WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Rtkat3 and autopatrolled |
Rtkat3 received several CorenSearchBot "possible copyvio" notifications between 2009 and 2015: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, and diff 6. I spot-checked two:
- Rtkat3 removed the tag from Monster High: Why Do Ghouls Fall in Love? without fixing the problem, and Crow removed the copy.
- Tricephalous (comics) was confirmed by MLauba and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2009 August 12.
This is a long-term pattern of copying edits that needs to be addressed. While attribution can be repaired later, actively creating problems is unacceptable. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In my defense on some of these charges, I have been trying to do some of the recent entries in my own words as best as I could. For some of the Wikipedia things, I was only trying to keep them from deletion in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Some characters in comics had to have to have their media appearances placed somewhere on this website. I also like to take this time to apologize for not leaving a special statement like how it was displayed on the page for Wonderland. Did I leave anything out in these comments of defense? --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've pointed to this before: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It's a great resource to help you fix the close paraphrasing problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to do that with the examples listed above today. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing them. I added {{Fandom content}} to List of DC Comics characters: L#References because there were two source pages. Do you need guidance on the edit summaries required when copying between Wikipedia pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'll contact you if I need it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the last day, you copied a phrase from Maia Mitchell#Personal life (permanent link) to Good Trouble (TV series)#Casting without an appropriate edit summary. All you have to do is enter an edit summary like
copied content from [[Maia Mitchell]]; see that page's history for attribution
, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution and WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia (guidelines). Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)- I was only adding the references and rephrasing information to the page because nobody else has added that information to the page to explain why Maia Mitchell departed from Good Trouble that involved being with her family. If that was wrong, I apologize for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- That edit's content seems fine, although I am not familiar with the subject area. Its edit summary is the issue. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- So I guess you want me to start being more specific about those types of edit summaries. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rtkat3, when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary must say where you copied it from. Flatscan wrote out above what your edit summaries need to say, all you need to do is replace the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- So mention that the content was taken from Fandom or another Wikipedia page is what you are saying. How does one replace the article title? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rtkat3, when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary must say where you copied it from. Flatscan wrote out above what your edit summaries need to say, all you need to do is replace the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- So I guess you want me to start being more specific about those types of edit summaries. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That edit's content seems fine, although I am not familiar with the subject area. Its edit summary is the issue. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was only adding the references and rephrasing information to the page because nobody else has added that information to the page to explain why Maia Mitchell departed from Good Trouble that involved being with her family. If that was wrong, I apologize for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the last day, you copied a phrase from Maia Mitchell#Personal life (permanent link) to Good Trouble (TV series)#Casting without an appropriate edit summary. All you have to do is enter an edit summary like
- You're welcome. I'll contact you if I need it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing them. I added {{Fandom content}} to List of DC Comics characters: L#References because there were two source pages. Do you need guidance on the edit summaries required when copying between Wikipedia pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to do that with the examples listed above today. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've pointed to this before: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It's a great resource to help you fix the close paraphrasing problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In my defense on some of these charges, I have been trying to do some of the recent entries in my own words as best as I could. For some of the Wikipedia things, I was only trying to keep them from deletion in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Some characters in comics had to have to have their media appearances placed somewhere on this website. I also like to take this time to apologize for not leaving a special statement like how it was displayed on the page for Wonderland. Did I leave anything out in these comments of defense? --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
NPA and CIVIL issues with user Adamant1
I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [35] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have sadly seen the same pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them, Mako001, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺
As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"
And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!
- I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺
- This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit (blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,
- 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.
- 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.
- 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all,
In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school.
which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC) - Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit (blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit (blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?
- As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit (blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit (blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit (blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all,
- You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed
I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit (blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit (blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- (This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit (blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit (blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- (This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
SupportSupport tban from all deletion processes. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- - Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite tban from any deletion process, broadly construed, to be effective when the block expires. This is on the strength of the remarkable timesink and demonstration of incompetent battlegrounding which the editor treated us to below, subsequent to my original vote, and the bizarre revenge filing and flurry of talk page barbs. I get that they were upset at the looming tban, but they were surely given enough clues to back off and stop digging. I'm not confident this would not be a permanent, ongoing problem and resource drain, and I'm concerned about the good faith users it might hurt or drive away. I'm going to say that I also concur with those questioning general competence after this command performance, so if someone suggests something stronger and sensible the closer may interpret this comment as tacit support for that too, if it helps. Begoon 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Re: "battleground approach" 1. ["No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]
3. [Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]
4. [now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. ]
Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place. But this is not helpful. It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!" I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One. Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future. Having done that, never look at this thread again. I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before. I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it. But I honestly think that would be the optimal move. Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, we do not "have long standing issues that he [i.e. me] is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss". We simply have differing opinions. The problem is, you get hostile and aggressive whenever I state those opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but your constant attempts to bully editors who disagree with you and your increasing hostility and aggression to those who don't cave in are getting out of hand. You seem to have the impression that no one has a right to state a contrary opinion, and that is not acceptable. You even wrote that you hoped someone would report me to ANI for stating those opinions and implied that I was a vandal and/or troll, which is really beyond the pale. You then made claims that were patently untrue about editors being sanctioned at ANI for stating opinions such as mine. You need to learn that anyone (you, me, anyone else) is entitled to express their opinion at AfD without facing a barrage of condescension, unpleasantness, aggression and suggestions that they should not be allowed to say it. But it is quite clear from your comments thus far in this discussion that you really do not understand why your behaviour is concerning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement. Miniapolis 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote
I don't know if this will do any good in the long term, but once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it, and it seems pretty certain that Adamant's behavior does not help foster a collegial atmosphere. It is possible that a next time we should consider a topic ban from that area, perhaps, but I really hope there won't be a next time.
And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC) - Correction: The block was in December, 2020. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you were blocked for
condescending edits and continued badgering
, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote
In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school
, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote
- OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you were blocked for
- From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote
- I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors to brush up on their colonial history
.
What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Adamant1's behaviour has been extraordinary. Support GirthSummit's proposed TBan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Appears to be a pattern here. I've found this user to be repeatedly dismissive of valid sources. NemesisAT (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support TBan due to long-term disruption and failure to learn from previous sanctions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I'd support a total XFD ban, but the initial proposal to be banned from education-related AFDs is at least a start. Adamant1 has a CIR issue, or they are being willfully obtuse, or deliberately ignoring when evidence to the contrary of their initial presumptions is presented. Any of those is an anathema to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY in AFD discussions, where new evidence is often dug up, and we require intellectual honesty when assessing that evidence. The WP:BLUDGEON issues at AFD as well seem a major problem, coupled with the tit-for-tat ANI report below, I think Adamant1 needs a formal ban of some sort. --Jayron32 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support for proposal at hand. Would also support a complete ban from deletion process, as it has been shown the BATTLEGROUND attitude is long term and not improving. It isn't out of range, per his behavior in this very thread, to consider a CBAN for CIR. It's seems that he's not grasping how Wikipedia works. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support full AfD ban How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD? That's enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support ban from AFD discussions - this reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but even without all of the hostility and WP:BATTLEGROUND, this and this are good examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Adamant1's replying to everyone s/he disagrees with and arguing endlessly (rather than trying to find common ground and/or know when to let an issue go) and refusing to withdraw an AFD (even after having been shown multiple sources) is just more work that needs to be done for both the admins and non-admins closing AFD's. The writing large amounts of needless material and being a timesink at AFD makes it to where (as of right now), Adamant1's participation in AFD's is of little to no use versus the amount of disruption being caused and Adamant1's contributions to the project would be better served someplace else other than AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support full ban from AfD - I've never seen sustained worse behavior - a combination of dishonesty and WP:CIR issues - than this editor has demonstrated at AfD. When I looked back at prior issues with this editor, this is a persistent problem. We can't build the encyclopedia when we have to spend so much of our time dealing with a disruptive editor who is not here to build it.Jacona (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support T-ban A break from AfD is definitely necessary for Adamant1. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I won't support a complete ban from deletion related topics as some have offered here. That is a ban that would potentially keep an editor of this encyclopedia from being able to defend an article they have created from deletion should that day ever occur. However, the T-ban that was proposed that targets the specific area of concern might be the answer to stem the immediate disruption while giving @Adamant1 the opportunity to redeem themselves and have the topic ban lifted one day. After all, short of a sitewide block, isn't that the goal of these types of sanctions. Stop the immediate disruption but allow the offending editor the opportunity to correct their behavior. Sanctions are not meant to be punitive but they are a powerful tool of the community to help correct the trajectory of an editor that is acting in good faith but has lost sight of the overall goal of the community and the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban is also to protect the good faith users who the hostile behaviour might hurt or drive away. It's not just a rehabilitation exercise. Since new or relatively inexperienced users can frequently end up in an AfD, and already feel disoriented by the mass of new rules and jargon they need to navigate I don't think having an editor so hostile and pointlessly aggressive in the mix is in anyone's interest. (Nor do I think experienced editors should need to be exposed to it...) You do make a good point that they should be permitted to defend their own creations though, should the need arise - that's a simple exemption to incorporate in the topic ban. Begoon 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you are saying that you honestly believe that Adamant is such a threat to new and inexperienced editors here on the encyclopedia then why not propose a site ban. Look, Adamant's behavior is unacceptable and I agree that this isn't a rehabilitation exercise but when sanctions are not punitive the hope is that the editor does rehabilitate themselves and correct their actions otherwise, if there is no element of good faith in their being here, then why are they allowed to remain here? Adamant has brought about a situation, of their own making, in which they are either here in good faith but are misguided in their approach or they are not here in good faith and should not be allowed to stay. A full ban from deletion related discussions won't stop the disruption if you honestly believe they aren't here in good faith and are a threat to the ability of the project to retain new or experienced editors through Adamant's interaction with them. But if you believe there is an element of misguided good faith then, regardless of whether it is a full ban or a topic ban of deletion discussions, the point is to stop the disruption, protecting the encyclopedia, and, in doing so, hopefully give Adamant a break to learn from their mistakes. We may differ in opinion of which ban is appropriate but once we start going into the realm of editors being a threat to other editors then we stop assuming good faith and move into the question of why we allow an editor to stay here. If you believe that then a full ban is of no use to support. --ARoseWolf 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. I didn't propose a site ban, because, like you, I don't think the user is a complete net-negative. I'd have done so if I did. I'm not sure quite how to respond to the rest of your long (and, to me, quite unclear) post - you seem upset about something I said? What's the confusingly emphasised "threat" thing about, by the way? That, I confess, utterly confused me. Begoon 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not upset, in the least. It was in response to you saying that new and inexperienced editors frequent AfD discussions, which is true. But they also frequent other areas of the encyclopedia, obviously. You did not specifically use the word "threat" but it was implied in regards to Adamant driving away or hurting good faith users which is also an implication that Adamant isn't acting in good faith, albeit misguided. We are not as far apart in our positions as my words may have given the impression. Just having a discussion about the subtle differences. I apologize if it came across otherwise. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, and I accept your apology. I'm not sure if it "came across otherwise" because I'm still trying quite hard to understand it, if I'm honest. It felt like a bit of an odd post which kind of threw me - but this is the internet, after all. Begoon 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not upset, in the least. It was in response to you saying that new and inexperienced editors frequent AfD discussions, which is true. But they also frequent other areas of the encyclopedia, obviously. You did not specifically use the word "threat" but it was implied in regards to Adamant driving away or hurting good faith users which is also an implication that Adamant isn't acting in good faith, albeit misguided. We are not as far apart in our positions as my words may have given the impression. Just having a discussion about the subtle differences. I apologize if it came across otherwise. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. I didn't propose a site ban, because, like you, I don't think the user is a complete net-negative. I'd have done so if I did. I'm not sure quite how to respond to the rest of your long (and, to me, quite unclear) post - you seem upset about something I said? What's the confusingly emphasised "threat" thing about, by the way? That, I confess, utterly confused me. Begoon 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you are saying that you honestly believe that Adamant is such a threat to new and inexperienced editors here on the encyclopedia then why not propose a site ban. Look, Adamant's behavior is unacceptable and I agree that this isn't a rehabilitation exercise but when sanctions are not punitive the hope is that the editor does rehabilitate themselves and correct their actions otherwise, if there is no element of good faith in their being here, then why are they allowed to remain here? Adamant has brought about a situation, of their own making, in which they are either here in good faith but are misguided in their approach or they are not here in good faith and should not be allowed to stay. A full ban from deletion related discussions won't stop the disruption if you honestly believe they aren't here in good faith and are a threat to the ability of the project to retain new or experienced editors through Adamant's interaction with them. But if you believe there is an element of misguided good faith then, regardless of whether it is a full ban or a topic ban of deletion discussions, the point is to stop the disruption, protecting the encyclopedia, and, in doing so, hopefully give Adamant a break to learn from their mistakes. We may differ in opinion of which ban is appropriate but once we start going into the realm of editors being a threat to other editors then we stop assuming good faith and move into the question of why we allow an editor to stay here. If you believe that then a full ban is of no use to support. --ARoseWolf 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban is also to protect the good faith users who the hostile behaviour might hurt or drive away. It's not just a rehabilitation exercise. Since new or relatively inexperienced users can frequently end up in an AfD, and already feel disoriented by the mass of new rules and jargon they need to navigate I don't think having an editor so hostile and pointlessly aggressive in the mix is in anyone's interest. (Nor do I think experienced editors should need to be exposed to it...) You do make a good point that they should be permitted to defend their own creations though, should the need arise - that's a simple exemption to incorporate in the topic ban. Begoon 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Blocked
Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1#Block. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and subtle vandalism
RafaelHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subtly vandalising fight records for a while now and/or replacing sourced information with that which isn't sourced. In [edit], RafaelHP goes so far as to completely alter a entire fight record in contrast to all reliable sources. They have changed a no contest to a loss and adapted the entire page to make the change. This is subtle vandalism and a big problem in MMA pages. The MMA fighter infobox contains a link to Sherdog, which is what we use unless stated otherwise by RS. The most common alternative is ESPN.
