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 |
|
MicoKovalevski part 2
MicoKovalevski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm surprised nothing was done in the previous report [1]. Now this user has made another attack towards me: "From your username it is easily understandible that you are Iranian nationalist. Because of you, wikipedia is not the trusted source". They are obviously WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This account has a total of five edits to articles, the last being on 18 June 2022. I think at this point we can let this go. I have, though, sent an additional warning to this user. starship.paint (exalt) 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Juice3kh
Juice3kh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This users talk page is filled with warnings, and loads of his edits have been reverted. They also seem to have anti-Shia and pro-Sunni motives, as seen in the last 3 diffs out of the 4 disruptive diffs.
4 January 2022 Removed sourced mention of the bolded bit; "A large number of Zoroastrians converted to Islam to avoid discrimination and the effects of second-class citizenship in in the caliphates."
8 April 2022 Removed sourced information that mentions that Al-Nawbakhti explained and defended the Occultation against Shia doubters
14 June 2022 Removed sourced information that suggested that the "Sunni Revival may have resulted in the decline of scientific output in the Islamic world"
30 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Shia"
And last but not least, some typical WP:NPA remarks;
"By the looks of it, it seems like you are an extreme Iranian nationalist trying to hide history."
"The sources literally states what I wrote. Can you not read?"
"If anything it seems you are the biased one?"
--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
GregKaye on Amber Heard/Heard v. Depp
GregKaye has a history of problematic editing with WP:BLP implications relating to Amber Heard and the Depp v. Heard trial. Among many other examples:
- 1. GregKaye wrote a lengthy post on Talk:Amber Heard entitled "How to really help Amber," in which he opined:
"Cards on the table, I think Amber ~needs or could gain advantage from some level of psychological help. Sure, I know it's not Wikipedia's role to be greatly involved but, for the sake of background understandings, I thought it might be worth giving a potential prompt to people's thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen she is in denial and that's just for starters. She gathers people around her that agree with her and then her friends still leave her. Personally I think that the only way a person like this may actually seek or at least be open to help is if people, at any closeness of connection to her, are open that there at least might be issue/s. [...]"
- 2. GregKaye edited the Depp v. Heard article to read "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," though the sources cited in his edit clearly said the opposite: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."; "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct."; "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."
- 3. GregKaye added thousands of bytes of unnecessary, salacious information to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, including a (lengthy) verbatim text exchange in which Johnny Depp disparaged Heard as a "50 cent stripper" who was "begging for total global humiliation," with no secondary sources. After these additions were challenged, GregKaye conceded that "I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies."
- 4. GregKaye falsely accused journalist Fran Hoepfner of lying (specifically referring to "commentary by Fran Hoepfner, a writer whose content is proven falacious (sic)"), all because he did not understand the difference between live chat and the YouTube comments section; he struck a small portion of his post after his error was pointed out, but even this was not the end to the saga (see bullet point six, below).
- 5. GregKaye diluted the findings of reputable fact-checkers PolitiFact and Snopes to the effect that Heard did not recite movie quotes or use cocaine during her sworn testimony with absurdly detailed in-text attribution (e.g., "Dan Evon from Snopes is among journalists with views such that"; "Nur Ibrahim of Snoops (sic) is one of several journalists observing"). Furthermore, he changed the article text to read that the former accusation was
"implausible"
but not necessarily "false" or "disproven," contradicting the sources (see, e.g., PolitiFact's "False" rating). On the talk page, he explained that he did this because he saw a YouTube video with 8,000 views titled "Amber Heard mimicking Rihanna," which he found to be credible, and which informed his view that"Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying ... Heard did or didn't borrow from Rihanna's account of abuse survival."
Moreover, he reiterated that his edits (and his talk page suggestion regarding Heard's testimony being likely"borrow(ed) from Rihanna"
) are based on things that he "heard of ... on social media." - 6. Additionally, while GregKaye is usually careful to adhere to expected norms of civility and (as seen in some of the examples above) to at least partially walk-back especially controversial actions/statements when confronted, this veneer of civility falls apart on occasion. His edit summaries, even for copyedits and minor wording tweaks, routinely claim to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors (e.g., [2]). At one point, he appeared to suffer a breakdown and left the following edit summary: "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" On a related note, a few days after rescinding his accusation that Hoepfner's article
"is proven falacious (sic),"
GregKaye again referred to it as "provably fallacious nonsense," with no new evidence. - 7. GregKaye's conduct has been a matter of acute concern to several editors active in the topic area, among them Gtoffoletto (e.g., [3]; [4]) and TrueHeartSusie3, who stopped editing the article in large part because of his behavior.
To be honest, I considered filing a report after just the first two examples, but instead I attempted to engage with GregKaye in good faith, reasoning that since he has the capacity for civility, it was possible to conclude that his desire to build a clean, well-written, and properly-formatted article would ultimately override his admittedly quite strong personal bias. Nevertheless, he has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and continues to prove me wrong; frankly, he does not seem to have the competence to sharply distinguish between his personal views, things that he saw on social media, and coverage in reliable sources. I am asking that GregKaye be topic banned from anything related to Amber Heard, broadly construed, to prevent further disruption and draining of volunteer resources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light.
- For #2, this diff, made around the same time, proves that Greg changed the lede to reflect content he just added in the body. [5] Unfortunately, he didn’t change the lede’s references, and the new lede content contradicted the lede’s old references. starship.paint (exalt) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that any of the sources cited in that edit directly substantiate (or even relate to) GregKaye's statement (in wikivoice, and in the lede) that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." (To the contrary, as documented above, the preponderance of RS actually say the opposite.) At the very best, your defense means that GregKaye's edit constituted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but perhaps not deliberate source falsification. Either way, the conduct is concerning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did say before on the talk page that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below. starship.paint (exalt)
- I don't see that any of the sources cited in that edit directly substantiate (or even relate to) GregKaye's statement (in wikivoice, and in the lede) that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." (To the contrary, as documented above, the preponderance of RS actually say the opposite.) At the very best, your defense means that GregKaye's edit constituted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but perhaps not deliberate source falsification. Either way, the conduct is concerning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- For #2, this diff, made around the same time, proves that Greg changed the lede to reflect content he just added in the body. [5] Unfortunately, he didn’t change the lede’s references, and the new lede content contradicted the lede’s old references. starship.paint (exalt) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
WaPo - The outcome of the Johnny Depp defamation trial turned a bit of celebrity jurisprudence on its head — the long-standing conventional wisdom that it’s easier for a VIP to prevail with a libel claim in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The reason, according to legal experts, may simply boil down to the fact that Depp’s action in the U.K. — which he lost — happened to be decided by a judge, whereas his case in the United States was decided by a jury. [...] Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer ... Even though the Virginia case had a much higher standard to cross for Depp’s team, “that didn’t impact the outcome because essentially what you have got is a jury believing evidence that a British judge did not accept, so that’s where the difference lies here. Unusually, not in the different legal frameworks.”
Insider - Almost certainly the most significant difference between the two trials was who got to choose the winner. [...] While we can't know the details of what the jurors thought, Insider's Ashley Collman spoke with legal experts who said Heard failed to get the jury to believe her and that Depp's team successfully undermined her. Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said Heard appeared to be caught in a lie several times, such as when she described her interactions with the media. Rahmani also gave a lot of credit to Depp's personality in the trial: "The jurors loved him. The public loved him. Everyone on social media loved him." Depp's charisma likely had less influence on a professional judge like Nichol.
iNews But instead of shopping for a court in the UK, where defamation laws favour the plaintiff – the person bringing the case -he went shopping for something else: a jury that he could convince. That’s the key difference between the US and UK, and why Depp won his case.
Rather than a judge in Britain looking at the facts, the case went before a jury of seven people from Fairfax, Virginia – a location that wasn’t chosen by chance. Depp likely sued Heard over her Washington Post op-ed from 2018 in Virginia, where the newspaper’s servers are, because at the time it had weak protections against defamation lawsuits, known as anti-SLAPP.
Depp didn’t sue The Washington Post either, he sued Heard directly. Not that her legal team were shabby, but it would have been a very different story taking on the full force of a national newspaper and the deep pockets of its owner, Jeff Bezos ...
Another big difference between the UK and the US trial was that Depp was able to call various experts to bolster his case ...
It also meant the jury heard another key piece of evidence that was not aired in the UK – from two police officers who attended the scene in May 2016 after Heard claimed that Depp threw a phone at her ...
At the start of the trial Depp’s team briefed reporters that the part they were most relishing was that Depp would be able to tell his story more fully than in the UK. Rather than being asked pointed questions and giving limited answers, he could speak expansively about what effect this had on his life.
- For #4 Greg’s assertion of
content fallacious
is not necessarily asserting “lying”, could be asserting a mistake. starship.paint (exalt) - For #5, actually the original Wikipedia text (
Widely-shared falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts … were disproven
) could be interpreted as inaccurate, that’s why Greg made the change. Both Snopes and Politifact addressed that it was false that Heard quoted one specific film (Mr Ripley). However, Snopes also discussed different allegations that Heard quoted other films than Ripley, and Snopes stated that some social media users expanded the allegation to include lines from other movies as well … We reviewed several of these rumors and found the claim that Heard was “stealing” movie lines implausible. That’s where Greg got “implausible” from. Yet, Greg wrotethe claim Heard stole movie lines, such as from the talented Mr Ripley, was implausible
- which is itself inaccurate, and perhaps that is why TheTimesAreAChanging protested. This would be accurate: the claim Heard stole movie lines ... was implausible, but clearly the articles said that the Ripley allegation was false. starship.paint (exalt) - For #7, that diff [6] you provided of TrueHeartSusie3 is quite offensive and incivil,
Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins […] please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists
. Further context, TrueHeartSusie3 isn't afraid to show her POV on the matter on her user page [7] - lauding anexcellently written summary
[8] which had the sub-headline How a washed-up movie star, men’s rights activists, and true-crime fans duped America. starship.paint (exalt)
- For #4 Greg’s assertion of
Response:
- I am an editor that puts cards on the table, I go by my own name without embellishment and what you see is what you get. Outside of Wikipedia one of my first reactions was to challenge harsh contents against Amber Heard on social media in fear that she might suffer a similar fate as Caroline Flack who also publicly faced accusations of domestic abuse. TheTimesAreAChanging is adept in not providing fair diffs on issues, which I give here:[9] I don't want to justify that post but it finished:
Example text
My thought was that content might have been removed with a bias based on views on what might be best for Amber and I rashly flagged up what I thought was an opposing view. I don't keep track of all talk page additions but it's been pointed out that editors can have opinions and still edit according to WP:NPOV which is something I fight for. - As previously explained.
"... I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article.
[10]It was in those same four consecutive edits I also made a mistake by, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link,
"US and the UK"
, directly into wording"US than the UK"
on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form:"[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]"
. In my four edits, I'd amended the total wording from:
"Many legal experts had doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK."
to read:
"Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better [[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]"
, while also adding the freedom of speech material into the Differences between the..trials section.
I was late in addressing this particular but this was in context of TheTimesAreAChanging failure to provide a contextualised diff in an intro of the previous related thread and I was busy addressing the other bullet point issues presented (which were largely shown to be my corrections of previous POV bias in article content). I previously spoke[11] of going"through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits"
in a discussion on"edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja"
These accusations perpetuate and still, as noted by the editor above, regarding"incidents [that] have been misrepresented"
. - Yup, I admit when I'm wrong. That particular edit, if anything, made Depp look bad. It's hardly an indication of POV. The whole thing might have been sorted out a lot sooner if editors had pinged me to discussion instead of just talking about what I was trying to do. I suspect that this was part of an early attempt at WP:ROPE When finally getting notification, which came among TheTimesAreAChanging's other accusations, I added an edit[12] to the relevant page to give indication that I was
"making some checks on the approach taken"
which I did with appreciated response on the WikiProject Law talk page. - Issues related to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker are discussed here
- The Wikipedia content presented had stated
"falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts ... were disproven."
As indicated in the discussion[13], confirming that statement would take WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL mindreading. The way editors had presented the issue was as opinion and I mistakenly evoked those related rules. I made an edit with clear edit summary. It was reverted and we've now moved on to a more encyclopaedic solution. - I've encountered lots of misleading content such as the above and worse. Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply.
Again, in relation to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker, all this was covered here. In my reply I said, "(Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to"is cooked"
and one for"is a cooked"
with no other cooked references. I found 31"I love you"
references but with a significant proportion about"Issac"
)." I'm happy for my workings to be checked. Wikipedia certainly should research ensure that article contents are WP:NOTFALSE. - Pinging select editors who have supported your views is not appreciated. Gtoffoletto harasses me pointedly and relentlessly as can be seen through talk pages as in example here.
The sheer level of spin in all the issues presented above displays clear POV bias and, if anything, it should be TheTimesAreAChanging facing the topic ban. GregKaye 07:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would disagree that TheTimesAreAChanging needs a topic ban. I assume good faith and think that TheTimesAreAChanging needs to describe issues more accurately. I wouldn't say the above by Gtoffoletto is harassment either. I just feel that there doesn't need to be a war here between any editors of this topic. My analysis of the above incidents of Greg: #1 is problematic and unneeded, #2 is a mistake of overreaching analysis and carelessness, #3 is a mistake of using only primary sources, #4 is a mistake of research, #5 is a mistake in writing (Ripley fragment), #6 'breakdown' is also problematic, as for #7 ... personally I feel that Gtoffoletto may have overreacted regarding this topic, from what I quoted above, TrueHeartSusie3 should assume more good faith (or, if she cannot, at least, not be incivil). Context, I acknowledge that TrueHeartSusie3 has been harassed by an IP over their editing in this topic. Overall, Greg has certainly made several mistakes, and it is up to the community to decide if these are worth a topic ban. Personally, the mistakes do cause concern and I would support a warning for Greg. He has to be much more careful going forward. starship.paint (exalt)
- Oppose any action against GregKaye. I've not contributed much to the Depp v Heard article, and don't believe I've edited it at all since the trial concluded, but the page has been on my watchlist since day 1. I've been following the talk page discussions the whole time, and I find nothing eggregious with GregKaye's contributions. He's made a couple of mistakes, but has apologised and corrected them as soon as they're pointed out.I concur with starship.paint's analysis that the diffs presented above don't exactly match up with the actual version of events once you click on them. I would've been more than happy to support a topic ban for GregKaye based on #6 alone. Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING#1. Also, saying that Greg "
appeared to suffer a breakdown
" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"GregKaye has never in any way 'routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors', or anything of the sort."
In just the past month, we have seen edit summaries/comments from GregKaye including:- 1. "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" (06/06/2022);
- 2. "The Broadcasting live should only have been relevant for the viewerships - unless editors are wanting to tenaciously (sic) suggest something without evidence." (06/08/22);
- 3. "Not sure why we're quoting Guardian journalist opinions but PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. even per this cite, the case was always trial by jury. pls, pls cut the WP:Tendentious editing." (06/22/22);
- 4. "rmv: 'in the stream chat' from WP:Tendentious editorialising on claims NOT made in cited articles. The 'stream chat' at Sky News shows 'Comments are turned off.'" (06/23/22);
- 5. "WP:NOTOPINION 'Although some topics, ... tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this.' (we'd at least need secondary refs to primary ref to journalistic opinion)" (06/24/22);
- 6. "chg to: 'the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults' editors keep misrepresenting content in citations." (06/29/22); and, of course,
- 7. "Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply." (07/02/22).