To return to the vandalism example, please see the two prominent RS on the fight Sylvia vs Arlovski, which have the fight as No Contest.
Sherdog: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tim-Sylvia-1061 ESPN: https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/2354048/tim-sylvia
Now see RafaelHP's edit, which undoes the correct result and adapts the entire record to accommodate the vandalism:
[NC becomes a loss and the article is changed]
In another example on a different page, RafaelHP here changes an extraordinary 8 different pieces of sourced information and provides not a single source to back up the changes. Please see here for the source: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329
[8 sourced results without a single source]
Attempts by other editors and me to address this include:
[[36]] [[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [[40]]
Their responses, other than to delete the comments, tend to be petulant, as [[41]] and [[42]].
It's enormously frustrating having to identify subtle vandalism in fight records, and this editor's disruptive editing has, in my opinion, gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[43]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- This response does not address the issues raised in the complaint. NEDOCHAN is not saying that Sherdog is the only source that can be used; their complaint says that you changed it from something that was supported by both Sherdog and ESPN, and you provided no source when doing so. If you have explained that change somewhere, feel free to post a link to that explanation rather than typing it out again - I don't see anything on the article talk page, or on your own talk page (although you seem often to blank that, so it's not easy to read through older discussions, so I might have missed something). Girth Summit (blether) 22:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware of the issues in the complaint and what I did. I changed the result because I was sure there was a source somewhere that would corroborate my edit, but there wasn't and that's my mistake for making the edit in the first place though. I also found it interesting that NEDOCHAN reverts edits that are supported by Sherdog without any sources given, essentially removing sourced content for strictly no reason. See here: [[44]] [[45]].
- I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[43]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm also pretty positive that this ANI post was made in revenge. Notice how after he reverts my edit for the third time (without any proper explanation given) 20 minutes later an ANI post is made about me. [[46]] [[47]] [[48]]. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 11:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Tangentially, not having looked deeply at the MMA edits above, I'm concerned by Rafael's non-response to a query about a disruptive move. I'll credit that Rafael moved the article back, but I would have liked to see an explanation for why the edit happened in the first place. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- RafaelHP can you expand a bit more on why you made a change before you had checked to see whether it was supportable by sources? Girth Summit (blether) 12:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I should point out that I have tried on many many occasions to discuss Rafael's problematic editing, as have many others on many, many occasions. I have linked to five attempts above. This is not an isolated incident and the Frank Mir edit is just as egregious as the Sylvia one. Although Rafael chooses to delete their talk page, a review of it will reveal a litany of posts seeking explanation and cessation of these editing habits. I'll let admins do their thing but I would suggest that Rafael no longer be allowed to edit fight records. This would allow them to continue their other work and encourage them to stop with the kind of edits their talk page shows cause disruption.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The problematic edit I identified is outside of the topic of fight records; IMO the pattern of problematic editing doesn't seem to be subject-driven. A topic-ban from BLPs could maaaybe address the issue, or at least move it away from sensitive subject matter, but my sense is that unless we get a good explanation and about-face from Rafael here, escalating blocks may be the only adequate response. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I should point out that I have tried on many many occasions to discuss Rafael's problematic editing, as have many others on many, many occasions. I have linked to five attempts above. This is not an isolated incident and the Frank Mir edit is just as egregious as the Sylvia one. Although Rafael chooses to delete their talk page, a review of it will reveal a litany of posts seeking explanation and cessation of these editing habits. I'll let admins do their thing but I would suggest that Rafael no longer be allowed to edit fight records. This would allow them to continue their other work and encourage them to stop with the kind of edits their talk page shows cause disruption.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Sparkle1
Can I please bring, yet again, User:Sparkle1 to the attention of this board?
We have their attitude on their talk page:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080506106 ("Not even bothered reading")
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080200568 ("Not interested in the ramblings")
We also have a borderline edit war :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Saudi_Arabian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1080201226
I understand they have been reported before and I wonder if we can discuss their tone, their behaviour, and their attitude problem.
Thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would probably have been a more appropriate place for a thread like this, not that it can't be discussed here as well, but edit warring does have it's own separate board. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Additional note User:Sparkle1 was notified of this ANI (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080210382) and reverted it with a dismissive and uncivil edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&direction=next&oldid=1080210382 "Not even bothered reading."
doktorb wordsdeeds 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see no issue with Sparkle1's user talk edits or the correlated edit summaries. A user can remove messages from their own user talk page because they're not interested and can say as such in the edit summary. Nothing of substance here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equivamp (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive addition of uncited content and attacks on editors by IP
86.87.191.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively adding uncited content and insists that the content will be continuously re added to the Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). Editors have been called "propagandists", amateurs and self-important novice editors""
- 1, 2 , 3
- Also this golden statement "Clearly there are people monitoring this article very desperate to maintain a propagandist approach and using this as a vehicle for spreading their incoherent economic ignorance. I don't expect much on Wikipedia, with all the amateurs and self-important novice editors flying around adding their little tags randomly. I tell you now though I will republish the facts on this article as much as you try to remove it"
-UtoD 05:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Warned: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Warning, Talk:2019–present_Sri_Lankan_economic_crisis#Propaganda. El_C 11:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Upon further thought, probably excessive at this point. Sure, the Civil War ended in 2009, but this seems like a good faith edit, whose contents were at least partially retained (and notwithstanding the original reported IP's threats, which they have not carried out thus far). El_C 12:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Block. El_C 19:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Long term pov-pushing IP hopper
BLOCKED | |
(non-admin closure) ip range blocked for 1 month. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2003:D1:CF0D:2A10:2D00:EEC0:871E:1DC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A10:F0CC:94D5:7900:161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A50:D00A:F43F:75A6:F9F6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A50:E919:BC02:A8BC:3134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:49AB:F14A:FC38:5714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:E8E9:32BA:A1BA:895A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:3461:4916:3F26:44FF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A36:5CE8:20E4:F112:DC80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A77:59CC:B514:C8CE:2217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A15:1DC5:6F51:F37D:A286 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:d1:cf0d:2a09:b45e:c9ba:a921:7ef4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A59:F9C3:784D:2439:A3A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A48:6819:367F:395D:B29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A87:D05F:A2C1:F40A:1D8F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A62:F113:2287:F41F:EC92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A33:28EC:375C:A4F:5918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A82:38FC:2758:A155:E17F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A79:315E:7A9A:F32D:A51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A45:3461:4916:3F26:44FF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A42:A12D:E246:66D4:5B7E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:D1:CF0D:2A06:5DFA:1A2D:5187:990B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
For an extended time these particular IPs from the same location has been making religious related pov pushing, often with non-WP:RS as well as WP:RS which don't even support the added information. There are probably more IPs than this, and I suspect the person behind these IPs has made user accounts as well ([49]).
Here are some diffs. Mind you, there are many, these are just some examples;
[50] - Added information filled with a mix of unverifiable "sources", non-WP:RS, and even WP:RS which don't even support the added information.
[51] - Replaced a well-sourced revision of the article with that of WP:OR and non-WP:RS which fits with his view.
[52] - Added a barrage of non-WP:RS (Youtube, https://www.al-islam.org, etc) riddled with a bunch of POV info.
[53] - Same here.
[54] - Same here.
I could go on.
Some of his comments, notice a pattern here? This is clearly the same person;
"rv, administrator please ban this unneutral, discriminative and abusive user
Again, I could find more diffs, all these IPs speak/edit like each other. They even target more or less the same articles, especially Hazrat Ishaan (title), which was created by a user now banned for sockpuppetry (most likely him) [55] [56] [57] [58].
Based on this, I really think a huge rangeblock should be made, as this person is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is really persistent.
EDIT: Found one of his user socks [59] that tried to reinstate the IPs edits [60]. Moreover, this user just fixed the comment of another user whose edits and comments are very similar [61], another sock? Or maybe a meatpuppet? They both edit in the same article, in the same section [62] [63]. Created a SPI [64]
--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Whoever operates these sock accounts and sock IPs, they certainly managed to violate about every guideline there is. Clearly not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- This look a lot like User:DedicatedFollower13, a sock of User:Sayyid Mir Israfil, per all the summaries ending "Thank you..." on the same /56 range. e.g. [65], [66], [67] LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one month (/56). El_C 11:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The edit wars on Dyson (company)
I'm here to report a lot of edit wars on Dyson (company). I reverted a edit on that page considering it was just a single vandalism, but then I found that there were terrible edit wars on it. Could any sysop take a look at the edit history of that page?Pavlov2 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected Dyson (company) for two weeks. Let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect the Gary0987 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is another sock based on this[68] — Czello 22:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Add Sola8273 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to the list of socks that require blocking. — Czello 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Turkic Perfect
- Turkic Perfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safavid order page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[70]
- Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safi-ad-din Ardabili page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[71]
- Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Turkish" at the Abbas the Great article. No edit summary/explanation.[72]
- Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Azerbaijan" at the Afsharid dynasty article. No edit summary/explanation.[73]
- Tried to swap "Safavid Iran" with "Safavid Azerbaijan" at the History of Azerbaijan article. No edit summary/explanation.[74]
- Warned on several occassions.[75]
Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this "user" is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Turkic_Perfect#Indefinite_block. El_C 11:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Suspected Block Evasion by 107.218.228.92 via 96.74.200.230
I suspect that 96.74.200.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually 107.218.228.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – an anonymous user who is a long-term vandal that is currently blocked for two years for persistent vandalism. Both editors seem to edit National Football League and World Wrestling Entertainment-related articles, often adding a false information that is spelled incorrectly or not formatted appropriately. For example:
- 107.218.228.92's edit on Eddie Kennison from 11/25/2020
- 96.74.200.230's edit on Warren Moon from 3/11/2022
In both examples, the city name is misspelled and formatted in all-lowercase.
Both IPs are also based in the Chicago area. 96.74.200.230 presently does not have enough warning to merit a report to WP:AIV. I apologize if this should be filed under a sock puppet investigation, but it seems more like block evasion to me. Thanks, -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
A MAC address user posts an inappropriate discussion on an article's talk page
NO ACTION REQUIRED | |
From the header at the top of this page: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.. This clearly isn't any of those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A MAC address user (2601:204:202:4860:794B:14D2:B601:86A5) twice added an inappropriate discussion (which I already reverted) on the talk page of Haruka Tomatsu. Centcom08 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't a MAC address (and Wikipedia would absolutely never have those user-visible), that's an IPv6 address. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, although it wasn't mentioned in the report, an admin was needed in order to revdel something. Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Protecting Users Globally on the Ukraine-Russia Pages
Thank you for your concern. We already maintain the effective tools needed to counter such an issue. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict falls under WP:ARBEE, any disruption on an article, whether caused by nefariousness or ineptitude, allows that article to be easily protected under either semi or ECP. Combined with our anti-vandalism patrol and the good-faith editors that frequent those articles, this ensures that articles regarding this conflict are taken care of. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Russian government has possibly send users from their region to remove sourced information which they believed it fake news. (even if its EEP) They have arrested a user recently. Can the admins and Wikipedia policy enforcement expert help create security plan to help protect working Wikipedia users on all regions of Wikipedia.? This unacceptable. Arresting someone for editing a Wikipedia.
Patent2022 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's not much Wikipedia can do about the Russian government arresting people for editing Wikipedia, I don't think, as Wikipedia lacks a private army or security force to protect editors. The courts in Russia clearly are in the pocket of the government, so legal action probably wouldn't help. If Russian government agents or even just pro-Russia civilians are clearly removing content against policy they will be dealt with just as any other editor. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Think these group of users from Russia are making so called "non disruptive changes but also parts of their changes are removing so called fake news information" Try to sneak in the changes...making harder to catch them even if you review the history Patent2022 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will note that Russia falls into WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe's topic area. Subtle POV-pushing is amongst the things that can draw discretionary sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I share grave concerns about this arrest but we should all try our best to be accurate. We have an article about this, Detention of Mark Bernstein, and it is clear that Mark Bernstein was arrested in Belarus, not Russia. Some might argue that Belarus is Russia's closest ally, and that is also true. But at this time, they are two separate nation states. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will note that Russia falls into WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe's topic area. Subtle POV-pushing is amongst the things that can draw discretionary sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Think these group of users from Russia are making so called "non disruptive changes but also parts of their changes are removing so called fake news information" Try to sneak in the changes...making harder to catch them even if you review the history Patent2022 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Billh07882
- Billh07882 (talk · contribs)
This user has made the same unhelpful edit to Pork roll eleven times in the past couple weeks and has been reverted by five users. The latest was after I gave a uw-vandalism4 on User talk:Billh07882. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Reywas92Talk 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, clearly here to make an article better, albeit ineptly. Why not write the sentence better to avoid this problem? It reads as if somehow there's permission granted to do this, especially as it immediately follows a discussion of legal requirements. If you want to say that even though it's actually named pork roll, is not a ham, and is not necessarily a Taylor product, people still call it "Taylor's Ham", then there must be a way of saying this that doesn't get people wanting to add-in the missing counterpoint. Yes, this is bad writing and slow-motion (less than 1 edit per day on average) edit warring by Billh07882, but it's being triggered by existing writing that could be better too. ISBN 9780811746274 and ISBN 9781467139267 (Arcadia Publishing again) seem to be places to start on this. Bryson and Haynie even make the "I'm looking at [the wrapper] right now." argument. ISBN 9781614237273 (yet more Arcadia) talks about genericization. So it's not that this is some personal observation by Billh07882. It's actually a genuine point to be made, better than the article is making it; and the editor is actually trying to address a failing in the article, and simply doing so not very well. Fix the article with good writing to explain, and I predict that the problem with Billh07882's bad writing will go away of its own accord.
Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)The north calls it “Taylor ham” and eats it with mustard; the south calls it “pork roll” and eats it with ketchup.
— Bryson and Haynie, op cit., p. 109- This is a routine content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:Pork roll which has been silent for nearly a year. The goal of that discussion should be to build consensus. Any editor who edit wars against consensus is, of course, at a very high risk of a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- And since I made this post, Billh07882 made the edit again, which was reverted, and Drmies made a reasonable edit rewording that section. Billh07882 for a thirteenth time made his change, this time saying it's "also wrong" to eat it with mustard, here inputting a personal observation. This has been appropriately reverted, and I will again say that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, even without a talk page discussion that obviously inappropriate and disruptive wording is inappropriate. Being reverted by now six users (and warned on his own talk page by three) is an implicit consensus and it's not our onus to bring his inept editing to the talk page. Reywas92Talk 00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uncle G, perhaps you know what to do here. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps a page block to force communication on the talk page, hopefully get them experienced in consensus building and develop them into a good editor? They'll end up proving, one way or another, if they're WP:HERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more, and there's a pork roll SPA, which I find amazing. It really takes all kinds, eh? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well there I was poised to tackle South Atlantic Quarterly and now I find myself having to bloody write about pork roll instead. The entire state of New Jersey owes me some articles. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hamilton, William Baskerville, ed. (1953). Fifty Years of the South Atlantic Quarterly. Durham.
- Durden, Robert F. (1988). "Hamilton, William Baskerville (7 Mar. 1908–17 July 1972)". In Powell, William S. (ed.). Dictionary of North Carolina Biography. University of North Carolina Press.
- Mott, Frank Luther (2002). "The South Atlantic Quarterly". A History of American Magazines: 1905–1930. Vol. 5. Harvard University Press. pp. 273–285. ISBN 9780674395541.
- Fredrickson, George M. (1987). The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914. Wesleyan University Press. p. 291. ISBN 9780819561886.
- Hart, James D. (1986). "South Atlantic Quarterly". The Concise Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 377. ISBN 9780195047714.
- MacLeod, Kirsten (2018). American Little Magazines of the Fin de Siecle: Art, Protest, and Cultural Transformation. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442643161.
- Hart, James D. (1995). "Bassett, John Spencer". In Leininger, Phillip (ed.). The Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780195065480.
- Right. Some 5KiB later and I'm still annoyed. New Jersey definitely owes me those articles. ScottishFinnishRadish is right. If the editor comes back after this, xe isn't contributing in good faith. Clearly a Southerner, too. Block the bloody nuisance if that happens. Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uncle G, perhaps you know what to do here. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
IP user 152.32.85.105
- 152.32.85.105 (talk · contribs)
Hello. I just want to report this user because of his violation on WP:SOAPBOX, as seen in the user's contributions. I don't know if this user and User:Jaymark 220 are connected to each other since the two users have putted the words "vote" and "re-elect" in Philippine local election pages here.
Oh, the said IP user is doing the same thing again. I think that the user has a problem why he is putting promotional edits here. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Admin: I need help right now. The said IP address is undoing some of my reverts to his promotional edits that violates the WP:SOAPBOX rule. Please refer to the IP's contributions. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@El C: Pinging an admin for you. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hasn't edited in over a day, so I'm not convinced a block is achieving anything at this time. Please note pinging "Admin" does not get a response any faster; there's only a thousand or so of us and we can't be everywhere. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Pakistan crisis
There is an constitutional crisis is going in Pakistan, between Government and Opposition parties and there is no clear status of Parliament and national assembly, I request to wikipedia admistators please protect & not allowed any edits at Parliament of Pakistan and National Assembly of Pakistan pages until situation clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.74 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks (both), after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No-confidence motion against Imran Khan -related. El_C 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Test edit of Rjyok
BLOCKED | |
(non-admin closure) blocked as a sock of User:Sauraved. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rjyok (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) test edited a lot by changing pictures in articles of mainspace, what should we do? Pavlov2 (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing for now. For the time being, it looks like they stopped after the last warning. El_C 11:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, test again and a block is given to it. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Them, not it. They are a person, not an object. El_C 18:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Opps, sorry, I don't know why we usually use they instead of it. Thanks for mention that. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. To answer your question: because it in this context refers to an object (it is a bad car / good cat). See It (pronoun). They is about a person (see singular they) or persons. HTH. El_C 18:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Opps, sorry, I don't know why we usually use they instead of it. Thanks for mention that. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Them, not it. They are a person, not an object. El_C 18:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, test again and a block is given to it. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Restoring the 2010s and 2020s-present section
Every user who has committed each and every ban evasion has kept asking me to restore the 2010s and 2020s-present section of the Horror film page. They have been doing this to me time and again, every chance they got. So could you please do something about this before another ban-evading user starts bothering me again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- You may need to report this to WP:SPI Pavlov2 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please file a report containing all these socks to there, which may be helpful.By the way, you can try to request a protect for your user talk page. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is about Jinnifer (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer). Jinnifer commonly uses sock puppets to harass on user talk pages both here and on other Wikimedia projects. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also found his socks on wikiquote, seemingly he is cross-wiki vandalizing. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve gotten this nonsense too. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also found his socks on wikiquote, seemingly he is cross-wiki vandalizing. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is about Jinnifer (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer). Jinnifer commonly uses sock puppets to harass on user talk pages both here and on other Wikimedia projects. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- A rangeblock on 166.205.141.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would be helpful, Jinnifer has been editing from there the last few days. See for example their trademark deuteragonist nonsense. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- See CrakerLaers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a real time example. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Assume bad faith of commonedits
Commonedits (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) assume bad faith again Special:diff/1080304347 after the final warning is given to himSpecial:diff/1079940196, I'm here to request some help from sysop after two days of consideration. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- User blocked for 2 weeks – last chance to change. If I come across this user again, they are very likely to be indefinitely blocked under WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I nearly closed this as not-done given they haven't been active for the last 2-3 days. Blocks are considered preventative not punitive, therefore it's advisable to report issues much sooner after they arise rather than waiting for 2 days. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Stifle: I'll have to take some responsibility for not reporting sooner; I've come close a couple of times (and that's mostly just watching from the sidelines), but always held back in the end. They sail close to the wind, but (AGF and all that) never quite crossed the line on any one occasion, IMO; it's more of a cumulative effect. The fact that they keep removing previous warnings and other messages from their user talk page may also have helped to cover the extent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I'd like to say I had to consider a lot about his situation. His case is a little not that obvious, without blatant attack or some stuff like dirty words. I held back the first day, then a few days later I came out that he already created an attack page to other editors. He cleaned all the warnings on his user talk page, that make the situation more concealing Pavlov2 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pavlov2 and DoubleGrazing have got it right, with comments such as "a little not that obvious" and "sail close to the wind, but ... never quite crossed the line on any one occasion". It's difficult to take action because of a fairly trivial incident a couple of days ago, but there comes a time when one last straw is one too many. JBW (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I nearly closed this as not-done given they haven't been active for the last 2-3 days. Blocks are considered preventative not punitive, therefore it's advisable to report issues much sooner after they arise rather than waiting for 2 days. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion Needed.
SUGGESTION PROVIDED | |
Requested information and links to prior discussions provided. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I have a concern over here, Which I as a part of the community thinks that I should know.