- Others should evaluate the diffs above to make their own determination, but to my mind none of GregKaye's allegations of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or deliberate "misrepresentations" were properly predicated: #1 concerned text from a secondary source which accurately quoted The Sun's original article, as opposed to a later revised version (GregKaye replaced the secondary source with a link to the updated article on The Sun's website, implicitly conceding that the previous text flowed directly from the secondary source and was in no way "misrepresented" by any Wikipedia editor—if there was any "cherrypicking," it was by GregKaye himself, who did not like the coverage in secondary sources); #2 concerned text that simply noted the U.S. trial was
"broadcast live"
and that this"was a major difference between the two trials"
; #3 involved GregKaye changing"Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as 'trial by TikTok'"
to"Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into 'trial by TikTok',"
which is a minor wording tweak, not a desperately-needed correction of an egregious distortion; #4 appears to have been another misunderstanding by GregKaye; #5 is civil on its face, but radically misconstrues policy to suggest that opinion sources are unusable unless they have been commented on by other opinion sources—an interpretation so novel that GregKaye once mused"there's a chance it may change the entirety of Wikipedia"
itself—and implied that editors who refuse to accept this misinterpretation are engaged in WP:SOAPBOX behavior; #6 involved GregKaye changing"[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the allegations against him had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'"
to"[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'"
; and #7 is probably not the tack that GregKaye should be taking in this forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why are we discussing Amber Heard's mental state and "How can we best help Amber Heard"? That is not our concern. We build an encyclopedia by reporting reliable third party research, we do not play armchair psychiatrist on BLP articles. Full stop. Wikipedia isn't therapy for editors and it's not therapy for your favourite celebrity either. Darkknight2149 05:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Totally agree with Darkknight2149 above: Wikipedia isn't therapy. This is exactly the issue here unfortunately. I've been pinged several times in this discussion but I don't care enough to be dragged into this. I think this thread was just a matter of time as I've told Greg several times. A lot of time and energy has been wasted already. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did (mistakenly) discus Amber Heard's mental state. I was notified rapidly that I was incorrect to do so and I have been in agreement that I was wrong in my action from that point on. I made a good faith edit on something that I thought was for the good. I stand (and have stood) corrected that my actions did not conform to policy. It's not a mistake that I've repeated. It's certainly a valid question why we're discussing this now. GregKaye 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- You keep saying you have made several mistakes and I agree you are improving over time. However this article is WP:BLP and does not allow such mistakes.
Wikipedia must get the article right.
and mustBe very firm about the use of high-quality sources.
This is why my suggestion has always been to "slow down" and be extremely careful with your edits. You are still too WP:RECKLESS and making massive edits to the article several times a day. You can't make mistakes and just say "my bad". We can't afford those "mistakes" on a WP:BLP page. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 11:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- Come on Gio. This was information that was certainly
right
in a Testimony in Depp v. Heard content and was certainly up for debate to remain in the main article and was something I raised in a talk page.
Your main article abuses, despite instruction in WP:BLP that"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects"
, include adding content on wife beater even claiming consensus regarding a previous discussion with one policy based argument against inclusion and one subjective argument for. All issues had been previously covered but you still pushed"leading"
[14] In just one defiance against MOS:INSTRUCT we"Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions"
and in claim of"the High Court in London rejecting [Depp's] claims"
even though, as had been previously noted, Nicol had recognised that Depp had"proved the necessary elements of his cause of action"
. And you persist seeking to add your instructional"rejecting"
again[15] this time under the supposed guise of"stating clearly that Depp lost the case"
. If you considered this necessary you could have said something like"Depp lost the [London case]"
but, in context of the already stated findings of the judge, seems tangentially relevant to an article of Depp v. Heard. Your abuses of rules like MOS:INSTRUCT are huge[16] and don't seem to be by"mistake"
. You wanted to present select references to differences between the trials and, in example provided below, fought against inclusion of additional content providing WP:Balance. GregKaye 06:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)- Greg you have completely lost me. I have no idea of what you are referencing here and have not understood what you are complaining about. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gio, this isn't the first time you've given a
"didn't understand"
response when others managed readily.[17]
You've a history of harrassment[18] and I suspect you know exactly what you're doing. It's just now you've also extended your harrassment to WP:BLP personalities. GregKaye 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)- Whatever... godspeed {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gio, this isn't the first time you've given a
- Greg you have completely lost me. I have no idea of what you are referencing here and have not understood what you are complaining about. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Come on Gio. This was information that was certainly
- You keep saying you have made several mistakes and I agree you are improving over time. However this article is WP:BLP and does not allow such mistakes.
- I did (mistakenly) discus Amber Heard's mental state. I was notified rapidly that I was incorrect to do so and I have been in agreement that I was wrong in my action from that point on. I made a good faith edit on something that I thought was for the good. I stand (and have stood) corrected that my actions did not conform to policy. It's not a mistake that I've repeated. It's certainly a valid question why we're discussing this now. GregKaye 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Harassment by TheTimesAreAChanging
The continued misrepresentations in talk page discussions and here in a waste of time to other editors and a source of distress for me. I appreciate previous comments made above:
- by starship.paint to say that
"Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light."
- and by Homeostasis07 to say
"Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING #1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging."
I mentioned going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits"
and this kind of thing is continuing on repeat. When getting notification of this discussion I dragged myself into giving a by no means complete rebuttal and then just had to get away. It's horrible. Old issues are continually dragged up and misrepresented. TheTimesAreAChanging, as far as I remember, has never addressed me directly other than as response where I was addressing TheTimes directly. In all (or near to) other cases, TheTimesAreAChanging, has limited this to talking about and disparaging me often with misrepresentation. The irony is not lost on me that its in relation to an article on a defamation trial that these activities have happened.
TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits here I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned. (My comments regarded misrepresentations in edits while having no idea in regard to a number of editors involved. My intention was to highlight the problem but not to specifically point fingers). So much heat was generated on the talk page that I felt the need to attempt cordial exchange with editors personally[19].
On the way to this I'd pinged TheTimesAreAChanging in a conciliation seeking edit[20] to explain "... I know of a specific editing instant that was pointed out to me which was a certain mistake. I'd like to get it in context. I'd previously made an edit[21] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US."
Later, when editing an internal link into this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of producing this edit[22] to rewrite the same text as I'd previously written to say "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK."
The talk page subsection on "A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits"
[23] has also been on the talk page at the end of TheTimesAreAChanging's accusation thread since 13:01, 16 June 2022. Here I'd stated that "I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article."
Regardless of all this TheTimesAreAChanging persists in presenting the related accusation above.
TheTimesAreAChanging can insist that I withdraw accusations,[24] yet none of the accusations by TheTimesAreAChanging, even when full of misrepresentation, ever get withdrawn. GregKaye 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits ... I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned."
The timeline of diffs presented above suggests otherwise. For example, GregKaye left the edit summary "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" a week before my first edit to the article. Unlike GregKaye, I presented evidence of a clear misrepresentation on the the talk page, which GregKaye (and every other user) accepted at the time; notably, GregKaye's explanation for the error ("I had a real brain fart and [repeatedly] mixed up the US and the UK"
) departs from Starship.paint's sympathetic evaluation above: "I did say before on the talk page that 'Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won.' Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this (sic) sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I understand the difference between "tendentious" and "tenacious," but it's not obvious that GregKaye does (cf. the GregKaye diff above about "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence"). In any case, elementary logic would suggest, if GregKaye is claiming
"that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries [after June 13] but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment,"
then there should be no uncivil edit summaries from GregKaye before the putative June 13 "provocation". Therefore, it is material that he was leaving uncivil edit summaries like "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" on June 6 and "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence" on June 8. Do you really want to play this silly "gotcha!" game or will you honestly acknowledge that such behavior is clearly unacceptable? (Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to people the internet dislikes, such as Amber Heard, and that civility and decorum are expected even on much more serious life-or-death topics such as those involving war crimes.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. He is using “tenacious” in its correct meaning, someone who won’t quit with their current behavior. Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction. Swearing is not inherently uncivil.
- I’d ask why you’re trying to play a “gotcha” game with the dates in question, personally. Just drop this diversion and focus on the core issues if you want to resolve this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"He is using 'tenacious' in its correct meaning, someone who won't quit with their current behavior."
A review of GregKaye's 281 edits to Depp v. Heard shows that his very first edit contesting inclusion of The Sun's"wife beater"
quote already accused other editors of "wanting to tenaciously smear"; I am not aware of any previous reverts by other users (or of a concurrent talk page discussion), so the definition is not obviously applicable. (The TENACITY of the article not reading exactly as Greg wanted it to from day one!) Sure, without the power to read minds there is no way to prove if this is actually another "Snoops" vs. Snopes situation, but"tenaciously smear"
is a relatively uncommon formulation, compared to (say)"mendaciously smear"
. Regardless, I was giving GregKaye the benefit of the doubt that in a few of the diffs above he may have been raising (potentially valid) concerns about Tendentious editing (or WP:SOAPBOXing, as in edit summary #5) in the wrong forum (i.e., an edit summary)—which is a fairly routine, minor infraction that most of us have done on occasion, albeit not necessarily at the same frequency as GregKaye—rather than hurling insults or name-calling. If you think that he was just name-calling, then I won't contest that any further."Swearing is not inherently uncivil."
I agree! Now will you please address"Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable"
?"Just drop this diversion and focus on the core issues if you want to resolve this."
Any further disruptive editing will most likely be resolved in a different forum, but here's hoping that that will not be necessary! Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks at least for noting (my proud contribution of),
"Found 281 edits by GregKaye on Depp v. Heard (14.12% of the total edits made to the page)"
and noting my (actually slower than I would have liked) response to WP:BLP issue based on"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects"
No it's not about"the article not reading exactly as Greg wanted it"
which is another of your misrepresentations but I'll continue to object to abuses of issues like MOS:INSTRUCT along with WP:DUE which have been more my issues. - Yes, even when dealing with issues like misrepresentation of sources, naughty words may not be called for even if aimed at no one in particular.
- Your
"Just drop this..."
has never been something you've been willing to do. You're already on one violation of WP:FORUMSHOP and editors like starship.paint, Homeostasis07, Saucysalsa30 and myself will likely oppose you in other locations as well. If editors don't confront your abuses,[25] I have no reason to expect they that they won't continue.
- Thanks at least for noting (my proud contribution of),
- GregKaye 19:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I understand the difference between "tendentious" and "tenacious," but it's not obvious that GregKaye does (cf. the GregKaye diff above about "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence"). In any case, elementary logic would suggest, if GregKaye is claiming
- Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This what I've seen to be typical of the WP:Bludgeoning responses and interactions of TheTimesAreAChanging, repeating the same things over and over again. (I got the message the first time). It's reminiscent of the 970 word response[26] to the thread on edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja"
within which TheTimesAreAChanging still managed to target me in an off topic link. I'd encourage editors to visit Talk:Depp v. Heard and its archives and look up references to issues such as WP:Due/WP:Balance as well as the concept that "the same rules need to apply to all" in regard to rules like WP:OR and WP:Coatrack which I think give further context for this discussion. GregKaye 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @GregKaye Commenting to point out this looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. A report was made against you on misrepresentations like other editors pointed out, presumably for the purpose of removing you from the discussion. However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links [27][28][29] including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here, and it would appear the report was made on you to deflect from this unbecoming activity regarding Depp_v._Heard. Unfortunately such engagement edit warring, WP:BLUDGEONING, engaging in ownership of articles especially those with lower edit activity like removing edits that defy a particular narrative being presented, removing edits proactively in spite of Talk page discussions, harassment, proactively reporting users when consensus or evidence is against them, and more, has been a common trend for years and is not exclusive to this case. The harassment and edit warring you point out are an ongoing example.
- A few other easily visible recent examples
- An issue discussed was discussed on the Talk page and sorted out. An edit is made in line with that, and then TheTimesAreAChanging reverts that edit on the basis of personal opinion despite Talk discussion. [30]
- One of many instances of reverting an edit and removing a good source on loose basis on an article they "own", among others, and if you take a closer look, have driven a narrative on this article on the basis of a single 4-page controversial and refuted paper in contradiction to almost 30 years of data and academic study, including hundreds of studies, books, and other publications. It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and an ongoing example of WP:OWNERSHIP, tendentiousness [31]
- More reverts on personal opinion, which is the plurality of the editor's activity overall, often with a shaky editor note to "justify" removing sourced additions like "editing against consensus" when no such consensus exists, like recent edits on Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations and Khomeinism [32][33][34][35]
- but then will go ahead and edit articles on the basis of personal point-of-view such as [36]. When someone contests this, the response is edit warring like with Rusentaja and making ANI reports like this on GregKaye, or continued reverts of other editors like on the same Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations article linked above.
- I'm not going to look through and link thousands of examples of this and other forms of editing behavior by the reporter here or point out other issues as this isn't the topic here. This is a sample of very recent times to point out what GregKaye is stating regarding the reporter of the ANI topic is not new editing behavior, to give context to why the ANI was created due to GregKaye's and Rusentaja's misdoing being not acquiescing to a user with an unfortunate track record of this type of editing, and to point out the accusations against GregKaye are being overblown.
- A much better handling of this situation than engaging in edit warring against one user and witch hunting against another due to "losing" in a dispute is described here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
dialogue
TheTimesAreAChanging. I hope we can talk and, one way or another, get things resolved. You've repeatedly levelled a lot of accusations at me on issues that have been shown to contain misrepresentations of issues and that have variously been either explained or not repeated or both. These are issues that have been raised previously and they've been noted on repeat.
I hope you can give some consideration to the designation that, within Wikipedia, you've applied to yourself; specifically on the extents both to which you think other people can change with time and the extents to which your perceptions of situations can change in that time as well as to consider the extent to which your standards may change in the ways that you hold them to others and to yourself.
In the discussion on Inclusion of differences between UK and US trials on Talk:Depp v. Heard I replied to you:
"And again, TheTimesAreAChanging, In the same way that I said to Suzie
"You're right about editing."I'll say to you, you are very right about coatrack and the same rules need to apply to all. The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead. IF it's OR to attempt produce a balanced account of differences between the trials isn't it also OR to cherrypick select examples of differences between the trials to publish? Fundamentally, on the valid argument you present, it's this OR chosen initial content that should go. We can simply talk of having live broadcast (done) and the trial having a jury (also done). As I said from my first reply:"the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not."How is that not so?"
In the third paragraph of your opening reply to the edit warring thread,[37] you included pointed comment:
"despite the frustrating nature of a chaotic revision history that leaves experienced editors blindsided and unable to locate the diff wherein a crucial part of the lede was gutted without discussion."
The link is to a response from gtoffoletto, a "wiki-ogre" of his own description, within comments that followed with the edit summary: "WP:LAWYERING Not mentioning the previous trial is absurd."
- I was not involved in wikilawyering other than in claiming that
"the same rules need to apply to all"
- As you know from my perception as in the immediately preceding response[38]
"A different editor decided this topic was best covered in the article's body text."
who happened to be the editor that started the thread. - My personal edit summaries are fantastically clear (if anything I stand corrected on having needed to have toned them down).
In relation to this off topic content in your 970 word reply, and feeling the weight of past accusation, I came to your talk page in attempt to discuss the issue[39] only, myself, to be accused of bludgeoning.
You insist on BLP considerations in regard to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-a article in gawker[40] and, even though I immediately comply to your demands, you still make issue of it here. Meanwhile, on another BLP topic (me), you are corrected again and again regarding your accusations and, while nothing is withdrawn, you still bring the same stuff out on repeat. In regard to the wp:crystal ball text, where my one attempt at revision was reverted, I'm still glad that it was raised as an issue on the article talk page[41]. I'd pointed out that it was just a revert[42] but now I'm thankful that the issue was dealt with in that way so that I wouldn't get "blindsided" here.
Please talk with people. People can change as can our understandings of them. Please hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others and which others may hold you too as well. In the same way that you demand change from others, you can change too. GregKaye 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
comment
- If the situation is virtually one editor vs many editors? Then who's the problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, yes "if"
, but I wouldn't say "many editors"
, at least not since managing to address various of misrepresentations made by TheTimesAreAChanging to which starship.paint and Homeostasis07 have referred. I've not had previous difficulties like this. See also comments by Saucysalsa30 above including: "However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here,"
among other strong points. In cases where there have editors involved, we still have to go by our 5p based rules.
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye 13:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "if"
5:57, 9 July (UTC)
- Comment: As said above, I’ve pretty much decided to retire from WP for now and yes, tendentious editing is a major reason. I could not care less about IPs calling me names etc, but when editing becomes all about trying to fix a seemingly endless flow of misinformation/misinterpretation, then I know WP is no longer for me. GregKaye’s editing is the textbook example of tendentious, in every way. I don’t think he is necessarily malicious, he simply has a very strong view of the case, which, combined with his lack of source criticism skills and seemingly endless time to spend on editing results in eg misrepresenting sources in the process. He is a very prolific editor, but his edits are rarely an improvement; as an example, please see his edits to Depp v NGN, where he replaced the sourced text with quote walls that overemphasized/took out of context parts of the verdict and left out key parts. [See this roll-back https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1092982380&type=revision]. To fix his errors would necessitate editing WP as a full-time job. I don’t think there’s any other option than to ban GregKaye from Heard/Depp related topics, as he has gotten feedback for his editing many many times since April 2022 when he first began editing them, with no changes to his behaviour.
- As for my stance on the topic, as it has been brought up - of course I am biased, every one of us is. In this case, all of us have some impression, given how prominent it has been on media and social media. Personally, I’ve followed the case closely since 2016. The facts and evidence are consistently on Heard’s side, supporting the view that this is a classic DV case with the abuser using DARVO techniques. In addition to the UK verdict and DV experts’ almost unequivocal view of the case, consider Occam’s razor - the alternative is a conspiracy theory where a 20-something C-list starlet spent 4 years creating a hoax with multiple participants while concealing all evidence of it, and then only took a fraction of the money she could have gained in the divorce.
- You’re free to take the latter view of the case, but if it (or the other view of the case) affects the way you edit or makes you declare reliable sources biased to the extent of not reporting full facts, it’s a problem. I don’t think GregKaye fully understands this.
- I’d also like to note that despite my strong opinion of the case, I’ve also added a lot of very positive content on Depp’s career -to the extent that an editor, who clearly indicated that he thinks Depp has been wronged, contacted me on my talk page to ask about collaborating on the article. That’s just one example of how a strong personal opinion does not necessarily mean your editing is automatically biased.
- Finally, it should be noted that Homeostasis07’s comments should be taken with a grain (or several) of salt given his previous editing, e.g. in Marilyn Manson/Evan Rachel Wood related topics and the subsequent ANI.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- TrueHeartSusie3, You launched personal attack on four editors here. Please cite
"IPs calling [you] names etc"
. I replied, not even mentioning your attack, but referenced page abuses of WP:NPOV and MOS:INSTRUCT in particular. You are yet to respond. - You claim tendentious editing with presenting evidence. (My additions include providing TOC navigation to the social media commentary.[43] among my great many NPOV edits) There have been many against policy issues of all sorts that I have cleared up.
- You mention your concerns of my editing with the other Depp trial and yet none of you pinged me[44] The first I knew of it was when TheTimesAreAChanging launched his accusations (which were mainly based on my corrections of unjustified POV) on the Depp v. Heard Talk page.
- Yes, if you assume Depp is guilty then darvo would apply - but this is where the your bias is exposed. We are covering a trial where 7 jury members decided that Heard defamed Depp by claiming abuse, in the free speech obsessed US. (btw, I added the link to the darvo article[45]). We can't judge whether or not darvo applies. We
"Simply present sourced facts with neutrality.."
per mos:instruct. - You edit warred over removal of content you didn't like with final result here. No, I don't typically remove materials but have more often focused on correcting ways in which they have been misrepresented. Each to their own.
- Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- IF you're going to malign additional editors, such as someone with as clean a record as Homeostasis07, it could be appropriate, at the very least, to inform them. GregKaye 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Homeostasis07, only the last sentence of what I wrote above concerns you, so I’m afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. The rest is about GregKaye’s editing. As for the IP ref, see Starship.paint’s comment and my Talk page history for what I mean. Examples of GregKaye’s editing have been provided above by both myself and the person who began this ANI, and but since those are not isolated cases, even a cursory look at GregKaye’s contributions to all four Depp/Heard related articles will show this problematic pattern. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- TrueHeartSusie3, You launched personal attack on four editors here. Please cite
I hope I don't regret this, but can anybody answer these questions in fewer than 10 words?
(1) Do you LITERALLY know any of these people in real life? as, e.g., a neighbor or vendor or co-worker?
(2) Do you understand that they are actual humans, and not collectible action figures or Pokémon?
If the answer to (1) is "yes", X (Family Feud "strike" noise). Go to WP:COI; do not pass "Go"; do not collect $200.
If the answer to (1) is "no", and the answer to (2) is "yes! BUT THINGS! Lily-Rose! DARVO!", please stop referring to strangers by their given names without their permission, because it's disrespectful, intrusive and unprofessional, and then go on a field trip to an older public library or thrift store that has a bunch of bound volumes of the World Book Encyclopedia or an analogue, and take one of the books off the shelf and sit there and open it at random and read five or ten articles. Or start with an article about something you like (Affenpinschers? pasta? trombones? Vanuatu?) and read the next half-dozen articles after that. THAT is what we're trying to do here. This level of hyperfocus on minutiae of strangers' personal lives needs to be taken to a blog. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank-you Julietdeltalima, for myself (1) no and (2) yes.
- Our rules are we edit to WP:BLP such that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist,.."
Efforts, including to spell out darvo (which would only have relevance on pre-assumption of Depp's guilt), to push issues regarding social media (when the jury took oaths) and to make additional references to "wife beater" (which had been minimally referenced in the Nicol (UK) judgement and then only in a minimisation of its importance[46]) etc. don't have place. GregKaye 07:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)- Huh?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend to condescend to me as though I am a new user or a child. "Our rules are..." appears to be a misguided turn of phrase. You have very good contributions to the project.
But I have to get back to work. There are so many other encyclopedic topics to expand with our limited volunteer time. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2
Hi - I'm seeing some odd behaviour from a veteran editor @Scope creep:. He's marked several of my articles as reviewed, and then nominated them for deletion in rapid fire. Otrium was written in February, Cambrian Biopharma was written in March, and Contentsquare was just added this week. I looked at his block history and he has a history of being warned and blocked for disruptive editing, so I wanted to get some extra eyes. I don't mind defending articles from legitimate concerns, but this appears to be targeting. After the first nomination started to get heated, I tried to dial things down by reaching out on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be able to read and understand what he's reading. He threw a fit when I mistakenly inserted a comment into a discussion, for which I apologized, but when I pinged him, and he replied by instructing me how to ping. He also accused me of being a paid editor, in a very condescending way, even after I told him I was trying to get access to the helper script for my work at the AfC help desk. Despite the rapid deletion nominations that suggest WP:BEFORE was not done, his work seems to be fairly good, so something weird is going on here. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk ScopeCreep is an active participant at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. It's not un-common for patrollers to review articles and then nominate them for deletion through speedy deletion, prod, or AFD. The latter process is used if the nomination is possibly controversial. I wouldn't take it personally, as Scope Creep nominates articles routinely on a daily basis as part of his work as a patroller.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You need to take a deeper look at WP:NCORP if you are going to take on the task of creating articles for tech companies. A quick review of your created articles shows several more that are likely to be nominated for deletion as routine coverage of funding rounds do not satisfy notability requirements. Need in-depth independent coverage of the company. AfDs are a routine part of the Wikipedia editing process and the most important thing is to not take them personal. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- TechnoTalk, why not just find and include 1-2 sources that meet GNG requirements with the additional NCORP source requirements. That way you can avoid creating articles that shouldn't be created, avoid having your articles AFD'd, and get "keeps" on any that go to AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- As NPP reviewer here. The tool we use allows us to mark the article as reviewed and file the article for deletion at the same time. It is common for us to do so as if the articles in question do pass the afd, they definitely pass whatever criteria NPP has for reviewing. – robertsky (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- without comment on the merits of the articles or any history between the editors, I'd say
That is completly illegal and abusive and its not done
is a little over the top from Scope Creep. No one is going to jail for poor AfD formatting. Star Mississippi 01:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Response @North8000: Good suggestion. I'm adding the sources to my keep votes. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- without comment on the merits of the articles or any history between the editors, I'd say
- Comment What an absurd and slightly abusive ani report. The reality seems to be that can't accept the idea that your articles have to be sent to Afd because they are atrociously written and clearly fail WP:NCORP, a notabiltiy standard that you clearly don't accept and seem somehow to think don't apply to your articles, that in the majority, are private business articles, that look and read like native advertising. That combined with your bludgeoning behaviour at the Otrium Afd, is the real abuse here. Kicking up a stink because your articles are sent to Afd is natural, but this is the wrong venue and you've likely stymied your chance of becoming a page reviewer. scope_creepTalk 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment While I do not condone Scope Creep's abrasiveness, as a New Page Patroller myself, I would support their choice to nominate several of your articles, as they do seem to fail NCORP with the citations currently provided. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Response @Scope creep: Can you confirm that you no longer target editors and their articles, and this was just random page patrolling that brought these articles to your attention? That would help me decide to withdraw this complaint. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Response @Padgriffin: If you think any of the articles I've written are not worthy, then I welcome a discussion and an opportunity to defend them. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping others improve their articles, and have a good sense of what makes a subject notable or not. Just don't mass nominate them out of spite on a holiday weekend. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Response There is no spite or malice involved here, honest, although it might feel like that, it is simply page review. When I reviewed Otrium, I saw 7 other articles that I thought were very poor. Some of them have been csd's already but they'll go to afd. However, your continual intransigence for over a week on the Otrium Afd, even when user:HighKing went into minute detail of how the NCORP standard works, and myself, is problematic. You refused to accept it, until several other editors became involved, with this notice. It is written in the very plainest language. That is not WP:AGF. Why is that? scope_creepTalk 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe there is an extremely apparent lack of WP:AGF being demonstrated in this thread, as this insinuates that the AFD submissions were performed out of spite rather than out of a concern that an article does not meet notability guidelines during routine NPP work. In addition, I do not understand what you are implying by stating you were not given an opportunity to have a "discussion and an opportunity to defend them", as you were free to do so in the AFD nominations. The note that it was done "on a holiday weekend" is equally as perplexing considering that volunteer work such as editing Wikipedia is more likely to be performed in our spare time, which in turn would likely result in more edits (and AFD filings) being made over a holiday weekend. This also seemingly implies that the filings were made to inconvenience you during the holiday weekend, despite Scope not being aware that you lived in a nation that happened to have a holiday weekend. Your (self-admitted) claim that your rapid article outputs were made with the express goal of gaining access to the AFC helper script, overall hostile and non-AGF mentality in this thread combined with your apparent lack of understanding of notability guidelines present a rather clear case of why you should, in my opinion, not be granted access to the script. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 15:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This appears to me as a bad faith nomination. At the root of this complaint, TechnoTalk would do well to pause their rapid article output which was for the purposes of getting access to the helper script and their BATTLEGROUND mentality. HighKing++ 14:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. EVERYONE CALM DOWN! Throwing around accusations of bad faith and BATTLEGROUND behavior is just going to escalate the problem. How would you feel if multiple articles you worked on in the last few months were suddenly brought to AFD by one editor? And then that editor had a rather abrasive/ rude response to your inquiries. You might start feeling specifically targeted and harassed; particularly if that editor had a history of targeting editors in their block log. And you probably would seek help at ANI. I don't think we should start beating up TechnoTalk for having experienced a particular process in a certain way (even if that process was appropriate) and choosing to get help. I do think we should calmly and politely uphold our processes, affirm that Scopecreep was just doing his job as a part of his productive work at NPP, and de-escalate the situation by just letting it go and letting the AFDs do what they are designed to do. I will point out that if Scopecreep had been more patient and kinder with TechnoTalk on his talk page, this might not have ever been brought here in the first place.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, I'm sure Techno genuinely felt aggrieved. But I'm not impressed once we dig a little deeper and especially given the context that Techno was in a rush to create multiple articles in order to access the Helper script and his comments at AfD. HighKing++ 12:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think he’s giving a normal impassioned defense of the articles he created based on his understanding of policy (which is flawed) at AFD. I’ve seen him learning about policy after key text at NCORP and other places has been pointed out to him (see my dialogue with him which was cordial at AFD for example). To my mind, this is an issue of a well meaning editor who tried to create meaningful content but missed the mark because they either hadn’t read or didn’t comprehend NCORP and what that looks like when it is applied. In other words, he’s learning through this round of AFDS. We have to give people some space to make mistakes and learn from them. Now if these issues continue with future article creation and AFDs, then I would say we have a deeper problem.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, I'm sure Techno genuinely felt aggrieved. But I'm not impressed once we dig a little deeper and especially given the context that Techno was in a rush to create multiple articles in order to access the Helper script and his comments at AfD. HighKing++ 12:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Response Thank you for hearing me out. scope_creep has a history of targeting individual editors, which is problematic for someone with NPP and other rights. For those of you who were quick to jump on me and not read the history I posted, let me share some context. These are statements he made as part of his earlier targeting charge: "I think it will need to have a look through your articles." [47] "I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family." [48] "If you had left a message and discussed like the rational human being instead of the ratbag that you are, then it would have been fair enough." [49]. He was justifiably blocked for his behavior just two years ago. @Girth Summit: was the blocking admin. SC apologized and was unblocked. Fast forward to today. Before last week, the last article I wrote that was deleted was Pretzle logic in 2016. (I never even saw the nomination, since I edited less frequently then.) Last month I saw a sudden increase in AfD nominations, and successfully defended all of them. Then SC nominated Otrium, but first deleted a chunk of info with reliable sources. So you can understand why I might be a bit annoyed at that point. Article creation is a path for me to get helper script access so I can respond on the declined article's page, instead of at the help page, which many article creators don't know to use. So anyway, I'm launching a frustrated defense, thinking here we go again, and SC compounds the problem by claiming the article is about a furniture company (it's not), and calling this a press release. That makes me think his nomination isn't in good faith, and I'm honestly starting to think he's going so quickly he's not reading what's in front of him. This is all on the deletion discussion. I tried to cool things by reaching out on his talk page and thanking him for being on NPP [50] and he replied by accusing me of being a paid editor, in very snide terms. "Everybody has earn (sic) a living, put a roof over their head and feed themselves and their families." [51] He also stated that he was going to target my other articles: "Well I'll check the rest your content as well, if this is the quality of your content your producing." [52]. He then rapidly nominated for deletion several other articles I wrote, and so I decided that I needed to bring his behaviour to ANI. He even admits above that he targeted my articles "When I reviewed Otrium, I saw 7 other articles that I thought were very poor." I don't mind doing an honest defense with an honest nomination, and indeed Otrium was just deleted, breaking my streak, but piling it on is unproductive and quite frankly very demotivating. He's even ramped up his claims that I'm a paid editor, by opening a conflict of interest report. So I'll wrap this up by asking scope_creep to apologize, and as part of the apology confirm that he will no longer target me or anyone else with revenge editing. I also request an IBAN. It's important to not condone irresponsible behavior, whether it's by SC here or by other editors I see at the AfC help desk. Will the community support me in my efforts to make this a better place for all? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you are reading the room correctly to continue re-hashing why you think this is a valid complaint and to then demand sanctions and an apology. There is no grounds for an IBAN, there is no community imperative to demand an apology from scope creep and this is little reason to drag another veteran editor into this thread for percieved violations of your own personal behavioral standards for AfC members. I'd suggest WP:DROPTHESTICK and focus on editing. Slywriter (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto @Slywriter. @TechnoTalk suggest a mirror, but also beware of the boomerang. You do not have clean hands here Star Mississippi 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm definitely reading the room now. Thanks to those of you who took the time to read my concerns, and understood my frustration. I'll just have to keep improving my sources so the articles are bulletproof. You can close this thread. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since I've been pinged above, I'll note for the record that I consider the issue that I blocked (and later unblocked) SC over several years ago to be ancient history. TechnoTalk, that source you linked to does indeed look like a rehashed press release (and it's not a reliable source anyway). I'd be happy to explain why that is, but this isn't the appropriate venue - come over to my talk page if you want to discuss. If you are going to use sources like that to support articles about businesses, you are going to continue seeing your articles nominated for deletion. Girth Summit (blether) 13:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm definitely reading the room now. Thanks to those of you who took the time to read my concerns, and understood my frustration. I'll just have to keep improving my sources so the articles are bulletproof. You can close this thread. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- STOP, we don't need more drama nonsense; we already have a Arbitration case for AfD stuff. If we have redirected the energy from drama to improve articles instead, I'd reckon that Wikipedia would gain hundreds of good and featured articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's not at all unusual or inappropriate when you discover someone has created multiple articles with poor sourcing, you go check their other articles. TechnoTalk, you need to stop using spammy sourcing. You have said you aren't being paid, but I'm afraid these articles really do make you look like you are. valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you everyone. The community has spoken. My sourcing needs to be improved. I stand behind my more recent articles, but if consensus is that they be deleted, so be it. I'm not being paid, but it is a lot of wasted effort for me. I can always move to non-company articles to keep contributing. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk: If you're looking for good article ideas, Wikipedia:Requested articles is a great place to get started. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: Thanks. That's what I'm thinking. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk: If you're looking for good article ideas, Wikipedia:Requested articles is a great place to get started. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I sympathize with the OP. I noticed Scope Creep's aggressive AfD behavior yesterday. They leveled a PA against me just for participating in an AfD nomination They started. I realize this thread is going nowhere but perhaps someone can remind Scope Creep about WP:5P4. I came back from an 8 month absence and that was one of my first experiences. Lightburst (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Saying "just for participating in an AFD" is disingenuous without clarifying why - and considering your recent 6 month ban that more or less led to your temporary retirement, I'd hardly call it unwarranted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nice deflection. You skipped over the part where a volunteer participated in an AfD, and then was chastised by the subject of this thread. But I know how it goes in the Thunderdome. I participated in a bunch of nominations started by yourself and I guess I was with the "prevailing wind" because nobody shook their finger at me. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pointing out "mistakes in your assumptions" is hardly a personal attack, Lightburst.