I am an editor over here with interest in Pop culture, Indie Music etc and since I am from India I do edit on India based Artists pages more specifically. My concern is about a few of the pages which have been repeatedly created, although they have sources available but still they get deleted just because some sort of sock farm or COI related accounts have been involved into it, I am curious about knowing a thing what if the available sources somehow do passes gng yet due to some of the senior editor who abruptly are ignorant about the fact that the sources which are available are there because they DO have possibly grabbed the media attention due to their notable work.
for example
Like I am pretty sure if searched more properly there will be many other names too which hasn't been allowed to be created just because someone possibly or intentionally spoiled the record of these pages on WP, and the biggest problem which occurs over here is this that if someone with good faith even tries to work on these pages, such editors are unnecessarily seen as someone who be editing them in return of money etc, but the fact is sometimes editors like me edits on such pages with good faith, for example I have recently tried creating a draft on Vivek Verma then an editor started calling me a sock of someone who had tried creating the same page earlier read this for example, but the fact was I found the artist on spotify and later I liked his song and searched for him on google and found sources which are equivalent to many other Indian Artists having WP on wiki and just because they don't have been repeatedly recreated they pass GNG and pages like Amiway and Verma doesn't. Although it probably been done as a good faith for WP but it fails to justify that Why doesn't anyone is allowed to create such pages.
for instance see in the case of verma read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma and over here per Wikipedia:THREE there are certainly enough sources available, Infact This NDTV source has been published few hours ago.
there is similar situation for Bantai and other one as well. Needs suggestion on the same issue. Thanks Suryabeej ⋠talk⋡ 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- To the extent that this is yet another discussion about Vivek Verma, I endorse the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma, its deletion review, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (2nd nomination). I also endorse the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (musician) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma. I also endorse RHaworth's G4 and salting of Vivek Verma singer and his G8 of Vvek Verma. I also endorse the blocking of User:Vivek.k.Verma and his 20-ish sockpuppets, and I respectfully invite Suryabeej to write something else.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment but that doesn't satisfy the question of why someone who has refs like this, this, this, this or lets say This, this, this and this aren't considered as passing gng? Suryabeej ⋠talk⋡ 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Before I answer that, I have two questions for you. First: what's your connection with Vivek Verma? Second: Has anyone offered you any money or other incentive to get a Wikipedia article about Vivek Verma published?—S Marshall T/C 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I found his music on spotify Randomly, and searched for him and found that he has the potential coverage along with his weak but satisfactory contribution in Bollywood which makes him satisfy GNG and WP:MusicBio that is why I took the attempt to create the draft of him, Secondly I am clearly aware with the WP policies and COI, No, No one has offered me nothing to make Verma's page on WP, It was my own decision, which made me curious after I found Draft:Emiway bantai this which is being made by some editor who is trying to change the letter into small and create a draft which again is wrong but I found that these fellas do pass WP:THREE and I felt like asking the question about it over here, Rest I edit mostly music related stuff over here on WP. Suryabeej ⋠talk⋡ 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Mr Verma has exhausted the community's patience with his persistent socking and self-promotion, so we no longer want to talk about him. I suggest you write something else and come back after you've got a dozen other articles published in the mainspace.This board, the administrator's noticeboard, is a place to raise conduct issues with other editors. We don't make content decisions or decision about sources here. Someone will be along shortly to close this thread.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Egregious personal attacks
User: 604editor making religious and personal attacks on a talk page [76] and disruptive edits on Sikhs where he removed sourced content without any explanation [77]. Granted the IP was definitely disruptive as well and deserves to be reprimanded but it doesn't allow a user to make bigoted statements like that. IIBxtrerII (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- what about this is a threat? i told him stop making disruptive edits or he'll be reported, he already has several warnings on his talk page, this is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you C.Fred, glad this could be resolved immediately. Hope to see less disruptive editing and bigoted statements on wikipedia. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That was definitely unacceptable and justified a warning. If there is any repetition I would support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you C.Fred, glad this could be resolved immediately. Hope to see less disruptive editing and bigoted statements on wikipedia. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There definitely won't be repetition so no need for a block, but let's focus on the fact that you IIBxtrerII reverted my edits on the Page Sikhs, talking about "sourced content removed without any explanation" except everything I removed was already unsourced, Guru Nanak was born into a Buddhist not Hindu family(there's a BIG difference), this is well recorded in multiple sources. Furthermore, you reverted my edits and even reported my efforts against vandalism as "attacks" which yes some were(only on his talk page), within MINUTES, yet you let the Hindu extremist disruptive edits stay unchecked on the page Sikhs since the 31st of March, that is FOUR days, hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would recommend that you move this comment and discussion on the talk page of Sikhs, this page isn't really appropriate for content disputes. I would be happy to engage with you there. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're really pushing your luck here, adopting a belligerent battleground attitude in a thread where you've already been warned about personal attacks really isn't helping your cause. At this point I'd strongly suggest you find another unrelated topic to quietly work on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive IP returns on century articles
2601:146:4100:AC60:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for three months in May 2021 for persistent MOS:CENTURY violations, including things like The term is often used to refer to the 1800s, the century between January 1, 1800, and December 31, 1899. They also evaded that block as 2601:147:300:EDE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log).
Now they have returned as 2601:14D:4581:4370:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 2601:14D:4581:6710:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) adding the same The term is often used to refer to “the 1800s”, the century between 1 January 1800 and 31 December 1899 nonsense as before. FDW777 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Seattle hoaxer, BLP violations from blocked HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo
- User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo
- 2601:0603:4b00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- User:BellaYesCaylieNo
User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo in Seattle has been using a range of IP6 addresses for hoaxing, date vandalism and violating BLP since September 2020.[79] (Before that, they were using the IP Special:Contributions/71.212.194.148 from July 2019.) One persistent hoax theme they keep adding is the word "Amadeus" or "Amadaeus", for instance in the false film The Bella & Amadaeus Movie[80] or the false TV show The Adventures of Amadaeus.[81] They often add the surname "Gammons".[82][83]
Perhaps a long-term rangeblock would help to keep them away from frequently visited articles. I listed the /40 but maybe it could be tightened for less collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Adding User:BellaYesCaylieNo as an obvious sock, repeating the vandalism of blocked IP Special:Contributions/168.212.100.64. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a mix of both vandalism and tendentious editing. Definitely SPA terrority. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have called it anything but vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Conflict of interest?
Eyetie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I are involved in a content dispute on Taron Egerton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) involving praise for Egerton's performance in a play. Eyetie proposed adding a review from Londonist's Franco Milazzo, which I found unsuitable. I then saw that they added a separate review by Milazzo in another article. A quick Google search I did on Milazzo to learn whether their (and Londonist's) reviews merit attention presented something interesting. I'm not going to state my findings per WP:OUTING, but I believe this needs administrator action. KyleJoantalk 04:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- In fairness, not needing Outing, they mention on their user page they're an "award winning critic", so there's already room there to question things. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it simply be better to ask the editor on their User talk page whether there is a conflict of interest before coming here? As the editor clearly identifies as an award-winning (a horrible phrase that can mean anything from a certificate for swimming ten metres to a Nobel prize) critic there is a fair chance that they will also be prepared to say which award-winning critic. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds quite fair to raise the potential COI discussion with them directly first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- In this discussion, Eyetie called Milazzo the
Londonist critic
and Londonistverifiable ... for WP purposes
, which reads like an attempt by Eyetie to maintain objectivity or conceal any external relationship. You'll also see that they had never answered the questions I had asked them, so I thought it would be futile to ask another one. KyleJoantalk 14:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- Futile or not, I have asked the direct question here, as you seem to be be too shy to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- In this discussion, Eyetie called Milazzo the
- Sounds quite fair to raise the potential COI discussion with them directly first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth if the only other edit that I can find of that nature going all of the way back to 2006 is Special:Diff/1043100629, this isn't even in the same class as the normal sort of conflict of interest case. If someone with just an account name on a WWW site said of your job "What is Londonist and how known are they for theatre reviews?" whilst erasing mention of it, what would you think? Egerton received praise, but the SF Chronicle's Mick LaSalle positively panned xem. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would add that some people may find the user name "Eyetie" to be offensive, although its intent is probably not. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's wrong with an eyetie? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Guntapaki
Guntapaki has been Changing match times in various Wrestling Matches in a lot of Pay per views from WWE and WCW like Crown Jewel (2021), Survivor Series (2021), WWE Day 1, Royal Rumble (2022), Elimination Chamber (2022), Mayhem (1999), Halloween Havoc (1999), Survivor Series (2021), Armageddon (1999) and WrestleMania 38. This is has been going on since September 2021 and i think that Guntapaki is WP:NotHere. This is the only thing that this user does.
Chip3004 (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully to the OP, this ANI was not written well, and the difs are not actually difs. Since such poorly formed reports often get ignored, I'm going to try to help out.
- First things first. All of Guntapaki's edits are changing the duration time for matches on pro wrestling PPVs without leaving an edit summary or any other commentary. A lot of the "not-difs" are months old, although a review of Guntapaki's contributions shows that the edits are ongoing. On the page for Starrcade (1999), the match duration times were sourced to 411mania, a site of "limited reliability" per WP:PW/RS. Guntapaki changes several times without adding a new source, and Chip3004 reverted.
- Which brings us to communication. Guntapaki has not posted on any talk pages - not his user page, not article talk pages, not on Chip3004's talk pages. Meanwhile, Chip3004 has posted a rudely phrased query that was overwritten with a vandalism template an hour later, another vandalism template 8 minutes later, one month later, another attempt at communication consisting mainly of threats, another template 3 months later, and two months after that one last template and an ANI notification. No other users aside from the one that originally welcomed Guntapaki to Wikipedia have ever posted there. I'm including all this not to throw shade at Chip3004 but to help illustrate the situation - repeated threats from a single user may easily be ignored if no consequences are forthcoming.
- So, is what Guntapaki doing vandalism or an attempt at good faith contributions? Well, I think he is vandalizing and I'm using this edit as the reason. In it he removes a source, and changes the access date of another source - I think this is evidence that he knows what he's doing. Guntapaki has, by the way, reinstated information he added that was reverted (once, twice) and has been reverted by editors other than Chip3004.