- I support the excellent work that scope_creep does at NPP, and think that this matter is easily resolved if the OP gains some more experience by working on non-corporate articles for the moment. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I get it...it is generally agreed that meanness from those who are proficient at nominating articles for deletion - is acceptable and encouraged. I saw Scope Creep's comments as a personal attack and that is what matters. I was one of three people who ivoted to keep the article, but the only one who was ridiculed. If none of you see it that way I am unimpressed by your reading comprehension skills. I won't come here again, this whole forum ought to be deleted. It is a crap way to treat an organizations volunteers - letting them slug it out in the backroom. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You may want to dial your ranting back a bit. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I get it...it is generally agreed that meanness from those who are proficient at nominating articles for deletion - is acceptable and encouraged. I saw Scope Creep's comments as a personal attack and that is what matters. I was one of three people who ivoted to keep the article, but the only one who was ridiculed. If none of you see it that way I am unimpressed by your reading comprehension skills. I won't come here again, this whole forum ought to be deleted. It is a crap way to treat an organizations volunteers - letting them slug it out in the backroom. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nice deflection. You skipped over the part where a volunteer participated in an AfD, and then was chastised by the subject of this thread. But I know how it goes in the Thunderdome. I participated in a bunch of nominations started by yourself and I guess I was with the "prevailing wind" because nobody shook their finger at me. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
NPP
I noticed that User:Andrew Davidson is topic banned from all deletion related activities, and yet they are active in NPP. I have found that nominating articles for deletion is significant part of the job; if an editor can't do that, I do not know if they can be an effective reviewer. I emailed this concern to an administrator yesterday and they shared the concern, but they had reasons why they were unable to act. Andrew Davidson is an experienced editor and I have nothing against them. Bruxton (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: have you attempted at all to address this issue with him on his talk page or sought input at WT:NPP/R before posting here? 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't think of a politic way to say this, but I very much doubt he'd be nominating articles for any sort of deletion even were he not banned from doing so. —Cryptic 23:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- That may be so, and a talk page thread may go nowhere, but you should at least try to discuss it prior to escalation. I think his background was already well known at the time the right was granted. Further if your concerns over his use of the permission are independent of the topic ban then why bring it up. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging TonyBallioni who granted the user right. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are many thousands of articles awaiting review. The feed makes it easy to browse through them or filter on particular criteria. Naturally there are lots of weak entries but I typically pass them by to focus on topics which are of more interest to me. If I should happen dwell on a topic which then doesn't seem to make the grade then I might do what I can with it but would not mark it as reviewed. The article then remains in the queue for others such as Bruxton. It's not unusual for reviewers to pass when they find a topic difficult to assess or otherwise process as this is the standard advice: "If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer."
- I am currently in an NPP backlog drive and seem to be pulling my weight in that so far. The activity specifically includes re-reviews to check the quality of the reviews which are being made. As yet, no-one has had any complaints about my reviews and Bruxton doesn't give any specific examples.
- For an example where I found a significant issue, see Literary Latin. This initially seemed a promising topic but I came to the conclusion that it was an invalid fork from the main topic of Latin with inadequate attribution of its copying. I tagged the article and started discussion, pinging some other editors who had some history with the matter. When the discussion went nowhere and creator failed to respond, I reverted the split by redirecting the page back to the main topic.
- As for Bruxton, I am not familiar with them and so just took a look at their user page. I find that they were only granted page reviewer right a few days ago – on 16 June. As they are comparatively new to the task, it is surprising that they should be so quick to jump to conclusions and escalate to ANI.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 01:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can't see that as a problem; there are many NPP tasks that don't involve deletion, and as long as Andrew is happy to delegate to others as needed (e.g via the very active NPP noticeboard) I am sure that the process will benefit from his experience. Always assuming that this doesn't result in signing off on articles that need to be deleted, but that would need to be demonstrated. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- As someone without any knowledge of the history I am okay with someone who is excluded from AfD being a new page patroller as long as they don't nominate for deletion. I would also welcome them at AfC where there is rarely any AfD activity. Gusfriend (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I probably brought this concern to the wrong forum. I recently started at NPP, and that is why the requirements of a reviewer are fresh in my mind. The word deletion is used 103 times in the tutorial. Other duties which are discussed in the tutorial are also a form of deletion. If an article is redirected it is deleted. If a reviewer starts a merge discussion that is a suggestion that the article's contents should merged and the article should be deleted. As a reviewer, I imagine that AD has just been granted an exception to review, because they cannot do the work of a reviewer like CSD, AfD, redirect and merge. Bruxton (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton:
If an article is redirected it is deleted. If a reviewer starts a merge discussion that is a suggestion that the article's contents should merged and the article should be deleted.
This is flatly incorrect, neither one of those is a form of deletion which actually hides history from non-sysops (indeed both are specifically listed alternatives to deletion), further it's important to remember that articles which have been merged should not be deleted. Contested WP:BLARs can be an issue as those are discussed at AFD, but those are relatively uncommon. Avoiding these kind of misunderstandings is why it's best to seek input from experienced reviewers at WT:NPP/R first. Also remember that per the big bold letters at the top of the page this board is forurgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems
, even if you have diffs demonstrating that a perm has been used improperly it's usually best to start a user talk page discussion first, mistakes happen, most concerns can be resolved without taking up everyone's time on the dramaboards. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- @74.73.224.126: Thank you for the messages. As I have said above, I have probably come to the wrong forum; and I first consulted with an administrator about this issue. Some of the things you have said above may be factually correct, but they fall into the category of a distinction without a difference. For instance, as an article creator, if one of my articles is redirected it is no longer there unless an ordinary user goes into the history of the redirect... so yes, it is essentially deleted. Also I have no "misunderstandings" about a reviewer's duties. Bruxton (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: The distinction, and it is an important one, is that only sysops can (un)delete pages, and for that reason there is significantly more procedure involved in matters relating to deletion (long history behind all that but it's best to avoid digression). The fact that new-users will struggle to reverse redirections isn't particularly important since new users struggle to do all sorts of things in our increasingly complex editing environment, not the least of which is creating new articles that aren't CSD fodder in the first place. Indeed if you can manage that last one you can probably work out what happened starting from your own contribution history (understanding the procedure behind it all is a different matter entirely). I agree however that further discussion along these lines is best suited to WT:NPP/R or WP:HD, and this thread can be closed. Incidentally, pings to unregistered users will not work so you have to go old school and use {{talkback}} or one of its related templates. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @74.73.224.126: Thank you for the messages. As I have said above, I have probably come to the wrong forum; and I first consulted with an administrator about this issue. Some of the things you have said above may be factually correct, but they fall into the category of a distinction without a difference. For instance, as an article creator, if one of my articles is redirected it is no longer there unless an ordinary user goes into the history of the redirect... so yes, it is essentially deleted. Also I have no "misunderstandings" about a reviewer's duties. Bruxton (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton:
- I don't think TBANed editors should have page reviewer perm, as a blanket rule. If you can't control your own contributions, you can't supervise other people's contributions. You kind of have to have a good knowledge of notability policies to be a reviewer, right? If you're TBANed from deletion, you don't have a good knowledge of notability policies. Levivich[block] 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- He wasn't TBANed for lack of policy knowledge. That happened due to 1) Annoyance from some at how successful he'd been at saving articles from destruction. 2) His admittedly excessive rebuttal of delete arguments, which while policy compliant, had got too much for some after 12 plus years. 3)Your own policy violating 50+ post bludgeoning of the Halloween purge thread, as summarised here. A major cause of the NPP backlog is ANI choosing to take down the Commander just over a year ago, who was a one man queue clearing machine. Let's not add insult to injury by depriving NPP of the good Colonel's services! FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see your support hasn't wavered. One thing I'll add is that if sanctioned editors are to be excluded from NPP, that should probably be a policy change discussed on a policy page and not something that's just applied to one editor at ANI. BTW, who is the Commander and what are they the commander of? Levivich[block] 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair response, part of why you're so so loved round here no one but me called you out on the 50+ post thing. Commander Waterford used to command the NPP queue, he long held no 1 spot as the editor with the most patrols. Here is one of multiple threads where NPPers mourned his loss and its impact on said queue. Perhaps it wasn't a good comparison, the Colonel is not much like CW. Much more diplomatic and affable, hence his fine work mentoring newbies at dozens of real life ambassador & outreach events, and why he's appreciated at NPP as mentioned by IP .224.126 .FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's because 50 posts is low for me, and people want to encourage me moving in the right direction :-D Levivich[block] 17:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone is interested in what actually happened, as opposed to Mr. Huxtable's usual heaping of praise on blocked or banned users, here's the actual discussion The discussion here is pretty clear: there is an overwhelming majority here in favor of revoking the autopatrolled permission because of doubts about CommanderWaterford's diligence (as well as their honesty). What's more, I see a majority of editors here, including many seasoned editors, who do not believe that CommanderWaterford's edits and style are in accordance with our policies and guidelines. A list of grievances includes serious copyright violations, brusqueness and rudeness, a lack of good faith, and more, but what one can distill out of this discussion with great clarity is that CommanderWaterford suffers from I DID NOT HEAR THAT, which is evident even in their very responses here. With their Wikipedia career on the line, one would expect a serious and seriously humble rebuttal and a promise to do do better: that is not what is happening. Many express regret given CommanderWaterford's positive contributions to the project, but that does not change the fact that the community consensus here is for an indefinite block Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- FeydHuxtable, your defense of "the Commander" is really very sad. That editor got blocked for all the right reasons, and that's actually putting it mildly. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone is interested in what actually happened, as opposed to Mr. Huxtable's usual heaping of praise on blocked or banned users, here's the actual discussion The discussion here is pretty clear: there is an overwhelming majority here in favor of revoking the autopatrolled permission because of doubts about CommanderWaterford's diligence (as well as their honesty). What's more, I see a majority of editors here, including many seasoned editors, who do not believe that CommanderWaterford's edits and style are in accordance with our policies and guidelines. A list of grievances includes serious copyright violations, brusqueness and rudeness, a lack of good faith, and more, but what one can distill out of this discussion with great clarity is that CommanderWaterford suffers from I DID NOT HEAR THAT, which is evident even in their very responses here. With their Wikipedia career on the line, one would expect a serious and seriously humble rebuttal and a promise to do do better: that is not what is happening. Many express regret given CommanderWaterford's positive contributions to the project, but that does not change the fact that the community consensus here is for an indefinite block Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's because 50 posts is low for me, and people want to encourage me moving in the right direction :-D Levivich[block] 17:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair response, part of why you're so so loved round here no one but me called you out on the 50+ post thing. Commander Waterford used to command the NPP queue, he long held no 1 spot as the editor with the most patrols. Here is one of multiple threads where NPPers mourned his loss and its impact on said queue. Perhaps it wasn't a good comparison, the Colonel is not much like CW. Much more diplomatic and affable, hence his fine work mentoring newbies at dozens of real life ambassador & outreach events, and why he's appreciated at NPP as mentioned by IP .224.126 .FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see your support hasn't wavered. One thing I'll add is that if sanctioned editors are to be excluded from NPP, that should probably be a policy change discussed on a policy page and not something that's just applied to one editor at ANI. BTW, who is the Commander and what are they the commander of? Levivich[block] 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are really two questions that need to be answered in this kind of situation. First can the sanctioned editor continue to contribute positively with the PERM despite the restriction? This question is best answered by the editors in the area (hence the reference to NPP/R) and the answer thus far is a resounding yes. Second is there any evidence the PERM has been misused? Thus far the answer is no, not a single diff or log entry has been presented as evidence. Therefore the editor's continuing use of the PERM is consistent with the interests of the encyclopedia. We do not revoke permissions as punishment, but only when doing so is needed to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. I'm aware of the colonel's idiosyncratic views on notability; the permission granting admin was almost certainly aware as well, but merely holding such views is not a reason to revoke the permission as long as the user does not misuse it, given that the permission has been held for years without issue this does not seem to be the case. Almost everyone here has at least one PAG they'd like to see changed, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you really believe a blanket rule is needed you can always start a thread at the village pump, but as of present there isn't one. Anyway I've probably contributed too much to this thread already about time to let others have their say. Granting admin has been pinged and this thread got a mention on a well-known WP:BADSITE, so I suspect there will be additional input here from people with more knowledge of the situation than myself before long. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. I'm TBANNED in one area, doesn't mean I don't or can't contribute in another. If I read an article on the size of ice glaciers in Alaskan waters, no reason I can't vet it and approve/reject. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- He wasn't TBANed for lack of policy knowledge. That happened due to 1) Annoyance from some at how successful he'd been at saving articles from destruction. 2) His admittedly excessive rebuttal of delete arguments, which while policy compliant, had got too much for some after 12 plus years. 3)Your own policy violating 50+ post bludgeoning of the Halloween purge thread, as summarised here. A major cause of the NPP backlog is ANI choosing to take down the Commander just over a year ago, who was a one man queue clearing machine. Let's not add insult to injury by depriving NPP of the good Colonel's services! FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This ought to be brought to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment to be pursued. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Inconsistent The other editor who was topic banned from deletion at the same time as AD was denied the NPP perrm for the reasons outlined above. @Polyamorph and Joe Roe: both commented.
A core part of NPP is identifying candidates for speedy deletion, PRODS, AfDs, and draftification. Given you are currently topic banned from deletion discussions, this would violate your topic ban from deletion discussions.
And from Joe Roe,Sorry but Polyamorph is right. There is no way you can patrol new pages effectively with your topic ban.
Bruxton (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Not done.
- Yes. I am now retired from NPP. But decisions about whether an article is sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia or should be nominated for deletion are a core part of the process. It's difficult to see how a user could effectively patrol new pages with such a topic ban. Polyamorph (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum: but it seems in this case no one has issue with Andrew's patrol log, so if he is able to find pages to review and skipping those that need deletion decisions then there is no harm. They desperately need more reviewers at NPP. Polyamorph (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- In retrospect, and reading the comments here, I think I might have been unfair to Lightburst there. Deletion is a big part of new page patrol but it's also possible to avoid it, if that's what you want or have to do; I've reviewed nearly a thousand pages in the last month and only nominated a handful for deletion. Unfortunately they've now retired so it's too late to make up for it, but I don't think my one-off decision on a PERM request should be taken as any sort of precedent for Andrew D. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lightburst got busted for COI editing and then retired, so the two cases aren't really similar. Levivich[block] 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I do not see that they were "busted for coi" - I see an accusation and no conclusions. It looks to me like their retirement roughly coincided with the TBAN from deletion related activity and the NPP denial. The NPP perm is similar because with a TBAN both could not properly review articles. Have a great weekend everyone! Bruxton (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- 6-month TBAN was Nov 4. COIN was started Nov 15. Retirement was Nov 25. And unretirement was July 10, the day after the evidence closed in the pending arbcom case. Draw your own conclusions. Levivich[block] 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I do not see that they were "busted for coi" - I see an accusation and no conclusions. It looks to me like their retirement roughly coincided with the TBAN from deletion related activity and the NPP denial. The NPP perm is similar because with a TBAN both could not properly review articles. Have a great weekend everyone! Bruxton (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lightburst got busted for COI editing and then retired, so the two cases aren't really similar. Levivich[block] 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I am now retired from NPP. But decisions about whether an article is sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia or should be nominated for deletion are a core part of the process. It's difficult to see how a user could effectively patrol new pages with such a topic ban. Polyamorph (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a little inconvenient to NPP review without the ability to delete? Yeah. However, he can still productively review even without that ability. If Andrew finds an article that he feels should be deleted, he can just skip it and leave it to another reviewer, which is what I'm sure he's done countless times. There are plenty of NPP tasks that do not involve deletion, such as reviewing and tagging. Andrew's patrol log is also clean. I just don't see how this is an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The risk isn't that articles that need deleting won't be deleted, the risk is that articles that should be deleted will instead be marked patrolled. Still, that's a hypothetical risk, and I'm not seeing any evidence that this is in fact happening. Levivich[block] 17:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know the particulars of the individual but I will note that it would be very easy to NPP without the option to delete. They can simply pass on articles (without marking them as reviewed) that should be deleted. When I'm in unusually-active NPP periods I do that when I think I would otherwise surpass my AFD grief limit, particularly in areas that have active fan clubs at AFD. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no reason to suspect that Andrew has any agenda that would infringe upon his T-ban or that conversley, he would be keeping articles that should be deleted. While NPP enables the possibility of tagging article for any of our deletion processes, most other users can tag articles for deletion without the WP:NPR user right. What they can't do is check them off as 'patrolled'. That said, user:74.73.224.126, permissions are indeed occasionally purely
revoked as a punishment
, not only by a common community consensus at ANI, but also by the Arbitration Committee, even when the tools have not been misused.