- Guntapaki should be blocked, preferably by an administrator with the patience to discuss WP:RS with him if it does turn out that he's interested in being a legitimate contributor. 184.15.47.224 (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Guntapaki is still changing the match times for WrestleMania 38, he continues to change match times for WrestleMania 38, he always leaves the edit summary blank and does not use his talk page at all and it is ongoing. Chip3004 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think admin action is needed here. Chip3004 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Autobiography
Md Sunnat Ali Mollik has created Md Sunnat Ali Mollik multiple times. This clearly does not belong in main space, yet they persist in putting it back and have paid no attention to the messages on their TP. After my last draftification, they have blanked my user page. MB 07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted again and create-protected. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The user has subsequently been indefinitely blocked by another admin. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Suspected Block Evasion and Disruptive Editing
- 1234comrade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Partha protim konar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Admin, please look into these two users. First User:1234comrade has been constantly adding founders list in Communist Party of India (Marxist) without providing any reliable sources. Second interesting thing I noticed, User:Partha protim konar all of a sudden deleted the entire talk page of User:1234comrade. Something fishy is going on and pattern of edits are quite similar it looks like WP:SOCK. Please check thoroughly about these two user accounts. Another thing I would like bring to you attention User:Vif12vf too adds information's without providing reliable sources. But first you check thoroughly about first two users. User:Partha protim konar has again added founders list in Communist Party of India (Marxist) without any source. It looks to me clear cut sock puppet. Admin @Girth Summit: and @Rosguill:. Please look into this issue with utmost urgency and take necessary action in this regard. Thank You!--Mariam57 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have no relation to the above mentioned accounts! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is some suspicious overlap in 1234comrade and Partha protim konar's editing, but would prefer to see technical evidence before taking action as I was only able to give this a quick look (you may be able to get CU eyes on this faster by filing at WP:SPI). As for the other issues, looking at the CPI-M page history and the lack of relevant discussion on the talk page, the unsourced content issues could use some discussion between involved editors on a talk page before bringing it here for admin attention, as I'm not seeing any discussion despite a fair amount of back and forth edit warring. signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Checkuser note: I have blocked 1234comrade and Partha protim konar as Confirmed sockpuppets of each other. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Partha protim konar. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Iphone5Sgold
Iphone5Sgold (talk · contribs)
I blocked this editor for 48 hours in early March for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs - after a few weeks off they are back and still doing it (the stats are not supported by any of the databases present on the article, namely NFT, Soccerway, or Football Database, and I cannot find any other sources). Long history of this kind of behaviour, no edit summaries or talk page replies. Indef? GiantSnowman 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could you explain? The stats given by this editor appear to the causal eye to be exactly as well sourced as the rest of the stats in the infobox. —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the sources aren't reliable. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not currently able to discern anything warranting administrative action here. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kusma, JulieMinkai, and Stifle: this is an editor repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs, despite multiple warnings stretching back 4 years, and despite a recent block. Since when did that become acceptable editing? GiantSnowman 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive and abusive IP editor
- Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Liturgy of Addai and Mari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Suriyani Malayalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IP editor 2402:8100:3903:1960:355B:C14E:5CD3:2EDC, who also appears to edit as 2402:8100:390C:CF8B:92D7:F55F:6220:A38 and 2402:8100:390B:EB54:5088:8C3F:4E40:860C, has repeatedly edited in an abusive, vandalizing, and self-admitted POV manner. Besides using crass language when asked about their edits, the editor proceeded to accuse me of "arrogance and ignorance" twice and has refused to address a request for sources on their edits, particularly this one. Another editor has attempted intervention, not receiving any response. If I need to do anything else, let me know. ~ Pbritti 14:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
2001:F40:910:83C:9906:7198:2565:37D9
Hello, This user has made extremely unconstructive and disruptive edits to wikipedia within the last hour. User claims to be "Hacked", which is impossible as this is an I.P User. Edits include major content removal, Block requested. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Report to ARV is more faster.. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- /64 blocked for a few days (via a report at AIV). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
User:NIAOF
Blocked by Discospinster (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rapid changing of music genre on a variety of pages, ignoring all comments and talk page notifications indicating that the listed genres are backed by sources. Does not appear open to collaboration or communication. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Dronebogus @ MFD
Dronebogus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm deeply concerned about the actions and judgment of Dronebogus at WP:MFD. Yesterday he nominated a massive spate of userboxes for deletion. Now some of these userboxes probably do well warrant deletion. However, several of the rationales given do not reflect policy but instead reflect an emotional and ideological bent ([94], [95], [96]). The more worrying thing is his soapboxy commentary ([97]) and BLP violations ([98]) when defending his reasoning.
Dronebogus's judgment has been questionable at times in administrative sectors of Wikipedia, and this is not the first time in which it seems as if his emotions have gotten ahead of his reasoning. I'm not sure what the answer is here, and I'm certainly not about to criticize anyone's proportion of edits to various spaces given my heavy focus on WP:ITN. But I do feel it would be best if a break from WP:MFD were imposed on him to prevent further disruption. At this point I'm beginning to feel that it's for his own good. WaltCip-(talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've just voted on a lot of the nominations this user has made and I'd say the majority are userboxes that deserve to get deleted. It's actually good that someone decided to go through all of that user's userboxes and start cleaning up Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd ask Dronebogus if they'd maybe reconsider this particular campaign? Most of those userboxes are trolling, and MFDing them is troll-feeding. Users who get involved in Wikipedia's various historical userbox wars have often regretted it. It's longstanding custom and practice that good faith Wikipedians are allowed wide but not unlimited latitude to express themselves in their userspace, and also, if someone does have those opinions, it's good for them to be clearly stated up front so others can avoid them more easily. We wouldn't want to breed wasps without the yellow stripes, would we?—S Marshall T/C 22:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No. I’ve heard this a million times, policy is clear on this, no disruptive userboxes. If this was nazis we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder. As a survivor of the Great Userbox Wars I regret ever getting involved, and it's a topic that is entered into carefully, with tact and discretion. "Stupid irredentist nonsense" is not that. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well that one was withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder. As a survivor of the Great Userbox Wars I regret ever getting involved, and it's a topic that is entered into carefully, with tact and discretion. "Stupid irredentist nonsense" is not that. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- No. I’ve heard this a million times, policy is clear on this, no disruptive userboxes. If this was nazis we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd ask Dronebogus if they'd maybe reconsider this particular campaign? Most of those userboxes are trolling, and MFDing them is troll-feeding. Users who get involved in Wikipedia's various historical userbox wars have often regretted it. It's longstanding custom and practice that good faith Wikipedians are allowed wide but not unlimited latitude to express themselves in their userspace, and also, if someone does have those opinions, it's good for them to be clearly stated up front so others can avoid them more easily. We wouldn't want to breed wasps without the yellow stripes, would we?—S Marshall T/C 22:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- This seems like nitpicking over the mote in my eye over the giant sequoia in the disruptive user’s eye. I recall an admin who had userboxes on his page calling Boris Johnson a “complete nincompoop” and trump a “nazi sympathizer who values golf more than human lives”. I described trump as a pathological liar because he is. “Dimwit” is an insult but a mild one that you could have just told me to remove. I said the Userboxes were “tankie” because they are— the creator was defending genocide in deleted ones, and others claim German reunification is “occupation” and attack anyone who is critical of Stalin/Putin/other authoritarians. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only one you’re probably right on is the Falklands ones, and they’re still in my opinion objectively disruptive since it’s pro-invasion/pro-annexation against an unwilling population. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve since withdrawn both per your arguments and arguments of voters. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve also redacted the comment about trump being a dumb-dumb. Now can we just close this? Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I replied on your talk page, but as I said there, generally I'd like to see some type of assurance that you'll maintain civility and proper discretion in the future. WaltCip-(talk) 13:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t believe you that you’re going to accept whatever I say since you went through the effort of opening an ANI thread for a WP:TROUT level offense, and nobody else seems to be explicitly agreeing with your proposal. I think you’re just trying to create a chilling effect. Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I replied on your talk page, but as I said there, generally I'd like to see some type of assurance that you'll maintain civility and proper discretion in the future. WaltCip-(talk) 13:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve also redacted the comment about trump being a dumb-dumb. Now can we just close this? Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve since withdrawn both per your arguments and arguments of voters. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only one you’re probably right on is the Falklands ones, and they’re still in my opinion objectively disruptive since it’s pro-invasion/pro-annexation against an unwilling population. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Dronebogus nominated a couple of my user boxes at MfD, which I speedy deleted per WP:G7 because I always said I would get rid of them at the first obvious objection, whether or not I agreed with it. As far as user boxes go, WP:OWB says "The best content contributors often neglect these things, and vice versa." so from my point of view, having them or not is several orders of magnitude less important than writing an encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Threat (maybe)
I think I was just threatened with [this edit]. When the editor states "finds you by cyber security from your ip address and then you ownself will be in danger for changing history according." If this is a threat then the editor should be dealt with accordingly. If this is not a threat then please forgive me for filing this concern. Kind regards. --VVikingTalkEdits 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have blocked indef. GiantSnowman 21:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would add that this was almost certainly an empty threat, but it was nevertheless a threat, so you should not feel shy about reporting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- A threat that may be considered "empty" in the real world may still have an unacceptable and intimidating impact on an editor. I have received threats that, at least briefly, have thrown my family into an intense self-defense mode, since my very young granddaughter was the subject of threats of violence, and they scraped photos of her off my Facebook page and mentioned her home town and the driving distance from where that criminal resided. Any marginally credible threat should be reported immediately without hestitation. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
96.242.144.8
BLOCKED | |
(non-admin closure) ip blocked for 6 months. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This i.p user has only created hateful contributions, more specifically, defacing the transgender community, they have been warned in the past several times and have not improved. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please provide specific WP:DIFFs. Canterbury Tail talk 21:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Talk:Transgender rights movement these edits. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've notified them of this discussion. They might not be a fan of transgender issues, but I'm not seeing anything resembling hate speech or defacement. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Im concerned due to their edits pretty much solely revolving around transgender topics, and seemingly nothing else as far as i can tell. If he is innocent then thats fine, I just felt wrong about the situation and felt i needed to address it. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've notified them of this discussion. They might not be a fan of transgender issues, but I'm not seeing anything resembling hate speech or defacement. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Talk:Transgender rights movement these edits. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see some WP:SOAPBOXING and pushing WP:FRINGE ideas in an area covered by DS. They definitely need to tone down. Isabelle 🔔 21:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am glad to see you have dropped any pretense of neutrality. Please acknowledge the removal of your own "NOTFORUM" posts. Thank you. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I just had to revert this bizarre and unpleasant rant of theirs which is, at best, disruptive use of the talk page as a forum. The IP seems to have been stably associated with one person since 2020 when their very first edit was this abusive screed. I suggest a good long WP:NOTHERE block. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Will you at least remove the comment calling me immoral for disagreeing with the author? It's bad enough for your "neutrality" that you allow no alternative viewpoints, but to give him the last word insulting me while removing this response -- which is NOT "unpleasant" or "hateful", but merely something YOU DISAGREE WITH, is surely beyond any standards of fairness. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I rolled the whole discussion up as unproductive, making that comment less visible as well as all the others in that section. I don't have any strong feelings about whether the comment you object to should remain or not. I don't think it makes you look any worse than you made yourself look but the whole thread is moot anyway. Maybe we should remove it all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Forget this ever happened and just move on? Absolutely. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently, your removal of my comment was in violation of Wikipedia rules since you are not an administrator. At least according to the other user, who reverted my removal of his own comment. I would suggest removing his comment and moving the discussion to the archive -- I will not willingly give you the satisfaction of being able to delete everything you disagree with. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I rolled the whole discussion up as unproductive, making that comment less visible as well as all the others in that section. I don't have any strong feelings about whether the comment you object to should remain or not. I don't think it makes you look any worse than you made yourself look but the whole thread is moot anyway. Maybe we should remove it all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Any editor is allowed to remove disruptive or inappropriate content that impedes the project. If you object to the selective removal of your inappropriate comments then the other option is to remove the whole section, which would be less embarrassing, but it seems that you don't want that either. I see absolutely no point in continuing to argue or edit war about the contents of a rolled up discussion that nobody is likely to look at anyway. Please just stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. The disruption was started by the other editor accusing me of holding a particular viewpoint, then calling me immoral when I confirmed my position in a wholly respectful manner. The section, up until that point, posed no disruption. Just as people who SUPPORT a controversial issue can edit an article, people who OPPOSE a controversial issue can edit the same article: that is called fairness, objectivity, and representing both sides. (And no, you cannot decide what is and isn't controversial, something is controversial by the mere fact of there being controversy, which there is.) Moreover, I strongly object to your "please just stop" when you people are the ones getting all upset over someone holding another opinion and asking merely IF an article might be edited to include a section offering an opposing viewpoint with reliable sources. Why don't you all "please just stop," leave the page be as it is, and let an actual administrator take care of it (isn't that the whole purpose of this page?) The one administrator who did remark here is the only one displaying an absence of bias. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- D/S notices handed out. I've been weighing up blocking the IP, given their historic (2020), more recent (2021) and latest comments, which all suggest a very static user. The claim made by the IP that transgender people "
did not exist in broader society anywhere in the world until 2014
" is a common, yet demonstrably incorrect, trope tossed around and one I enjoy refuting — the Gala priests of Inanna in 5000-3000B.C.[1] are thought to be the earliest documented instances of people with non-binary gender identities, with the Galli priestesses (200-300B.C[2]) being attributed as early transgender figures. Slightly more recently, but much earlier than 2014, the 18th century Itelmens of Siberia recognized a "third gender" (Koekchuch) to describe individuals who were assigned male at birth, but expressed themselves as women.[3] - If you're going to edit Wikipedia to push your agenda, at least do us the courtesy of doing the most basic of research. Any more abusive comments like the ones I've linked to above, and I'll block you. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin, eds. (2004). Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/0-387-29907-6. ISBN 978-0-306-47770-6.