As they are comparatively new to the task, it is surprising that they should be so quick to jump to conclusions and escalate to ANI.
: I think that as a relatively new user and even more recently admitted to the New Page Reviewer group, although expressing a valid concern, Bruxton may be unduly escalating in good faith what normally would be a valid concern, there are after all, plenty of New Page Reviewers who have been exposed as using the right to their own ends. However, like the unfortunate demise of RexxS who was also a very valuable contributor to important off-Wiki events, witch-hunts (and I am not saying this is one) are to be avoided because their result can ultimately drive highly experienced, prolific and dedicated users off Wikipedia.
- I have personally disagreed - on occasion quite heavily - with Andrew on various issues over more than a decade that his work has been very familiar to me, but on absolutely nothing at all that would have even bordered on breaches of policy. Andrew was accorded NPR 5 years ago by admin TonyBallioni who is unlikely to have made a mistake. Not because NPP is currently in a crisis trying to cut down an untenable backlog resulting from patroller burnout (750+ patrollers but of whom only half have ever made a patrol ), I suggest very strongly that in the total absence of any wrong doing, we cut Andrew some slack, cease what might become yet another classic Wikipedia character assassination, and close this thread without any action. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since I've been pinged a few times; I don't have an opinion on what happens to Andrew Davidson's NPR right. He was an established user familiar with new articles, active in editathons and outreach, and while I think (and thought) his views on deletion were far outside the mainstream of the community, at the time there was no reason to deny him that permission, and if I or any other admin had it would have been taken to a noticeboard and his friends would have overturned the decision to deny it to him; that's the political reality of Wikipedia. If the community has decided that his views on deletion are so outside of the norm that NPR should be revoked, that is a decision the community is empowered to make. I don't have a particular stance on it at this time as I haven't looked at his recent contributions. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, folks. Before anybody waxes rhapsodic about "Commander Waterford", how has no one ever grappled with the notion that his username is such an emblematic dogwhistle/elephant in the living room, unless I'm missing something, that I'm impelled to query the motives of anyone advocating for him? Has NO ONE on this board ever READ OR WATCHED anything itemized on the dab page for The Handmaid's Tale? I wasn't able to bring this up when User:CommanderWaterford was active on the site. Maybe he didn't have any intention of equating himself with a prominent fictional government-sanctioned serial rape supporter and perpetrator and was just doing it for the lulz, but volunteers on a worldwide project need to help facilitate a professional, fully collaborative environment by growing up and leaving their unnecessarily dastardly and unsafe-appearing edgelord tendencies on other projects. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Julietdeltalima - Am I missing the point? Certainly the mention of this dab led me to waste an hour checking it all out for some relevance and leaving me none the wiser... FWIW however, if I had been active on Wikipedia at the time, I would have strongly supported the Waterford block/ban. IMO any mentions here of Waterford are off-topicKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You couldn't find The Handmaid's Tale#The Commander or List of The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) characters#Commander Fred Waterford inside of an hour? —Cryptic 03:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've never read or watched any Handmaiden's Tale stuff; totally missed that reference. Kinda surprised no one brought this up before, though. Levivich[block] 16:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I vaguely remember this being brought up as he was being banned. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was discussed at RFCN about a week before the community ban. DanCherek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ha! Reading that: wow. Apparently it's ok to name yourself after a rapist as long as it's a fictional rapist? Lulz. Although the community also allows the username "darknipples". I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is what happens when these things are decided almost exclusively by men. Levivich[block] 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I recall, the ban discussion happened when I was dealing with an IRL issue and had little ability to contribute to anything outside article space because of the *#*#&@! mobile app.
Kudpung, the easiest reference would be to the very first scene of the very first episode of the highly praised first season of the TV series whose costumes have inspired all these women in the red cloaks in U.S. protests regarding reproductive rights, but it is very intimately disturbing and I would never casually suggest to anyone I didn't know quite well to watch it. In brief: There's not even an irony defense to dubbing oneself "Commander Waterford". I only brought the subject up because somebody up above made a big kerfuffle about how NPP has suffered from the ban of Commander Waterford, and, has it, really? Back to work now but I wanted to briefly defend, but mostly ask forgiveness for, a hattable rant. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Julietdeltalima - Am I missing the point? Certainly the mention of this dab led me to waste an hour checking it all out for some relevance and leaving me none the wiser... FWIW however, if I had been active on Wikipedia at the time, I would have strongly supported the Waterford block/ban. IMO any mentions here of Waterford are off-topicKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, folks. Before anybody waxes rhapsodic about "Commander Waterford", how has no one ever grappled with the notion that his username is such an emblematic dogwhistle/elephant in the living room, unless I'm missing something, that I'm impelled to query the motives of anyone advocating for him? Has NO ONE on this board ever READ OR WATCHED anything itemized on the dab page for The Handmaid's Tale? I wasn't able to bring this up when User:CommanderWaterford was active on the site. Maybe he didn't have any intention of equating himself with a prominent fictional government-sanctioned serial rape supporter and perpetrator and was just doing it for the lulz, but volunteers on a worldwide project need to help facilitate a professional, fully collaborative environment by growing up and leaving their unnecessarily dastardly and unsafe-appearing edgelord tendencies on other projects. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Geez some things never change. The same bully patrolling the schoolyard, and stirring the shit pot. And my friend Andrew is the subject of an ANI. Somehow I am mentioned. I hope that this cesspool of a forum gets deleted. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree it should have been discussed at NPP first. ANI is for behavioural incidents. In this case it does not appear Andrew has done anything wrong and the thread should be closed as no action / discuss at appropriate venue first. Polyamorph (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lightburst Can I suggest that returning from a ban and immediately starting to attack other editors is only going to end in one way? Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Julietdeltalima, Cryptic, and Levivich: I don't believe that this ANI dscussion and its outcome have even tangential relevance to the issue concerning Andrew Davidson. What threw me was the the assumption that everyone would be familiar with the works of Atwood and/or its media stagings. The mass of reading I felt obliged to do in order to be helpful here, even with its fleeting mentions of a commander, revealed itself as totally off topic, and did not evoke any connections with Andrew in my addled brain.That said, as a former coord of NPP for nearly a decade I wholly concur with Drmies Waterford closure. Due to genuinely egregious use, I do support the need for monitoring the work of Autopatrolled users and highly prolific New Page reviewers by experienced editors, but discussing such specific concerns there first. I am not a fan of non-admin closures at ANI, but if I were an admin and uninvolved here, I would be closing this thread right now as 'requiring no admin action'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really see the problem here. Let Andrew D. do what he wants to do; I don't see how it's bothering anyone. There's plenty to do in NPP besides deletion. Andrew, please note I re-redirected your Literary Latin, which is of course a fascinating topic. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Gartuwaso, WP:CIR, SPA, nothere, personal attacks, just pick one
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gartuwaso is a relatively new user who appeared at the often spammed article Michael Maigeri Ede/Michael Ede and it's AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Maigeri Ede. Following that, they showed up at random articles I've created or edited, adding either nonsense, or nominating for deletion in bad faith by accusing myself and MB of "paid editing" and effectively being in cahoots with one another. They've continued this diatribe and they don't appear to be here for anything constructive, and are now accusing me of racism and paid editing for nominating articles for deletion that simply aren't notable. Their only edits are revenge nominations/edits, casting aspersions and related to spamming Michael Ede.
I laugh 😂 as I see this message from you. No one will block me. Just because I use UPE on you that's why you will request block against me. Make you, I will appeal if you succeed by inviting your friends to come and comment. It's really amazing 😍 a person who normally nominated notable African articles, Indian articles and other low profile European and Asian exhausting your time on non notable actress. It 100% fail notability of living person. Google search shows nothing but Nigerian fake newspapers. Stop warning ⚠️, your titles will not make me fear 😨 you. Your request to block will never work. Administrators are not selfish and racist, they are well judge and non partisan people
diff
It appears clearly you are inviting your friends to comment on keep. I have no revenge on you as no any article is nominated for deletion by you. Nonetheless, if you succeed in this nomination case, I will definitely appeal it where real and unconnected administrators will look at this article which totally fail notability of living person. If you invite your friends here to comment Keep it may consider as meat puppets as I can see MB and other commenting. If Wikipedia is really independent platform this article with definitely going to be deleted. So, also concerning the UPE,it appears that the person whom you created this article had paid you or possible connection; if not why are you exhausting your time inviting your friends to comment Keep while they know it's not notable. Google search show nothing but full of Nigerian fake newspapers with no significant coverage.
diff
And to clarify, a brief time line:
- They show up here after not having edited for months, to try and keep Michael Ede, a frequent spam target.
- Then here at an AFD I nominated (though they did vote delete) shortly after they showed up at the previous AFD.
- Followed by this edit to an article I created
- And finally here on a redirect that I created quite a while ago, which MB had expanded, complete with a bad faith nom accusing several of us of paid editing and using "fake nigerian newspapers" (which is demonstrably untrue, there aren't any Nigerian papers used, fake or otherwise in that article and don't appear to have ever been used there.)
I am requesting an indefinite block on the grounds of, well, you can take your pick but at the end of the day, it's clear they aren't here to contribute meaningfully. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note Yes I have used UPE not saying UPE directly but used possible UPE. I simply used UPE because they are trying to depend non notable actress with no significant coverage as everyone believed that these editors are experienced editors. She 100% fails Wikipedia article notability of a living person. If you make Google search about her its only fake Nigerian newspapers that featured her and nothing else. I said User:Praxidicae|PRAXIDICAE🌈]] appear to invite his friends to comment Keep such as MB and other unknown user because as I initially nominated the article for deletion MB appeared to undo my work immediately because I haven't created the discussion, I later created and he eventually came and commented to keep by saying it's a bad faith nomination, please is there any bad nomination faith by non notable article?. I'm sure there is no bad faith in nominating an article that's not notable at whole. Again, User:Praxidicae|PRAXIDICAE🌈]] has been long time nominating African articles, Indian articles, Arab articles, low profile European articles. I deeply check his/her nomination and I finally told him this. There are many African and Indian articles that are notable but he moved them to draft or nominated for deletion. This is an indication of racism and bias. I'm not here for any personal attack but want Wikipedia to have more transparent and incredible. Everyone should have access to Wikipedia without sidelining people. Everyone should know that this issue began when I nominated his article for deletion which is notable to be deleted as it lacks media coverage with no any source rather Nigerian fake newspapers by Google search.Gartuwaso (talk) 15:07, 06 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you like to provide evidence in the form of diffs or are you more interested in a lengthy non-sensical diatribe that will lead to a faster block? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. Don't have time for this nonsense. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, beat me to it. I was coming here to say accusing an editor of "racism and bias", especially without proof, is a personal attack of the highest order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. Don't have time for this nonsense. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you like to provide evidence in the form of diffs or are you more interested in a lengthy non-sensical diatribe that will lead to a faster block? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
User:136.57.191.25
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user, Special:Contributions/136.57.191.25, just told me to stop making pointless edit summaries. My edits are not pointless. So could you please tell him to stop sending me messages about that? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see the IP has been blocked in the past for disruption as a long term abuse account. Wondering if that is still the case now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- That still is the case now, and he sent me that message on my talk page twice. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looking through edits, I see that. 6 month block w/o talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- That still is the case now, and he sent me that message on my talk page twice. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
IP 142.105.166.40
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
142.105.166.40 (talk · contribs) has twice told users to kill themselves (1, 2), and when warned against vandalism for a since-removed edit to Talk:Lori Lightfoot, they threatened to continue (3). Every other edit they have done has been to remove sourced content they don't like. -- Pokelova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Fma12 and legal threats and keeplocal
Fma12 (talk · contribs) stated that my actions of opening an SPI investigation were "libellous". I informed the editor of the no legal threats policy, and that warning was summarily reverted with the statement that my SPI request was still "libellous" remaining. The editor has also been importing images I uploaded to ENWP to Commons, then attempting to orphan the local copies on ENWP in favor of his imported versions of my files (they also removed the {{keeplocal}} tags I placed on them). I instructed them to stop being disruptive but they refuse to acknowledge my work or the language on {{keeplocal}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- As a long standing editor and more than 68,000 edits, clearly I know the rules. @Locke Cole: accused me of editing as a sockpuppet here and I replied to him considering this an offense for such accusations and expecting an apology from his part. Previously to that, we have been discussing my edits (you can see the entire discussion here where I admit to have commited a mistake on removing the "keeptag" replacing it with a "now commons" template. Nevertheless user Locke Cole insisted on looking for controversy first opening a case at the sockpuppet investigations and then here.
- Locke Cole considers that copying a PD file to commons (as I did) is "disruptive" and I have been trying (with no sucess) to explain to him that.
- If you read the discussion you can see that I did not threat or made personal attacks Locke Cole. On the contrary, I insisted on being more collaborative so we have interests in common and being engaged in such futile discussion is exhausting for both parts. His behaviour towards me are verging on harassment Fma12 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that as a true legal threat. That said, Fma12, you could stand to dial it back a lot. The belligerence in that conversation and on display here isn't compatible with collaboration, and it's making it harder for me to figure out just what the underlying problem is. It would be helpful if someone involved in this would explain the actual issue here, neither of you has made that especially clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Locke Cole seems to be very angry at what he considers "disruptive": copying files uploaded by him to commons (such as I did with this logo and removing the "keeplocal" tag in the process. What I did and I recognised it was a mistake. Apart from that, he accused me of sockpuppeting. Fma12 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Yeah, Locke Cole, unless you have some pretty serious evidence of working, I'd suggest you retract it. That would seriously help bring the temperature down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Locke Cole seems to be very angry at what he considers "disruptive": copying files uploaded by him to commons (such as I did with this logo and removing the "keeplocal" tag in the process. What I did and I recognised it was a mistake. Apart from that, he accused me of sockpuppeting. Fma12 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting from WP:NLT, by word: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect ToBeFree, this is not that. I agree with Blade that it is not a legal threat meriting sanction, but that safe harbor provision is clearly meant for discussions of article contents, not descriptions of editor behavior. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Editors are not living people?
I do see your point though, and I agree that the quoted section is unlikely to have been intended to refer to this situation. We do have WP:ASPERSIONS though, pointing to which might have been better than claiming "libel". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Editors are not living people?
- With all due respect ToBeFree, this is not that. I agree with Blade that it is not a legal threat meriting sanction, but that safe harbor provision is clearly meant for discussions of article contents, not descriptions of editor behavior. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why were these images not to be transferred to commons? Were they all logos? Is the dispute about whether they are fair use or PD? Secretlondon (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- If I understand the situation correctly – I had been watching it on Fma12's talk page for a while without really having something helpful to add and hoping for it to deescalate by itself – this is a matter of personal preference due to bad experiences with Commons. That's not too uncommon; there are users who prefer to upload files locally and would like to avoid interacting with Wikimedia Commons's community and its processes. That's legitimate; WP:F8 contains an exclusion for such files.
- I can also understand that replacing these local images by global copies in all articles they appear in is something upsetting to do to the uploader of the local file. If there's no real reason for doing so, asking someone to stop that part of the process isn't unreasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Secretlondon:: I uploaded some of those files to Commons (see files 1, 2 but user insisted on tagging them as "keeplocal" instead of the "now commons" tag. I don't know why. Fma12 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- If that, in the way you're describing it in this specific sentence, is really the issue, then I can easily explain "why": {{Now commons}} is practically a deletion request while {{Keeplocal}} is the very opposite of it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @ToBeFree:. I did not know that "now commons" was a virtual DR. In fact, I think that moving a file there allows it to be used not only on the en.wiki but on all projects. Beyond of that, it's not clear why user Locke Cole tagged files for "local use" when he's been uploading some of those files to commons, such as GM Deffense and GM SPV logos. I'm a reasonable person and can discuss any topic in a polite manner. But Locke Cole's manners were not (at least from my POV) polite at all, even accusing me of sockpuppeting (a case easily closed due to lack of reliable proof from his part). Fma12 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. It categorizes images into Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which has an {{admin backlog}} tag and is generally seen as a category full of files an administrator can spend their free time on reviewing and deleting locally. If images that had been tagged as {{keep local}} appear in this category, they may well end up being deleted in an accidental violation of WP:F8, much more so if {{keep local}} was removed from the image page. The best thing that can happen to such pages is a revert of the template replacement.
- I had noticed that Special:Diff/1096697287 was pretty, hm, my dictionary says "upfront"; I'd have said "direct". To the point. It may help to interpret "I don't care" as a good-will gesture rather than an unfriendly one: Stating that Locke Cole doesn't care about the Commons imports by themselves is a limitation of the complaint: What you were doing is generally not being opposed to, only the removal of {{keep local}} was. Your response's first sentence was a suboptimal "First of all, be polite when you're talking to me", which is rarely going to happen if requested in this way. Ironically, the best way to actually request civility, from what I've seen so far, is to restrict the reply to the content/facts without addressing the other user's tone. This forces the other editor to reply to the content/facts rather than giving them something new and off-topic to argue about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @ToBeFree:. I did not know that "now commons" was a virtual DR. In fact, I think that moving a file there allows it to be used not only on the en.wiki but on all projects. Beyond of that, it's not clear why user Locke Cole tagged files for "local use" when he's been uploading some of those files to commons, such as GM Deffense and GM SPV logos. I'm a reasonable person and can discuss any topic in a polite manner. But Locke Cole's manners were not (at least from my POV) polite at all, even accusing me of sockpuppeting (a case easily closed due to lack of reliable proof from his part). Fma12 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- If that, in the way you're describing it in this specific sentence, is really the issue, then I can easily explain "why": {{Now commons}} is practically a deletion request while {{Keeplocal}} is the very opposite of it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fma12 was closed as behaviorally "not too believable" by EdJohnston. I guess a checkuser result would have been "two different continents". Which is not perfect proof but makes the accusation look rather strange in hindsight. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It sounds from the above thread that various parties now more clearly understand 'keep local'. It's my hope that this dispute may be resolved. I can see why a person with 68,000 edits and over fifteen years editing might be annoyed by being named at SPI. Even so, it's better when people avoid the word 'libellous'. Though I seldom work with images, my understanding is that 'keep local' requests need to be handled carefully and any revert war about such tags is going to set off alarm bells. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Files moved to Commons without attribution
@ToBeFree and EdJohnston: In addition to the still-intact legal threat on their talk page, they have now taken a work I produced and, instead of using FileImporter, they have uploaded it directly to Commons after downloading the file as c:File:Gm financial logo.svg under their own username without attribution. How would this not be a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL License that all contributions are made under? The Commons file lists https://www.gmfinancial.com/en-us/home.html as the source, but if you review the SVG source code for https://www.gmfinancial.com/content/dam/gmf/header/gmf-logo.svg, you will see the file they've uploaded is different. The local file (File:GM_Financial_(logo).svg) correctly lists the mis-attributed Commons file as a duplicate. From my brief experience with Fma12 on his talk page I understand he does not respect my work or the value I try to provide to this project, but this is totally unacceptable to lay claim to another editors work without attribution. All while still maintaining that simply opening a WP:SOCK investigation given the odd coincidence of this IP making similar edits is somehow "libellous". —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I seem to be looking at public domain logos neither eligible for copyright nor created by either of you, so I don't understand your license violation allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I had said to @Locke Cole: that "spending time looking for an image on the web (or drawing a vector version of a logo) does mean it is "your" work. You are only the uploader, not the original creator". Since this debate started, he has been stating (and acting like) those images were his property instead of PD-textlogos.
- @ToBeFree and EdJohnston:: apart of accusing me of being a sockpuppet (even opening a case here, quickly closed because of lack of strong and reliable proof) and "legal threats", user Locke Cole has recently replied me with a "FUCK YOU" on my talk page (here) as his sole (and definitive, I guess) response to my arguments. From the beginning, his behaviour towards me has been inappropriate and less than collaborative. But I didn't expect an insult like that. Discussing with that kind of users in a civilised way becomes impossible. Fma12 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- We should perhaps wait a few days to see whether their ragequit is more than yet another temporary userpage statement made out of frustration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree:
I seem to be looking at public domain logos neither eligible for copyright nor created by either of you, so I don't understand your license violation allegations.
Wikipedia:Moving files to CommonsA copy of the local upload log — You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed. This is a strict requirement for the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses.
nor created by either of you
That is a gross simplification and vastly diminishes the time and effort I invest in doing this. As an administrator you really ought to not do that without careful consideration of what you're saying or how it might be interpreted. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)- Locke Cole, you have specifically complained about "a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL License that all contributions are made under" while apparently talking about a public domain image. The "strict requirement" (as quoted from an information page, not a policy) also appears to be limited to licenses that require attribution, of which "public domain"/"copyright-ineligible" isn't one. We rather seem to be having a discussion about morals and perhaps policies than license requirements, and I have already acknowledged above that "asking someone to stop that part of the process isn't unreasonable". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're confusing the copyright-ability of the content with the act of the actual contribution. It's true, I do not "own" any of these works. I do, however, "own" the fact that I contributed them (or in the instance of an improvement, contributed to them). Attribution is the issue here, and all contributions are made under CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL. Breaking that agreement takes away one of the few benefits an editor gets for contributing time to these projects and is more than simply a moral question. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a question of plagiarism, I'd say, specifically media plagiarism. Locke Cole, there's something that may have not been highlighted strongly enough in this discussion, perhaps because it is clear to you but not as obvious to others (including me). That is, if I understand correctly, you have not only downloaded the image from somewhere and are now claiming ownership about the search-and-upload process. If I understand correctly, you actually took the time to vectorize this file using Adobe Illustrator. Is that correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I extracted the logo from a PDF file, which may sometimes contain vector information. This vector information can usually be imported into Adobe Illustrator, with extraneous bits removed, then output to a separate AI file, which can then be saved as an SVG (either directly in Illustrator, or sometimes in InkScape). Not all PDF files will have vector versions of logos however, and I will sometimes spend a considerable amount of time poring over PDF files available on a manufacturers website to find one with the vector version (as the rasterized versions are often lower quality than what you can get on the web). Vector logos tend to look better on all versions of Wikipedia (mobile, desktop, etc) and don't run afoul of fair-use concerns because they can be infinitely scaled for our needs while still looking good at any resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation; I wasn't aware of this when writing "nor created by either of you". As this goes beyond uploading something you found on the internet 1:1, I'm sorry for the understatement. Fma12, you seem to have taken the result of that process and uploaded it with an incorrect source link? (permanent link, now fixed) Could you take a moment to explain if this is the case and why you did so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: In the case of the GM main logo that I uploaded to commons, I cited the source as Locke Cole did on File:General Motors (logo with wordmark, horizontal).svg. When I upload vector files that already exist on the en.wiki, I also give credits to the uploader if he drew the vector .SVG (as I did here. In the case of this logo, I cited the original graphic designer who created the emblem, also adding data about the SVG render (me, in this case).
- If I omitted to mark Locke Cole as the person who rendered the SVG file, it was because I didn't know he had done that work. On the other hand, I always distinguish between "original creator" and "person who vectorise a file". Fma12 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fma12, this doesn't appear to be entirely true. You did not cite the source as Locke Cole did, specifically not as in File:General_Motors_(logo_with_wordmark,_horizontal).svg, which points to a PDF file. You have instead linked to a different SVG code that just happens to produce the same (or very similar) visual output. Why did you not link to the actual source you got the image from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: The File:General Motors (logo with wordmark, horizontal).svg indicates a PDF file as source. That's what I said. Have you take a look at commons:File:General motors logo with wordmark.svg? I put the same source. What would be the point here? Fma12 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking about [53], which had been linked above 06:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the case you mention, it was an omision from my part, no second intentions, I was probably on a hurry and did not include the same source citing only the official GMF website. And as you told you above, I was not aware that the uploader had vectorised the file. If so, I would have cited him on the infobox, why not do it? Fma12 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can see ways of this being an unintentional omission, but they at least necessarily include you downloading the original file from the English Wikipedia, forgetting where you got it from on the same day it was uploaded, magically remembering the source within less than 60 seconds after your Commons upload and then failing to correct your mistake. I find that rather unlikely than likely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be sincere, I left behind this debate days ago so this is a closed case for me. Now I'm being called to follow this discussion regarding to sources and other issues that are not (IMO, sorry) too relevant so the discussion was originally about the uploader claming authorship over PD-textlogo images. I thought that I has been clarified after Locke Cole left the discussion.
- What would I win omitting a source of a file which is public domain? You're talking to me as if I moving files to commons to be used on most proyects was something wrong. I copied other files uploaded by Locke Cole and I included the source as he exactly did. By the way, I did not say "I forgot", I did say "omitted to include": call it a mistake, a carelessness... as you prefer. Sorry If I don't remember a source with so long URL address... It seems that you're suggesting bad intentions from my part (I hope you don't). Fma12 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Next time, I'll check the source more carefully. That's the committment I can't take so I always act in good faith. Fma12 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fma12, while this discussion here was open, and after all the unfriendly exchanges at your talk page, you uploaded a file created by Locke Cole to Wikimedia Commons, omitting both a link to the original file and its PDF source, linking to an incorrect source instead. In the same minute, you edited the description page of Locke Cole's upload to link to your incorrectly attributed Commons upload.
- An issue I see with this is that you clearly knew (from Special:Diff/1096945019) that Locke Cole is upset by a lack of attribution of their work. You also clearly knew (same diff) that Locke Cole doesn't like Wikimedia Commons. Copying one of their uploads to Wikimedia Commons and providing an incorrect source while doing so does pretty much look like a bad-faith action in this context. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1) My only mistake was not to be aware of what "keeplocal" tag means (now I know better). I gave you the reasons for the omission so I won't explain it again so it would be redundant and repetitive. 2) If you are referring to this edit, yes, I edited it to link the file to its commons version, what is wrong? It's the same file copied to commons. I usually copy PD files to commons. Is something wrong with that?
- Since this long discussion started, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet and legal threats (both proved wrong), and was even insulted by Locke Cole on myn talk. And I said (to you, specifically) that I did not have ressentment towards him, even wishing he came back. And after all of that, now you're blaming me of bad faith, which is unacceptable after I gave you all my explanations for an omission which was not related to the unfriendly discussion we had.
- Whether if Locke Cole likes commons or not, I did not upload an original creation of his entire authorship but a PD-logo property of GM. I did not do anything wrong but to indicate an incorrect source. NOT on purpose, not with second intentions. Is that so difficult to understand? You previously told me not to use the "libellous" word referring to Locke Cole but you are accusing me of "bad faith". It's a serious allegation as well. Fma12 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "I did not do anything wrong but to indicate an incorrect source." That was 2022-07-07T23:28:14. Less than a minute later at 2022-07-07T23:28:49, you edited the source page (Special:Diff/1096983990). Providing an incorrect source required you to look for a source on the Internet other than the page you actually got the file from. No good-faith reason has been provided for doing so yet. I'd say that's because there is probably none, but you could easily disprove this by finally addressing the point and providing one.
- As this is mostly a Wikimedia Commons conduct issue, I have warned you on your Commons talk page now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- From my opinion, you made the "problem" bigger than it is. I said everything I had to say, after which I will retire from this discussion so I prefer spending my time making useful edits. I have fun editing and creating articles here and that's the way I like being here. Fma12 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can see ways of this being an unintentional omission, but they at least necessarily include you downloading the original file from the English Wikipedia, forgetting where you got it from on the same day it was uploaded, magically remembering the source within less than 60 seconds after your Commons upload and then failing to correct your mistake. I find that rather unlikely than likely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the case you mention, it was an omision from my part, no second intentions, I was probably on a hurry and did not include the same source citing only the official GMF website. And as you told you above, I was not aware that the uploader had vectorised the file. If so, I would have cited him on the infobox, why not do it? Fma12 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking about [53], which had been linked above 06:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: The File:General Motors (logo with wordmark, horizontal).svg indicates a PDF file as source. That's what I said. Have you take a look at commons:File:General motors logo with wordmark.svg? I put the same source. What would be the point here? Fma12 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fma12, this doesn't appear to be entirely true. You did not cite the source as Locke Cole did, specifically not as in File:General_Motors_(logo_with_wordmark,_horizontal).svg, which points to a PDF file. You have instead linked to a different SVG code that just happens to produce the same (or very similar) visual output. Why did you not link to the actual source you got the image from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation; I wasn't aware of this when writing "nor created by either of you". As this goes beyond uploading something you found on the internet 1:1, I'm sorry for the understatement. Fma12, you seem to have taken the result of that process and uploaded it with an incorrect source link? (permanent link, now fixed) Could you take a moment to explain if this is the case and why you did so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I extracted the logo from a PDF file, which may sometimes contain vector information. This vector information can usually be imported into Adobe Illustrator, with extraneous bits removed, then output to a separate AI file, which can then be saved as an SVG (either directly in Illustrator, or sometimes in InkScape). Not all PDF files will have vector versions of logos however, and I will sometimes spend a considerable amount of time poring over PDF files available on a manufacturers website to find one with the vector version (as the rasterized versions are often lower quality than what you can get on the web). Vector logos tend to look better on all versions of Wikipedia (mobile, desktop, etc) and don't run afoul of fair-use concerns because they can be infinitely scaled for our needs while still looking good at any resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a question of plagiarism, I'd say, specifically media plagiarism. Locke Cole, there's something that may have not been highlighted strongly enough in this discussion, perhaps because it is clear to you but not as obvious to others (including me). That is, if I understand correctly, you have not only downloaded the image from somewhere and are now claiming ownership about the search-and-upload process. If I understand correctly, you actually took the time to vectorize this file using Adobe Illustrator. Is that correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're confusing the copyright-ability of the content with the act of the actual contribution. It's true, I do not "own" any of these works. I do, however, "own" the fact that I contributed them (or in the instance of an improvement, contributed to them). Attribution is the issue here, and all contributions are made under CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL. Breaking that agreement takes away one of the few benefits an editor gets for contributing time to these projects and is more than simply a moral question. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Locke Cole, you have specifically complained about "a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL License that all contributions are made under" while apparently talking about a public domain image. The "strict requirement" (as quoted from an information page, not a policy) also appears to be limited to licenses that require attribution, of which "public domain"/"copyright-ineligible" isn't one. We rather seem to be having a discussion about morals and perhaps policies than license requirements, and I have already acknowledged above that "asking someone to stop that part of the process isn't unreasonable". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree and EdJohnston:: apart of accusing me of being a sockpuppet (even opening a case here, quickly closed because of lack of strong and reliable proof) and "legal threats", user Locke Cole has recently replied me with a "FUCK YOU" on my talk page (here) as his sole (and definitive, I guess) response to my arguments. From the beginning, his behaviour towards me has been inappropriate and less than collaborative. But I didn't expect an insult like that. Discussing with that kind of users in a civilised way becomes impossible. Fma12 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Summarization attempt
- The initial ANI concern voiced by Locke Cole was a perceived legal threat by Fma12. It either is none or currently remains unactioned.