- ^ TransAntiquity : cross-dressing and transgender dynamics in the ancient world. Domitilla Campanile, Filippo Carlà-Uhink, Margherita Facella. London. 2017. ISBN 978-1-138-94120-5. OCLC 950958114.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ Murray, Stephen O. (2002). Pacific homosexualities. San Jose: Writers Club Press. ISBN 0-595-22785-6. OCLC 50879262.
- The problem with what you're saying is I did not edit Wikipedia to say that, and this isn't the place to argue that -- I don't know why you think that's appropriate, when any rebuttal on my part would lead to a deletion or ban anyway -- this is a TALK PAGE. I merely asked: would the editors welcome a section on criticism? This would have reliable sources. Nobody answered that, I presume out of an inability to plainly acknowledge their abject lack of neutrality. Instead, they attacked me personally on the basis of my beliefs, which have no bearing on objective and well-sourced writing (if they do, you should bar activists and people with intimate connections to these issues from editing as well). So when I respond to those personal attacks with my beliefs, which are centered around HELPING people who I believe are being given improper treatment, now there is abuse and a bannable offense. Would you please clarify? 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- That presentation is somewhat misleading. I explained the role of WP:V in NPOV and the importance of sources, and you replied without sources but extolling the acumen of the medical advisory announcements made by the Trump administration. You didn't really make a proposal based on Reliable Sources, nor did you acknowledge the mass of RS on which the articles you were complaining about are actually based. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting, you call what I said misleading but claim I "extolled the acumen of ... the Trump administration" which I never ever did, I am not a Trump supporter anyhow. You compared what I said to flat earth garbage and falsely claimed over 30% of Americans believe in it (with no source), and I replied that the critical position is supported by the former chairman of psychiatry at John Hopkins University, which it is. Now, I merely asked if the section would be WELCOME because I am not wasting hours digging for reliable sources only for you to just delete everything in a flash. And still, no answer to that question at all. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- That presentation is somewhat misleading. I explained the role of WP:V in NPOV and the importance of sources, and you replied without sources but extolling the acumen of the medical advisory announcements made by the Trump administration. You didn't really make a proposal based on Reliable Sources, nor did you acknowledge the mass of RS on which the articles you were complaining about are actually based. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with what you're saying is I did not edit Wikipedia to say that, and this isn't the place to argue that -- I don't know why you think that's appropriate, when any rebuttal on my part would lead to a deletion or ban anyway -- this is a TALK PAGE. I merely asked: would the editors welcome a section on criticism? This would have reliable sources. Nobody answered that, I presume out of an inability to plainly acknowledge their abject lack of neutrality. Instead, they attacked me personally on the basis of my beliefs, which have no bearing on objective and well-sourced writing (if they do, you should bar activists and people with intimate connections to these issues from editing as well). So when I respond to those personal attacks with my beliefs, which are centered around HELPING people who I believe are being given improper treatment, now there is abuse and a bannable offense. Would you please clarify? 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your opening post has a lot more than simply asking "
would the editors welcome a section on criticism?
" You start by using scare quotes around "transgender rights" and "transgender" (followed by the word phenomenon), and go on to add, without sources, that itis not accepted by large portions of the population (outside of privileged corners of majority-white countries), almost assuredly the majority of the world population
. Isabelle 🔔 23:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- This is to provide justification for a section on criticism, because it is something still being debated. For example, abolition of slavery needs no criticism section. But nonetheless, when discussing slavery the viewpoints of the slavers are put out there for people to see and understand, and to revile. This is everyone's intellectual duty, to earnestly understand different sides of an argument. Shutting down every opposing viewpoint only multiplies ignorance and animosity on both sides. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a supreme waste of time, even for ANI. I've blocked the IP for 6 months without TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Desertambition's hostile edit history
Desertambition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[99]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[100] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[101]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.
- I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.
- I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [102] and here [103]
- I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.
- Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [104]: [105]
- Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [106]
- Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [107] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.
- Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [108]
- After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [109]
- Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [110] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."
- Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [111]
- Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [112] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
- I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [113] [114] [115] but I know that's not the focus of this post.
- It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project.
Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.
- I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [116][117]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [118]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [119], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [120] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Luisguzman22
BLOCKED | |
(non-admin closure) indef block. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia; they are repeatedly creating hoaxes despite warnings on their talk page, and this seems to be the only purpose of the account. Moved from AIV due to not being persistent vandalism. EDM fan 2 (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked by User:Bbb23 as a WP:VOA. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Belovedeagle / User:JayBeeEll
JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of disruptive editing in Strategy-stealing argument. Specifically, the accusation was in this edit summary and on the talk page. It relates to an underlying content dispute (which also involves David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but I feel this accusation stands over my head preventing me from editing the article or working with content dispute resolution, and I don't agree that I've engaged in WP:DE.
I will attempt to explain the underlying content dispute, to establish whether I have engaged in WP:DE: JBL stated on the talk page that "Once your changes have been objected to, the onus is on you to find a consensus. So far, you have yet to convince anyone that there is anything wrong with the section you've been editing, which is about as far from establishing a consensus to make changes as is possible." I believe this is not an accurate statement of policy, and begins to lean toward status quo stonewalling. After my initial ill-advised reversion of User:David Eppstein's first revert, all of my subsequent changes to the article were different attempts to find WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Every attempt was reverted in its entirety by JBL or DE prior to any discussion on the talk page 1 2 3 4. Only some of the reversions were accompanied by useful explanations of what could be improved, and those only when I pressed for them in the talk page. For example, "bizarre formatting" in the edit description was not actionable; after I begged on the talk page I got a more detailed explanation of what was wrong, but by then I couldn't restore the change with better formatting because then I would be edit-warring instead of BOLDing. I believe the process which should have been followed would be for JBL to just make the formatting fix themselves, or to discuss on the talk page first instead of reverting to the status quo ante. I acknowledge that JBL expressed entirely new reasons for disagreeing with my change once discussion happened on the talk page, which would explain why a simple fix was not made. However, none of those reasons appear to be good WP:ONLYREVERT reasons. I believe that in my 4-5 attempts at improving the article, there is something that JBL could have found useful and kept.
I also feel that JBL has used language in describing my contributions which, taken together, is excessive enough to be inflammatory: "analysis hinges on a strange and unnatural reading", "a sign of a poor decision-making process", "your use of emphasis was bizarre", "the fact that your edits don't make things better is not terribly surprising given that you have yet to articulate a convincing basis to believe that there is something here that could be improved" (from talk), "bizarre formatting", "Your inability to communicate" (edit summary). I feel that an experienced editor such as JBL could have chosen less inflammatory language even when communicating my lack of competence, or at the very least, just less of it. I got the point that I lack the required competence the very first time, actually; the next five were unnecessary.
In summary, I believe my edits to the article constitute a search for WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, and they are not WP:DE or WP:TE. I'm seeking confirmation of this so that the underlying content dispute can be treated as such, without the threat of WP:DE. If my changes are in fact not WP:DE, then I am further seeking mediation for JBL's stonewalling behavior which their accusation of WP:DE is part of, and for the inflammatory language used to communicate their disapproval. Otherwise if I really am unintentionally engaged in WP:DE then hearing it from uninvolved editors will be a learning experience, and I will at minimum sit down and shut up.
To be clear, I haven't behaved well myself in the talk space, especially by venting my growing frustration by accusing JBL of bad faith. I should have left that bit out and just proceeded by assuming good faith. (Unfortunately I had not yet discovered the suggestions for what to do when one feels stonewalled.) I recognize this is probably the most pressing matter when considering the dispute so far, as I may be the only one who made it directly personal. Likewise I expressed my frustration with User:David Eppstein inappropriately. This is as good a reason to be here as any. Belovedeagle (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is I think mostly a content dispute, but over what content I am not entirely sure, because of Belovedeagle's prolixity. After some incivility on my talk page I warned them, perhaps too obliquely, of further drama; instead, after a second clearer warning on Talk:Strategy-stealing argument by JBL re WP:AGF they have rushed headlong into it here. I doubt their behavior has yet risen to the point of being block-worthy, though, so my suggestion would be an early close. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The diff links I have provided should be more than adequate to identify the content being disputed. I trust you realize that an early close would mean settling the content dispute in your favor. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sad to point out that you're not assuming good faith, again. I was not trying to win an argument, here, but actually to help you. The intent of my suggestion was to close this discussion quickly before it turns (as so many discussions here do) against its instigator. As to the content dispute, I am more interested in having the article reflect the scholarly consensus, and secondarily in getting agreement on whatever that might be in the discussions at the article talk page, than I am in getting my way (whatever "my way" might be when I still don't even have a clear picture of the point you are trying to make, and so far have mainly been trying to keep the article intelligible rather than to push any particular mathematical philosophy). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm completely lost at this fresh accusation as I find my previous comment does AGF.
- In this case I wish you would not attempt to help me by closing the discussion early, and I explained why I felt that was not in my best interests overall. During the whole encounter your attempts at assistance have felt condescending rather than collegiate. Since I do assume this is unintentional, I ask you now to stop taking up this position in your interactions with me. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be explicit: You falsely accused me of trying to win a content dispute by shutting down the discussion here. Neither the presumption that I am here to win disputes nor the accusation that I would use underhanded means to do so are assumptions of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did no such thing. I see now how it could be taken that way, but I was just trying to be less verbose as you have requested. This leaves me feeling I cannot do anything right in your eyes: if I explain myself, I am too verbose; if I do not, I am not AGF.
- We should back up and both assume good faith from here on out. I'm really trying to do so. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be explicit: You falsely accused me of trying to win a content dispute by shutting down the discussion here. Neither the presumption that I am here to win disputes nor the accusation that I would use underhanded means to do so are assumptions of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sad to point out that you're not assuming good faith, again. I was not trying to win an argument, here, but actually to help you. The intent of my suggestion was to close this discussion quickly before it turns (as so many discussions here do) against its instigator. As to the content dispute, I am more interested in having the article reflect the scholarly consensus, and secondarily in getting agreement on whatever that might be in the discussions at the article talk page, than I am in getting my way (whatever "my way" might be when I still don't even have a clear picture of the point you are trying to make, and so far have mainly been trying to keep the article intelligible rather than to push any particular mathematical philosophy). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Belovedeagle, but this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Further, administrators have no special powers when it comes to content disputes, except possibly from the credibility thst comes from more experience. So, take a look at the options available to you at Dispute resolution instead. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I understand this is not the place for content disputes. But I thought this was the place for resolving the WP:DE accusation, and I want to resolve it before it festers. (Content dispute resolution won't be fruitful if I can't make any edits due to having been informed by JPL that further edits are WP:DE.) Please direct me to a more appropriate forum if not, and sorry for the confusion. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- From the past month of watching ANI I can pass along what I have seen to be excellent advice when it comes to content disputes, submit a Rfc using Template:Rfc. The first step is to figure out exactly what you want to have included on the page and then add it to the Talk page. If you want help drafting the Rfc I would suggest reaching out at the Teahouse. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I understand this is not the place for content disputes. But I thought this was the place for resolving the WP:DE accusation, and I want to resolve it before it festers. (Content dispute resolution won't be fruitful if I can't make any edits due to having been informed by JPL that further edits are WP:DE.) Please direct me to a more appropriate forum if not, and sorry for the confusion. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The diff links I have provided should be more than adequate to identify the content being disputed. I trust you realize that an early close would mean settling the content dispute in your favor. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a bit of a slow edit war at Korean conflict
Hi, not particularly notifying against anybody but somebody might like to take a look at this. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- No slow edit war. Just routine reverting of sockpuppet edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdbolivar (and the archive) for details. FDW777 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 9
There have three things in here,
1.This LTA create sock account User:Brinkofaw,see [121],please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 2.Also,Special:Contributions/119.237.44.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 16 August in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
3.Please protect some page,
3.1.Backpack, start at 14 September in last year,spam, DE and vandal.