- Another concern was the removal of {{keep local}} tags against the will of the uploader, which was clearly incorrect and shouldn't happen again. All Locke Cole had originally requested on Fma12's talk page (Special:Diff/1096697287) was for this to stop.
- The affected files had been unintentionally incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion using {{Now commons}}, which is an understandable mistake that shouldn't happen again. Looking at Special:Diff/1096983990, it's unlikely to happen again as Fma12 has already discovered and used a different way of stating that a keeplocal-tagged file is now also available on Wikimedia Commons.
- Locke Cole has opened a sockpuppet investigation against Fma12; it was closed as "not too believable" ([54]).
- Locke Cole has uploaded a copyright-ineligible SVG logo manually extracted from a PDF file to the English Wikipedia. A few hours later, during the discussion here at ANI, Fma12 has copied the file to Wikimedia Commons with an incorrect, disproved source attribution. I currently interpret this as a bad-faith action, which Fma12 denies. Fma12 has now been warned on their Wikimedia Commons talk page that repeating this behavior will lead to a noticeboard discussion on Wikimedia Commons ([55]).
From the perspective of the English Wikipedia, if similar behavior continues in a way that isn't entirely limited to Wikimedia Commons, it may be worth considering an interaction ban to prevent it from happening again. I personally would like to see proof of it happening again after this discussion before considering this step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- According to @ToBeFree:, my removal of the "keeplocal" tag (in this edition) and the upload of GMF logo on Commons (which did not indicate the same source as its Wiki version) were supposedly done in bad faith.
- I do admit that not being aware of what "keeplocal" tag means made me commit a mistake removing it from the page. About the file uploaded to commons, I ommitted to copy the original pdf source. That's all. Neverheless, ToBeFree persisted on presuming bad faith (see details in the discussion above) for (according to his thought) my animosity towards Locke Cole after our discussion on my page. His suppositions are totally wrong and uncorroborated.
- From my part, this debate (which turned unexpectedly long and rough at times) is closed. Fma12 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I endorse this summary. As regards the legal threat, I'm attempting to ignore it as it has not been repeated since the closure of the SPI even though it remains. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
CIR by Pearlharborandmidway
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pearlharborandmidway (talk · contribs) has repeatedly made unexplained and unsourced changes to a number of articles. Of their 2,000 edits, only 3 of them have been on a talk page in any capacity, and those were all several years ago. They've been blocked twice already for previous instances of persistent addition of unsourced content, and since then, they have had plenty of warnings for it on their talk page, but seem to have no interest in changing or even acknowledging this behaviour.
Diffs:
[59] Loafiewa (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Enough final warnings to publish in hard back. Will leave longer note on their talk. Star Mississippi 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- oh god they're a mobile editor. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 14:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Sexual allegations against a member of The Posies
I'm not much for retaining criminal allegations in the context of a WP:BLP, but these have received a lot of coverage and precipitated the breakup of the group. For the last reason alone, the content is rather integral to an article on the band. A new WP:SPA keeps removing the sourced content in several articles, and claims to be editing on behalf of the accused band member. We need more eyes, and perhaps some administrative assistance. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I second this request, and agree with all statements above. Since the allegations are the known reason of the band's dissolving and well covered, they are worth noting and keeping in my opinion. The SPA in question (at the time of this comment) has complied with the requests not to edit the offending material on The Posies and on Ken Stringfellow, but did actively try in replies to me on their user talk page and on my talk page to get me to remove it for them (I won't). User also seems to have slipped and stated "On a different note, if I might ask if you could please remove any of my information from the pages. I would be appreciative of that." here so if that statement is true, they have a COI. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The account that kept removing the content has been blocked from the articles in question by Cullen328. That's probably enough action for now, unless they take the disruption elsewhere. Girth Summit (blether) 13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I began cutting some of the unsourced history from The Posies, a new IP arose to remove the same content from both articles, so further action may be warranted, Girth Summit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see Drmies has blocked the IP from editing the articles in question. Let us know if they come back on a different IP. Girth Summit (blether) 15:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I began cutting some of the unsourced history from The Posies, a new IP arose to remove the same content from both articles, so further action may be warranted, Girth Summit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Help with backlog on WP:AIV, please?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few editors are vandalizing repeatedly. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Please ban a user
A user keeps saying nonsense to my talk page. Please visit and block it. —Princess Faye (my talk) 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Princess Faye For obvious vandalism you'll get a much faster response at WP:AIV 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Princess Faye: It looks like the IP has been warned and apologized. I don't see where anything else needs done unless they do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Geronimo Virula Medrano El at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Velaz de Medrano
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please do something about Geronimo Virula Medrano El's edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Velaz de Medrano? I have tried to warn this user about his excessive screeds (re: WP:TLDR) and about AFD format issues, but his edits at this AFD have rendered the discussion mostly unintelligible. He has made an extensive (60K worth) argument for the retention of his article (Andres Velaz de Medrano) and I believe it is time for him to stop arguing to allow any other voices to be heard. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- All I did was move your comment down to the "Comments by editors, page publisher and replys", as your reply did not belong at the top of the dispute. I have provided all the sources. Can someone do something about wikidan61? His professionalism is questionable, I am requesting someone who knows more about the topic because it is clear he cannot read what I have provided. He has made clear that it is too much for him to read. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Heavens. I think moving his comments to the talk page and having him make a brief comment (a modest paragraph) summarizing his views and linking to the talk page would be reasonable. That can't stand as is. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- are you serious? Read my sources, look at the citations. This is ridiculous. Stop getting off point. The proof is there. Read. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Literally no one is going to read that much information in a deletion discussion; posting that much will do more harm than good. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're not upholding your duty as a widipedia editor, your purpose is to read my citations and sources. If you or wikidan cannot do that then I am requesting someone else more knowledgeable in the subject. Simple. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Literally no one is going to read that much information in a deletion discussion; posting that much will do more harm than good. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- are you serious? Read my sources, look at the citations. This is ridiculous. Stop getting off point. The proof is there. Read. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Geronimo Virula Medrano El has now reverted me twice, reinstating his preferred (and unreadable) version of the AfD. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You removed my defence and left ONLY my reply to the other editors. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and against the guidelines. You cannot remove my dispute and my citations and sources. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Geronimo Virula Medrano El has just removed my !vote from the discussion, without explanation. [60] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I reverted my previous defense because Mackensen deleted it and wikidan61 went against the guidelines and deleted it. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you denying that you removed my post from the discussion? The evidence is plain for all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: Actually, it was Mackensen who removed your post in this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, AndyTheGrump's post is still there after Mackensen's edit (the refactoring makes it look like it was deleted and reinserted elsewhere). DanCherek (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DanCherek: Check the page history. I re-added their !vote to the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, AndyTheGrump's post is still there after Mackensen's edit (the refactoring makes it look like it was deleted and reinserted elsewhere). DanCherek (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: Actually, it was Mackensen who removed your post in this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you denying that you removed my post from the discussion? The evidence is plain for all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I endorse Mackensen's clerking of the AfD and have restored it. Further, if GVME were to unclerk the page again, it would warrant a final warning for AfD disruption, with a block on a subsequent offence. —C.Fred (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- With regard to the Andres Velaz de Medrano article they've created, Geronimo Virula Medrano El (GVME) has stated:
Look, this is not a random page. This is a divine genealogical study and declaration of my national forefathers.
[61] They believe that this forefather of theirs was a Moorish prince called Abd al-Rahman, firstborn son of the Umayyad caliph al-Hakam II who ruled over Spain in the 10th century. Reliable sources say that Abd al-Rahman died as a young boy, but GVME tried to remove this information from our article twice. [62] [63] When their page on Andres Velaz de Medrano, which revolves around an imagined genealogy and which presents 17th-century Spanish legends as facts, was nominated for deletion, GVME blanked the AfD page. [64]But there's more: they've also created the already deleted Draft:Medrano (surname), another article focused on the imagined history of their family. They've twice added the term "Virulaha" to articles without citing a source, [65] [66] and when queried about this they have said that the "Virula" in their usernamehas everything to do with Virulaha
. [67] Editors trying to explain to them how Wikipedia works have been on the receiving end of personal attacks (e.g.,it i clear that wikidan is only after STARS and to delete people's pages for nothing more than to puff up his ego
[68]) and numerous aspersions.This is clearly very aggravating for them: they have edited the AfD page 345 (!) times. [69] All in all, I think that this editor is, at this time at least, not here to build an encyclopedia, and that it would be better for everyone if they would be indefinitely blocked from editing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Geronimo Virula Medrano El has just made a post on WP:DRN, accusing contributors involved at the AfD discussion of being "sockpuppets and people who are voting in bad faith", while providing precisely zero evidence (not that WP:DRN would be an appropriate place to do so, even with evidence). [70] At this point I'm inclined to agree with Apaugasma above that an indefinite block is appropriate, on more or less all grounds available, starting with basic competence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: I've just informed them that bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry are personal attacks. I look to see how they respond to that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Their response seems to be further personal attacks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked Geronimo from the AfD as they have more than said their piece. The discussion can now hopefully continue to resolution. If someone things further action is required, no issue with my block being ammended. This was to stop the present disruption. Star Mississippi 14:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Threats
Can someone please take a look at this and perhaps protect the page?[71] Semsûrî (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP and semi-protected your Talk page for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Might it also be worth forwarding to WP:EMERGENCY as well, as a clear death threat? Or is it so trollish that it's impossible to take seriously? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocked user abusing talk page
User talk:Pielok1990, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:LouisPhilippeCharles, has been leaving me x-wiki abusive messages (1 2 3), including emails of a similar nature. While the insults are mild, they're all very much of a personal nature and given this user's past behaviour I do not believe there is any benefit in them retaining talk page access CiphriusKane (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CiphriusKane regarding scowiki, we can't help you with that. They appear to have one active admin there, so you may get help at sco:w:Uiser collogue:CiphriusKane. — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I'm aware and the situation there has been dealt with, I was merely providing the link for additional context. Also, ye kinda just recommended I contact myself CiphriusKane (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've revoked their talk page access. They don't need it anyway as any unblock request should come from their main account (even though they're outright banned). Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- CiphriusKane, cross-wiki abuse is best dealt with by stewards over at meta - you can request global lock here. Girth Summit (blether) 18:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
185.24.124.71
185.24.124.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Got an IP using personal attacks on their talk page, just not WP:NOTHERE basically. Judekkan (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The constant "zionist" stuff was enough for me to block for disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced/unreliably sourced caste POV by user User:Virk Khatri along with personal attacks directed towards other editors
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Virk Khatri has been POV pushing Khatri in the Virk article without reliable sources [72] [73] [74]. After I removed the unsourced contents and restored + expanded the article, the user kept on edit warring [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. Also notice the WP:OWN behaviour and personal attacks against me [80] [81], with one [82] targeted towards a religious group → "Stop polluting Sikh articles with your Castist CuIt you Hindu". While the user has been blocked for 31 hours, I would request stringent actions against them including a possible topic ban. Also note that I've started an SPI here, the users listed having quite an overlap when it comes to Khatro POV push. I'd also request protection of the Virk article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will indef per WP:ZT for racist/caste-based bigotry. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked a whole bunch of socks over at the SPI. I think this can be closed. Girth Summit (blether) 18:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Itzhak Rosenberg/User:Cukrakalnis activity
- Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I would like to draw attention to the activities of a user who has a long history of editing in the ethno-nationalist spirit. He was even blocked once for it. He has not stopped his activities. An example is the persistent posting of information in the headline of an article about the fact that Poles in Lithuania, are actually polonized Lithuanians, similar edits in an article about Belarusians. Today he made a series of edits removing information about the Polishness of a number of figures, instead replacing them with information about their Lithuanianness while manipulating the source: Ludwik Narbutt, Zygmunt Sierakowski, Antanas Mackevičius (in first two cases the author used the phrase "bojownicy litewscy"-"Lithuanian fighters" which should be understood as fighting in Lithuania, which is relevant to Sierakowski, who was born in Volhynia; User:Cukrakalnis knows very well that these characters are referred to once as Lithuanians and once as Poles, which is why we use the term "Polish-Lithuanian" to describe them). The most scandalous recent move to publish on Commons maps of pre-war Polish provinces, of which the northeastern ones were described in Lithuanian: Lenkų okupuota, which means "occupied by Poland" (they have already been renamed: 1, 2, 3, 4 Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDING from editor 98.155.8.5
- first edit user 98.155.8.5 edits my talk page in an uninvolved discussion with the personal attack "Well that's disturbing". I reverted.
- second edit user 98.155.8.5 restores previous comment and expands explaining that the user was commenting on my talk page due to an unrelated discussion on an unrelated article. Undo again warning of WP:WIKISTALKING and WP:ANI
- third edit user 98.155.8.5 comments again on my talk page this time in a different thread with Levivich but again referencing the previous discussion with Fram. Another personal attack, this time WP:ABF "Sure dude, just like how your comment above about "now that's how you secure a border" was totally innocent, eh? Please.".
Users Levivich and Fram are uninvolved, while I disagree with them I consider their comments to be in good faith and not disruptive. User 98.155.8.5 is an IP the edit history suggests related edits going back as far as February 2022 and has been warned once in the past regarding edit warring. [83]. Seeking WP:IBAN for 98.155.8.5 specifically for the user commenting on uninvolved conversations on my talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi LaserLegs (talk · contribs), and all others reading this. It's true that my first comment to you was rude; I was frustrated and apologize. I came to your talk page because of the stuff happening over at Killing of Jayland Walker where you seemed intent on diminishing Walker's death. You argued it was not a notable incident worthy of a Wikipedia page and that the media was
"just in it's usual state of hysteria"
, you claimed it was not a killing or a homicide, despite the fact that reliable sources reported it as such. You characterized the deceased's behavior as"wild"
despite the fact that none of us know what was going on during the car chase, and user Levivich (talk · contribs) clearly made a point in his comments to you about why that is unacceptable on your talk page. You responded, simply:"Thanks for reaching out, but I have zero regrets."
- I just don't understand where you are coming from. He came to you in a polite manner, and you couldn't even acknowledge some of his points, which are based on Wikipedia policy! Your coldness and stubbornness are incredibly hurtful. I'm sorry that you seem to have such a negative outlook on things, and appear to lack a bit of civility in terms of relating to other editors who are coming to you in good faith. Yes, Wikipedia is about give and take and sharing multiple perspectives, but when numerous people are repeatedly coming to you and asking you to please tone it down, you just seem to give zero f*cks. Can you at least try to practice a bit of humbleness?
- The Killing of Jayland Walker is a high visibility incident. An unarmed black man being fired upon over 90 times. A little bit of empathy on your part would have gone a long way, but you seemed intent on tearing down Jayland Walker, and debating about things that credible, reliable sources are in agreement upon, in order to tell the story in a different way and put Jayland Walker in a negative light.
- My point about your previous edits from June that user Fram (talk · contribs) brought up with you — in which there was a rather nasty and incredibly insensitive & callous comment made (
"now that's how you secure a border"
) about 23 Moroccans who died while trying to cross an international border — is that you seem to have a pattern of behavior or bias that should probably be addressed. I really wonder if you just don't like people of color, or maybe you've had some bad experiences earlier on in life or whatever, I dunno ... I wasn't going to outright say that, or assume that, and I still don't truly know your motives, but you dragged me here to the ANI board so I figure it's just best to be honest about what's going on here. Maybe you just like to be inflammatory for some reason?? However you cut it, this way of interacting with other Wikipedians really isn't okay on any level. - Also worth pointing out, is that I'm not the only one who has taken issue with your disruptive and perhaps aggressive conversational style. Just today, user WaltCip (talk · contribs) posted to your talk page, requesting that you
"dial it back"
on the ITN/C board. You regularly seem to have an adversarial take on things, which is unfortunate. And instead of actually addressing my concerns, or the concerns Fram (talk · contribs) raised regarding your comment about migrant deaths (you never responded to Fram! why?), you took offense and now here we are. - Why is it so difficult to explain about why you thought it was okay to disparage dead, poor, people of color? I'm just concerned about the way you are interacting with folks here. I certainly could have gone about it in a better way, but you really do seem to be holding on to some dark thoughts & feelings, and it really would be better to just be open about some of that and start working on it, rather than blaming those who are bringing these things to light.