3.2.FIFA 18, start at 5 December in last year,spam, DE and vandal.
--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Drama at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard
There's a thread Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Stuartyeates which I have been advised to bring here by other experienced editors. In a nut shell, User:Cleisthenes2, User:JezGrove and an IP SPA appear to believe that I'm pushing a racially-motivated POV with a series of biographies. I see these as part of a much larger series of more than a hundred biographies of New Zealand academics I have written, some of whom have been in the news for racially-charged reasons. A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article. For the sake of completeness, there is also a pending merge request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests related to this work. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've copied my original notice below so other editors can view my concerns in full. I am not raising any complaint about Mr. Yeates' many other biographies (and his many other contributions to Wikipedia). My concern relates solely to the fact that he has declared an intention to write Wikepedia entries for a number of academics with a view towards damaging their reputations (as I see it), and because he views them as 'villains' (his word). That must raise some grave doubts about his ability to deal fairly with entries about those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, doubts which may well not affect any of his other editing. I think him recusing himself from entries on this topic would be the honourable course, and I for one would see it as sufficient.
- Hi there, I'm unsure how to proceed with this, but I'm concerned about some of User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements concerning the Listener letter on science controversy and in particular about a number of NZ scientists involved in that controversy. The problem is that recent Twitter comments suggest that he is about to create entries for a number of people as a way of attacking them. On April 3rd, he wrote (with regard to a number of academics who signed an open letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand, 'You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ...' (https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1510566667990237185). On September 21st last year, he asked 'Which other Kiwi villains should I write about?' and 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' (https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440244134715932676) before listing a number of entries he created on the signatories to the Listener letter. (I also have screenshots of these tweets by the way, if anyone needs those.) My concern is not only that this may violate Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, balance in creating BLPs, and perhaps conflict of interest, but also that we may soon have a flood of some purposefully negative entires on NZ academics. I'm not aware of any other issues with this user and I appreciate he has done lots of work for Wikipedia, but I wonder whether he might recuse himself (or be removed from) editing entries on NZ scholars involved in the Listener letter on science controversy and those who signed the letter printed here (who he has pledged to create pages for 'just so I can include the fact that they're this racist'): https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/04/02/fellows-of-new-zealands-royal-society-demand-apology-and-full-review-of-the-society-after-poor-treatment-of-two-members/ If this is not the place for this concern or if I've made some technical faux-pas please let me know. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Finally, I would like to draw attention to this passage from the guidelines on BLPs. Note that in the case of the entries on Garth Cooper, Elizabeth Rata, Kendall Clements, and perhaps a few others, User:StuartYeates, as User:JezGrove has pointed out, appears to have created these articles solely with information about the Listener letter and criticism of it (both of which he apparently sees as damaging), without balancing it.
- 'Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below...Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleisthenes2 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Finally, I would like to draw attention to this passage from the guidelines on BLPs. Note that in the case of the entries on Garth Cooper, Elizabeth Rata, Kendall Clements, and perhaps a few others, User:StuartYeates, as User:JezGrove has pointed out, appears to have created these articles solely with information about the Listener letter and criticism of it (both of which he apparently sees as damaging), without balancing it.
- As mentioned and NPOVN, there seems to be major WP:outing concerns with what User:Cleisthenes2 posted above. I don't see where Stuartyeates ever linked a Twitter account on Wikipedia. I'm not redacting the discussion because it's already been on NPOVN for a while but it's not clear this is something can be dealt with on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne, the User:Stuartyeates page has "Authority control" links at the bottom, including something called ORCID. Would that cover the outing-question? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Stuartyeates made this edit to his user page linking to Twitter but I don't know if it is relevant. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Yeates links directly to his Twitter on his editor's page on Wikipedia, so there's no outing concern. I would be interested in how Nil Einne and others would address the ways in which Yeates has apparently strayed from Wikipedia's stated policies (e.g. on not creating negatively-loaded BLPs), as well as my concerns about his stated intention of creating a number of new articles in order to damage reputation (for more details, see above). As I say, my interest isn't necessarily to impugn any of Yeates' other work on Wikipedia, only to raise an urgent concern about his BLPs of those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, where Yeates appears to have lost his cool. I think he thinks creating biased entires on these scholars serves a good purpose (anti-racism); I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Thincat, and Cleisthenes2: If Stuartyeates has linked their Twitter form Wikipedia, then that removes outing concerns. I'm not sure why someone didn't just demonstrate this earlier rather than talk about nonsense like the similarity of the account names, the fact that the Twitter account said they edited an article and the Stuartyeates account Wikipedia did so etc. These details are irrelevant when it comes to outing concerns. As I said both at NPOVN, if you cannot discuss something on Wikipedia due to outing concerns you need to take it to arbcom not here. To use Cleisthenes2 own words "I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies". You need to follow our outing policy no matter your cause. If you haven't established we can talk about something on wiki then don't talk about it on wiki, take it to arbcom. Now that it's been established we can talk about it then we can, but this should have happened before posting links etc. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Yeates links directly to his Twitter on his editor's page on Wikipedia, so there's no outing concern. I would be interested in how Nil Einne and others would address the ways in which Yeates has apparently strayed from Wikipedia's stated policies (e.g. on not creating negatively-loaded BLPs), as well as my concerns about his stated intention of creating a number of new articles in order to damage reputation (for more details, see above). As I say, my interest isn't necessarily to impugn any of Yeates' other work on Wikipedia, only to raise an urgent concern about his BLPs of those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, where Yeates appears to have lost his cool. I think he thinks creating biased entires on these scholars serves a good purpose (anti-racism); I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
In his introduction at the start of this discussion,User:Stuartyeates says "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article".
- As I mentioned in an earlier post before the discussion was moved here, Stuartyeates created BLPs for six of the seven academics who signed the Listener letter (the seventh signatory already had a WP article about them). Five were created in a single day and the remaining one the following day.
- As I mentioned in an earlier post before the discussion was moved here, Stuartyeates created BLPs for six of the seven academics who signed the Listener letter (the seventh signatory already had a WP article about them). Five were created in a single day and the remaining one the following day.
- The page creations all differ in very minor specifics relating to the individuals' academic positions etc., but all are as lopsided as the Garth Cooper page creation example that I linked to and all but one include exactly the same text. (The text of the final one listed below differed from the others when it was created.) For the record, they are:
- * Elizabeth Rata. (Stuartyeates subsequently readded some of his material with this edit when it had been trimmed down.)
- * Elizabeth Rata. (Stuartyeates subsequently readded some of his material with this edit when it had been trimmed down.)
- Note that in the case of John Werry, the fact that he was appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2009 for services to child and adolescent psychiatry was not included in the page creation or added later by Stuartyeates. I believe that this is a significant and publicly available piece of information that any genuine and well-intentioned BLP should have included, and that its omission is telling.
- Note that in the case of John Werry, the fact that he was appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2009 for services to child and adolescent psychiatry was not included in the page creation or added later by Stuartyeates. I believe that this is a significant and publicly available piece of information that any genuine and well-intentioned BLP should have included, and that its omission is telling.
- I haven't looked closely at all of the BLPs, but see that Stuartyeates's page creations similarly failed to mention that Cooper and Nola were both Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi at the time, a considerable honour which should have been mentioned in a legitimate BLP.
- Addressing the Twitter issue, Stuartyeates hasn't denied using the racial slur "turnip slapper" to describe some of those he had just created BLPs about. In the same tweet he said he would soon be creating BLP articles about the others involved in the Listener affair. By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site. JezGrove (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- "By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site". Exactly. More specifically, off-Wiki behaviour that made it entirely clear that Stuartyeates was creating biographies about living individuals (prominent academics) for the sole purpose of including material which cast said individuals in a negative light. While I'm not naïve enough to believe that biographies aren't created for such purposes on occasion, to do so in such a systematic manner, and then announce proudly on Twitter that it had been done, while referring to said academics in derogatory terms, can only harm the reputation of Wikipedia, as well as that of the contributor concerned.
- The topic of discussion here then needs to be what has to be done to ensure that further blatant violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies are prevented. If this were a new contributor, I have little doubt that an immediate block would be the outcome for such behaviour. And even for more experienced contributors, blocks and topic bans aren't rare, even when the individual concerned has acknowledged that their behaviour was inappropriate. If there is any good reason why such an outcome should not be the result here, I can't in all good faith think of it. At absolute minimum, before anything else is decided, we need to see an acknowledgement from Stuartyeates that such behaviour was inappropriate, and a commitment that it will not recur. Failing that, Wikipedia will have little option but to ensure that Stuartyeates is prevented from doing so. Attack biographies do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, and long-standing contributors who appear to think otherwise, and then boast about their activities on social media, do not deserve immunity from sanctions that would have been applied without question to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I share the concern by other editors that some of the articles created by Stuartyeates violate our WP:NPOV policies. Not only that, some of those veer way too close into attack page territory, with the majority of some of these articles being about the signed letter and its reactions by society. Had the articles not been improved, they sould've been deleted. If Stuartyeates is unable to see why other editors are worried about those creations, and their vow (outside Wikipedia) to create articles just to highlight those people as racist, then a topic ban should be in order. Isabelle 🏳🌈 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't really see how the community has any option other than to topic ban Stuartyeates. They have publically stated a personal mission contrary to Wikipedia's mission. There is no going back from there.Slywriter (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now that we've established we can talking about this without OUTING, IMO Stuartyeates needs to completely stay away from those articles. I have not inspected if those articles are biased as I think it doesn't matter. While editors often have personal views of subjects that they've expressed and we allow that, they shouldn't create articles in part because they feel we need to mention something negative. And Stuartyeates tweets gives the perception this is what they did. which means their involvement in them has troubling implications. Even if those articles were perfect I'd say the same. Heck even if Stuartyeates ended up not including the material I'd still think it's problematic for them to be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
From WP:BLP: Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone
, with the key word being and. If the article subjects are notable to the point of meriting an enWiki page, and if they are not attack pages per se, and if the pages' content is supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources (i.e., the articles are likely to be retained and, hopefully, expanded over time), then calls for the articles' creator to be banned/blocked seem wholly punitive and disproportionate. Inappropriately crowing off-Wiki about their suspect motivations certainly merits a warning, and it also requires an explicit commitment from the editor to not repeat that behavior. But a ban or block as the initial sanction? No. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- How can multiple biographies created "just so I can include that fact that they're this racist", each consisting almost entirely of the same content, not be attack pages? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely. And apart from the totally disingenuous "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article" remark in his introduction to this discussion I have seen nothing from the contributor involved to explain or defend their position in creating the series of connected BLP articles involved. JezGrove (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Attack page, not the short summary in the BLP page that only discusses poorly sourced BLPs. These pages are textbook examples of articles that were created
to disparage or threaten its subject
, the comments on twitter make that clear. Stuartyeates needs a topic ban from BLPs at a minimum 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get how anyone can defend this. "Looks like I'm on a roll writing @wikipedia biographies of kiwi villains ... Which other kiwi villains should I write about?", and on the same day, I'm finding at least five new BLPs: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]. Each of these is a cookie-cutter attack page, completely WP:UNDUE in its coverage. Just look at them! Now this was September 2021, but it makes the recent tweet, "You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist" demonstrate that this problem is ongoing. Barring some assurances from Stuart, it's time for a BLP TBAN. We do not use Wikipedia to write attack BLPs, even if the LPs deserve it. This is the core of WP:BLP. What Stuart has done is the worst thing an editor can do: use their editing privileges, and this giant Wikipedia microphone, to attack another living person. Levivich 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW I just looked at the ~six articles Stuart has created since creating the five problematic ones I linked above [127] and I don't see the problem repeated, which is good. I'm still looking for assurance, in light of the tweet from a couple of days ago, that this won't happen again. Levivich 16:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mass-creating articles about all the individuals involved in a controversy and copy pasting the exact same ~250 word boiler plate criticism of the controversy on each of their articles, with the self-professed motivation that he creates these pages
just so I can include that fact that they're this racist
, is unacceptable. I don't think we can move forward from this without a topic ban from BLPs at the least. Endwise (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: Three month topic ban from BLP
I propose a three-month topic ban to protect Wikipedia. Whether this is a literal violation of policy or not, it is harmful to Wikipedia's mission, and threatens the neutrality of the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is really much room for doubt that WP:BLP policy was violated. I'd go further and suggest that a topic ban is more or less essential unless and until Stuartyeates acknowledges that such behaviour was improper. The problem won't go away after three months, it will go away when it becomes clear that Stuartyeates won't act in a similar manner again - any topic ban should be indefinite, with its lifting contingent on an appropriate appeal, based solely on a commitment to abide by policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Insufficient - the topic ban should be indefinite. These were flat out attack pages - articles on academics that contained next to no information on their academic work, had a massive undue focus on recent controversies and per the comments on twitter were deliberately created to try to portray people as racists. I don't see an editor of 17+ years changing their behaviour on the back of a 3 month ban. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- opppose 3 month ban, strong support indefinite BLP ban solely because this should be an indefinite BLP ban (honestly, a site ban is preferable given the WP:POINTY and highly inappropriate editing by Stuart.) CUPIDICAE💕 16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd also change this to an indefinite site ban given their behavior. Grudge editing like this, where they've made their intent clear on and off-wiki to smear BLPs [128] is reprehensible and not conducive to a collaborative environment or creating an encyclopedia. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Tentative support total ban - I've got no experience from which to judge what the eventual decision here should be. Is there any even remotely similar occurrence that serves as a precedent? In the absence of any acknowledgment of contrition from Stuartyeates I struggle to see how anything short of a total ban on creating or editing BLP articles will have any effect whatsoever, though. And even then there would be serious problems relating to the sincerity expressed, given that any such acknowledgment could have been offered at an earlier stage in this entirely dismal saga. The initial deflection of claiming that "A single diff has been held up as evidence" in full knowledge of the other almost identical BLP articles they had created (and publicly gloated about) on the same day suggests that this contributor has no shame. JezGrove (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Opppose as disproportionate punishment, assuming that the editor unambiguously admits to their mistake, affirms that said mistake will not be repeated, and takes both of those actions soon. @Stuartyeates:: if you fail to respond appropriately, this oppose !vote is likely to be changed to a support. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- JoJo Anthrax this tweet by the editor in question (from yesterday!) should give you an indication what they're intentions actually are. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support indefinite topic ban from BLPs Three-months is insufficient, given that Stuartyeates has failed to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. The ban should apply to all accounts operated by this person (noting that their user page says they "own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy") and those accounts should be revealed to ensure compliance with the ban. Their actions in using Wikipedia to attack individuals were wrong. They've had time to acknowledge that and haven't. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone have any evidence of problematic behavior other than this very specific issue? Stuart's been around here for a while -- is there any other cause for some of the severe actions floated above? I think we should be content if he just expresses understanding that it was really bad judgment and pledges to voluntarily stay away from any BLPs related to the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Epoch Times pov warrior
User:Itaj Sherman has been engaging in edit warring and WP:POV warring over the Epoch Times, most recently here, and has been warned about it multiple times. I think a topic ban under threat of blocking might be in order. Dronebogus (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are discretionary sanctions on anything Falong Gong. Secretlondon (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Based sogdian
Based sogdian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
[129] [130] [131] [132] Keeps trying to add the Tajik Cyrillic alphabet, which is quite anachronistic
[133] [134] Replaced Persian with Tajik, completely disregarding sourced info
[135] A good ol personal attack in another language; 'boro gomsho kosmadar irani', which means 'Get lost your mothers p*ssy Iranian'
Seems like WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TENDENTIOUS issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Loving the language lesson. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Dicklyon and pointless edits once again
This morning, I asked Dicklyon about a series of useless cosmetic edits he made which filled up watchlists for no benefit to our readers at all[136]. His reply boiled down to "you can hide minor edits", which is not helpful as many of us don't want to do this (as many errors and vandalism are hidden behind "minor edits as well"). He then started on another run of decapitalization edits, which included errors, turning blue links into redlinks[137][138]: when this was pointed out, Dicklyon simply restarted the changes which I objected against in the morning, making more utterly pointless, semi-automated edits[139][140].
This is the umpteenth time they have been told to be more careful, to listen to onjections, to follow policies, ... all to no avail. Can we please just topic ban them from either using semi-automated tools, and/or from capitalization changes? Fram (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. I've also worked through a lot of others on that list without issue (though less concentrated to one editor's watchlist I admit). I'll hold off on such work if it's deemed too useless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could you instead commit to holding off on such work until it's deemed useful? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- On the "Test Mach" fixes, there were only a few dozen, and I had noticed and avoided Test Match Special is most, but yes I agree I was not careful enough. I promptly fixed them all after the error was noted. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Don't we have a general guideline that if there are tasks that are doable by both and large enough in scale that they should be left to be done by a bot? If there was only 20 or 50 such fixes I can see this being done by an editor. But higher counts should be left to bots. --Masem (t) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know of a guideline, but I'd be happy to have bot help when there are more than a few hundred edits needed. However, at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5, where 16,000+ edits were needed, I got slow-walked and pushback of the form "why is Dicklyon asking for bot help instead of just doing this himself?" So I did; I got into efficient bot-like clicking and did all of those with zero complaints (except a few redlinks caused by not also moving redirects back at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, which we're now trying to get fixed by bot at WP:RFBA#TolBot 13B since I can't do creations or moves with JWB). Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think 500 edits in 12 minutes is the very definition of a meatbot. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those link updates were completely safe, so could be done quickly with bot-like clicking (unlike the Test Match fixes which I did more slowly and still made a few mistakes on). I accept your complaint that many of them had no effect at the level of the reader, due to piping, so maybe the link fixing to avoid redirect through a miscapitalization should just not have been done. But don't mix that up with how quickly and efficiently I did them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at just one of the many edits that flooded my watchlist, surely this is a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN? I can understand edits such as this more which affect the displayed text, but the Battle of Rocroi edit doesn't change the visual text in any way. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless. The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be suggesting that reducing a software-created 'complaint count' that almost nobody seems to be aware of [141] is more important than the time wasted through actual contributors having to look at invisible changes in article space. I've got to say that I don't think such arguments are very convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless. The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure this is an actionable complaint. Fixing linked miscapitalizations isn't a high priority, but it is a worthwhile task. We shouldn't tolerate errors in our articles, no matter how minor. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. And we should not tolerate errors in our page source, either. There's a reason we fix Linter errors, even though they often don't have an impact on the displayed page. Tolerating errors is bad practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)To open an ANI over this matter seems petty to me. Dicklyon is a reliable and well-respected user who contributes invaluably to this site. I understand some mistakes were made like in regards to test match, but does this warrant an ANI? We all make mistakes some times, but Dicklyon is constantly contributing valuable material and to frame this as "User and his pointless work" seems unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dicklyon is adept at creating busywork. So he pitches up at Habsburg Monarchy instigates a page move to “correct” the title which then creates a “miscapitalization” in redirects … only solvable by Dicklyon saving the day by dozens of corrective edits to those links to the self same article. What a waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The amount of time and effort (and other people's time and effort) a few editors are willing to expend either making or complaining about these kinds of edits is mind-boggling. Like it or not, one of the groups Wikipedia attracts are the kind of people who really get into formatting, organization, and style, and spend a lot of time thinking about, finding, and fixing this stuff. On the whole, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but for everyone else, IMO the sooner you learn to ignore or work around/with it, the happier you'll be. This is the sort of nearly pointless edit that we could devote a few hundred k of text on or just say "meh," futz with your watchlist settings a bit, and do something else. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- This complaint is without merit. Dicklyon is fixing capitalization errors, which is entirely allowed. He has found an efficient way to do that by targeting the miscapitalizations list. If no one does that the list will grow. Is the list to be ignored? Is the complaint that he is too fast? Would it be better if he strung it out over an hour instead of 12 minutes? The watch list sometimes gets flooded. If it bothers you, take a break. If you miss some vandalism, don’t worry. There will always be plenty of vandalism. This discussion should be closed with an apology to Dicklyon. Constant314 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Personal attack
Lecen and Nutez seem to think that this pathetic little rant is appropriate. – 2.O.Boxing
- Just like you seemed to think that the edit summary you used in removing that comment was appropriate[142]? Fram (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right, but what about three? No? Oh well, nevermind. The pathetic little rant still needs removing. – 2.O.Boxing 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Move on, it's almost been half a year, and it's not your talk page. It's a stale conflict, and you're the one relitigating it. Drop it, please. Nutez (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: It's Nutez's talk page and removing comments from someone else's talk page is a violation of WP:NOBAN and WP:TPO (unless otherwise specified) and also constitutes edit warring. You bringing this to ANI after Nutez objected to you removing comments from their talk page is entirely inappropriate and (borderline) retialiatory.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Move on, it's almost been half a year, and it's not your talk page. It's a stale conflict, and you're the one relitigating it. Drop it, please. Nutez (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)This is a crazy and unfounded ANI. We're talking about edit warring on a personal talk page. Not to mention User:Lecen is an upstanding member of the community who has contributed hundreds and hundreds of hours of well sourced and wonderfully written content which is visible in the tens of good or featured articles he has brought forward. This ANI is petty and in the wrong. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right, but what about three? No? Oh well, nevermind. The pathetic little rant still needs removing. – 2.O.Boxing 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mythdon: removing personal attacks is one of the examples given in TPO of appropriately editing others' comments
, so there's that. Nutez objected to the removal of a blatant policy violation and told me to go somewhere else
, so yes, here we are. Hardly retaliatory and entirely appropriate. Thanks.
@Cristiano Tomás: I'm confused as to which part is crazy and unfounded
. Are you saying that the diff I provided was not a personal attack? Or that the personal attack is appropriate and acceptable? Additionally, could you point out the aspect of WP:NPA that states personal attacks are acceptable as long as they're on a user's talk page and made by an upstanding member of the community
? I can't seem to find it. – 2.O.Boxing 19:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
User 2600:1700:6B40:2380:107B:1E2A:812E:1E0
2600:1700:6B40:2380:107B:1E2A:812E:1E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brandon Nozaki Miller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User is edit-warring to remove sourced content from the Brandon Nozaki Miller article - their claim [143] that material sourced to Motorcycle.com [144] is "autobiographical" is demonstrably false, and their removal of "allegedly" from the article violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I advised them to discuss on the talk page, advising them of relevant policy, but they have instead to repeatedly revert, without discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see Cullen328 has now blocked the IP. I've restored the article to its prior state, per the WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR, which hopefully will settle the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)