- I hope this can be a productive conversation, and welcome hearing back from you LaserLegs (talk · contribs). It's too bad you felt the need to request a block, because I've been making many positive contributions to Wikipedia, as have you. I don't like the way you behave, but I also thought it would be better to just bring it up with you rather than to try and get you blocked. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- As an aside about being warned for edit warring, it's true! The page about Jayland Walker was being disruptively edited and vandalized. I am not familiar enough here about how to request page protection, and the edit warring brought the necessary attention to get administrator action on the issue. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article has had page protection since the 4th, and it seem distruption has stopped for now. As per WP:OWNTALK if an editor asks you to stop commenting on their talk page, then you should stop. The article talk page is still open for any necessary discussions. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was pinged to this thread, and I don't know if the IP intended to seek my opinion or for me to further elaborate on this matter, but I have nothing to say about this specific incident. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- As an aside about being warned for edit warring, it's true! The page about Jayland Walker was being disruptively edited and vandalized. I am not familiar enough here about how to request page protection, and the edit warring brought the necessary attention to get administrator action on the issue. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- fifth edit, even after being referred to AN/I, continuing to comment on me as an individual in a discussion with which the user is uninvolved. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- LaserLegs (talk · contribs) First off, I was very involved. The discussion is about your behavior over at the Killing of Jayland Walker page. And the point of my comment is that we should be focused on team work here, collaborative effort, and meeting eachother half-way when possible. You do seem to have a problem with that, eh? Any chance you'll be addressing some of the other issues I've raised above? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again LaserLegs (talk · contribs) I can agree to that, so long as you keep any insensitive comments to yourself (and tread more carefully on the pages that I'm also editing); especially in regards to people of color and people who have died unfortunate deaths! Please try and have more compassion! I am literally begging you here!!
- Would you also agree to please work on some of your stuff, and be a bit more reserved and civil in the future? Your repeated dog whistles are very much not appreciated, please keep those biases to yourself. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- sixth edit where the user suggests that I "please work on some of your stuff" a reference to the editors previous comment where the user suggested "you really do seem to be holding on to some dark thoughts & feelings" thus continuing to discuss me as an individual even after being asked expressly not to do so. Would an admin please step in and issue a WP:IBAN? I'm tired of being WP:HOUNDING on my talk page and having my personality evaluated and commented on by someone who I've never met, and who lashed out at me over good faith edits made to a page that I expected to shortly end up at WP:ITNC. Now the user is demanding that I "tread more carefully on the pages that I'm also editing" as if I owe them some special treatment. Please I just want this torment to end. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I feel tormented by your insensitive comments as they relate to people of color, how do you not see that? I can agree to not post on your talk page in unrelated comment threads, and to not attack you as an individual; but this has nothing to do with your personality and everything to do with your offensive comments! This is about actual conduct and rude behavior here on Wikipedia.
- LaserLegs (talk · contribs) would you also agree to please be a bit more reserved and civil in the future?
- I'm not asking for special treatment, I'm asking for some decency and respect on your part. Can you agree to that? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- You really must accept LaserLegs request to stop posting on their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK they absolutely have the right to ask you to stop and people have been sanctioned for not respecting such requests. Any behaviour issue of LaserLegs is separate from this, and you are only hurting you argument by continuing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I do accept that (as mentioned above) in my most recent previous comment. Totally fine with not posting to their talk page!
- Can you or another administrator please urge them to be more sensitive and civil especially when related to wiki articles & issues pertaining to the deaths of people of color? Levivich already urged them to do so and was disregarded. It would be very much appreciated, and I think it's a reasonable ask in order to minimize toxicity and conflict, keeping Wikipedia relatively safe for everyone who participates and interacts on this platform. Thank you!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I didn't feel disregarded. Now, granted, LL didn't respond with the traditional, preferred response to my complaints ("Oh great Levivich! Forgive me for offending thee!" etc. etc.), but at the same time, I haven't noticed any problems since having the discussion with LL on their talk page. I feel that the issue I raised on LL's talk page was settled through discussion on LL's talk page. Levivich[block] 16:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for chiming in Levivich, good to hear that you feel things are okay. Yeah, it's confusing when someone doesn't respond to concerns raised with something like "I hear you" even if they disagree (or choose to be defensive or say they
"have zero regrets"
). Otherwise, it may appear as though the person is ignoring the conversation, refusing the feedback, and unwilling to engage around the issue. Totally understand that everyone communicates differently, and that actions speak louder than words, but just even the smallest acknowledgement that something might be problematic goes a really really long way. : ) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for chiming in Levivich, good to hear that you feel things are okay. Yeah, it's confusing when someone doesn't respond to concerns raised with something like "I hear you" even if they disagree (or choose to be defensive or say they
- 98.155.8.5, I don't see where you ever agreed to it above. What I do see is you said "
I can agree to that, so long as you keep any insensitive comments to yourself (and tread more carefully on the pages that I'm also editing)
" which is not acceptable. There is no "so long as". You need to stay away from their talk page period with the only exception being compulsory notices etc. If there are behavioural issues that are serious enough to need attention, you can bring them up in one of the administrative noticeboards. You can explain that you haven't been able to discuss the issue with them because they asked you to stay away from their talk page. If there are content disputes these can be discussed on whatever relevant talk pages. More generally disliking someone's views is something you'll have to accept here. While generally editors should not be discussing their views, sometimes they come across for various reasons and ultimately you sometimes have to accept that however you may personally feel about them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- Hello Nil Einne (talk · contribs), I'm referring to my more recent statement:
"I can agree to not post on your talk page in unrelated comment threads, and to not attack you as an individual; but this has nothing to do with your personality and everything to do with your offensive comments! This is about actual conduct and rude behavior here on Wikipedia."
- This was one post above from the other one that said
"I do accept that"
, the post above ActivelyDisinterested's most recent message in which they basically said the same thing as you. It's ironic that some people want Wikipedia to be a free speech zone, but then don't wanna talk about said speech. Baffling really. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- Sorry I missed that one. It's a lot better although note your agreement should be to not post unless required, rather than simply in unrelated comment threads. Also, Wikipedia is not a free speech zone period. While there's some limited tolerance of editors mentioning their views when it is comes up for some reason and isn't excessively disruptive, any editor who does it excessively or disruptively needs to be cautioned and if necessary stopped from editing if they keep at it. In other words, if an editor keeps saying things that you find offensive, the better solution is to remind the editor Wikipedia isn't the place for that (if it's off-topic/unrelated to improving Wikipedia) rather than trying to argue with them about how what they said is offensive. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Nil Einne (talk · contribs), I'm referring to my more recent statement:
- FWIW, I didn't feel disregarded. Now, granted, LL didn't respond with the traditional, preferred response to my complaints ("Oh great Levivich! Forgive me for offending thee!" etc. etc.), but at the same time, I haven't noticed any problems since having the discussion with LL on their talk page. I feel that the issue I raised on LL's talk page was settled through discussion on LL's talk page. Levivich[block] 16:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You really must accept LaserLegs request to stop posting on their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK they absolutely have the right to ask you to stop and people have been sanctioned for not respecting such requests. Any behaviour issue of LaserLegs is separate from this, and you are only hurting you argument by continuing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Overly aggressive behavior from User:Subtropical-man
While my interaction with User:Subtropical-man has been brief, I have immediately noticed behavior that strikes me as alarming/aggressive.
My good faith edit was removed, in which I corrected the perceived errors of a reversion and submitted a new one explaining my reasoning for the edit in a clear and concise manner. In response, the message on my talk page:
- Assumes I "only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing", stating that my change is not rooted in logic and comes off as incredibly judgmental of my abilities to contribute to Wikipedia
- Discounting my edits due to my edit footprint, indicating that because I have a low edit account I again have "no idea what I'm doing"
- Accuses me of starting an edit war over a single edit (severe escalation/accusation of my behavior)
- Gave me a "last warning" which I assume was an attempt to bully me through a vague/urgent threat, taking advantage of my "apparent" lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes as a new user, considering the user in question doesn't have elevated permissions to take (unnecessary) serious action on my edits
In normal circumstances I would attribute the aggressive rhetoric in their response to the fact that English is not their first language and been more forgiving of the behavior, but looking into their talk page there seems to be a consistent pattern of aggression in their recent edits, resulting in a previous ANI and recent warnings regarding their rhetoric from other users for activity such as that on Talk:Perth. I don't feel like I will be able to engage in a good faith discussion regarding my edits and thought I'd bring their behavior to a more formal audience. Sam WalczakTalk/Edits 23:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sam Walczak, you analyze each my word too literally. Maybe my one sentence "You are a new user, you have a very small contribution to Wikipedia [1] and you only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing" is impolite and unnecessary opinion, I just assumed that because you are pushing your version again even though it is debatable. Maybe my comment in your discussion partly contained impolite and unnecessary opinion, but note that most of my text of this comment is an exact explanation of the problem. I consider your change to be wrong as malta has no cities / towns but only administrative units named "local councils". You tried to compare Malta to other countries, but other countries have cities so it's no problem to enter the largest of them into the infobox. Malta is different from other countries because there are no cities. Instead of continuing the discussion, you started a thread in ANI because I wrote a rude sentence. In my opinion, this is an abuse. We both made a mistake - lack of good faith. I invite you to a substantive discussion about the infobox in the article Malta. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I just wanted to point out the existence of this. – 2.O.Boxing 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this article breaks the Wikipedia:No original research and totally breaks the Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article is either for removal according to Wikipedia rules. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I just wanted to point out the existence of this. – 2.O.Boxing 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Squared.Circle.Boxing's point was in mentioning List of towns in Malta, but it certainly isn't an intentional hoax and I have therefore reverted Subtropical-man's prod and started a discussion on the talk page about what is to be done about it. I found we had 3 articles and at one point had 4, all with lengthy histories (including Subtropical-man himself in 2017). Subtropical-man, insulting wording like
You are a new user, you have a very small contribution to Wikipedia [1] and you only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing
shouldn't simply be waved away as[M]aybe ... partly contain[ing] impolite and unnecessary opinion
. Please discuss civilly, and without labelling others' work with the word "hoax", which implies a deliberate intent to deceive. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Squared.Circle.Boxing's point was in mentioning List of towns in Malta, but it certainly isn't an intentional hoax and I have therefore reverted Subtropical-man's prod and started a discussion on the talk page about what is to be done about it. I found we had 3 articles and at one point had 4, all with lengthy histories (including Subtropical-man himself in 2017). Subtropical-man, insulting wording like
- Please note that English Wikipedia connects people from all over the world. There are different cultures and manners in the world. In my region of my country where I live, the use this type of sentence is not offensive, it is just a admonition (I don't know if I used the correct word), pointing out that "if you don't know the topic, don't argue". I wasn't going to offend anyone, I don't even know the user Sam Walczak at all. However, if this is offensive to him, I apologize. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Subtropical-man, please note that the English Wikipedia has its own rules regarding civility. You may be best advised to better familiarise yourself with those rules and abide by them, lest you find yourself on a Wiki holiday courtesy of a passing Admin. Also note that the issue is not offending any particular editor, it is not abiding by the civility rules that is at issue here. - Nick Thorne talk 10:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have also received unnecessarily aggressive comments from this user. See: User talk:Poketama#Brisbane
- Disclaimer: I have had content related disputes with them. Poketama (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive, non responsive beauty pageant editor (8 July)
- IWakeeVibwike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPA editor in pages covered by beauty pageants general sanction is non responsive and continually making disruptive edits. Two warnings from bots went unheeded. Followed by warning #1 from me [84]; warning #2 from me [85]; then reintroduction of bad sources after the last warning [86]. Editor has never replied on their own talkpage or any other as far as I can tell. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- They are still at it [87] ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- And again in an edit I just reverted. Admin help on this would be appreciated. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- And again [88] ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Problematic mass removal of sources by Headbomb
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Headbomb has been removing all sources by the publisher Cambridge Scholars Publishing from articles encyclopedia wide. This seems premature, as no consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion about the publisher at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I personally disagree with the blanket removal of these sources, as many of the authors are notable academics within their respective fields, and these books are in the collections of many university libraries. Further, it seems that some changes have been made to improve the editorial oversight of CSP, so I am not convinced that they should be viewed as unreliable. (I am still making up my mind). Regardless, others at the RS noticeboard discussion have commented on the premature removal of this content and the edit wars and contention it has caused. I respectfully request, that Headbomb be asked to desist removing the sources and reverting editors who object until the relevant discussion has reached a conclusion. Further, it's clear to me that no thought whatsoever, beyond a blanket dismissal of the publisher, was put into the removing of the content. No consideration of the author and their standing as an academic (as we would do when using a Blog as a source per WP:BLOG where it states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication.") In short, I doubt Headbomb even looked at the sources themselves but just saw the publisher and removed it. A more thoughtful approach would be better.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please notify any user you start discussions about. I have done so, but please do so in the future. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- They did. DanCherek (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind. I saw you notified the user but the message was removed. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- This complaint is misleading. First, Headbomb has not been removing all the junk publisher citations; he removed a selection where the material was already attributed to a credible source. Second, Headbomb didn't remove these junk citations in defiance of an ongoing discussion. Rather, the discussion came about later. This is the BRD cycle working as intended. Since this litigation misrepresents what's actually happened, I do not blame Headbomb for not even dignifying it with his participation. Reyk YO! 04:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocked
51.253.0.0/18 is Blocked By Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.253.75.130 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yamaguchi先生 appears to be the blocking admin, the range will need to be widened to 51.253.0.0/16 to catch the latest IP. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
92.16.15.253
92.16.15.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Most of this IP's unconstructive edits have been reverted by multiple editors (for various reasons). Asking them to stop adding unsourced content fell on deaf ears, just like all the warnings that they received so far. Input on how to make them see sense would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Pinging some of the involved editors (HistoryofIran, Mako001, Dr.Pinsky and Packer&Tracker). M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Most of their edits in the last two days are fine and obviously in good faith. I did see a BLP concern, one I reverted that assigned a religion to someone without a source. Several of the ones I saw reverted were where they just added wikilinks without changing the text, or changed flag size, etc. These might be a pain, but again, I think they are acting in good faith. I have to leave for several hours, so many someone else can look closer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, valid point about the apparent good faith. Their unresponsiveness is rather frustrating though, and they don't seem to have any idea where their talkpage is yet, or that it even exists. It would be worth giving them a proper explanation of exactly what the issues with their editing were, if there was some assurance that they were actually aware of it. As it is, I don't see any point doing so, since they are apparently unaware of what they are doing wrong, or that they are even doing anything wrong. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Their lack of communication is indeed annoying at times as pointed out by M.Bitton. I thought of adding a Welcome message on their talk page and encourage them to contribute after logging in but apparently they never respond to talk page notices, User_talk:92.16.15.253. I think in their recent contributions; Special:MobileDiff/1097253533 & Special:MobileDiff/1097254823; they haven't been exactly disruptive but certainly not adding much value either to those articles. I second Makoo1 statement, they need a proper explaination on How to contribute constructively to the enclyopedia (WP:AGF) like most newbies and must be great If they do with a account in future, Cheers.Packer&Tracker (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. When people have no notion of having a talkpage, the only effective way to help them find it is unfortunately a block. I have blocked the user indefinitely, with a link to their talkpage in the block log. Bishonen | tålk 18:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC).
- Umm. Bishonen, I assume "indefinitely" in this case is meant to be "hopefully a shorter duration than a year", yet I'd prefer any automatic expiration to a lack thereof on IP blocks, as there is always the chance of the IP address being re-assigned to someone else, sometimes even to different countries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks
~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks
- Umm. Bishonen, I assume "indefinitely" in this case is meant to be "hopefully a shorter duration than a year", yet I'd prefer any automatic expiration to a lack thereof on IP blocks, as there is always the chance of the IP address being re-assigned to someone else, sometimes even to different countries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE IP from Indonesia
- 182.1.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
This IP has been going around various TV/Film articles and adding a huge chunk of fake casting since 23:14, February 17, 2022 which has been reverted instantaneously, I do however believe this behavior should be curbed as this is simply disruptive and trolling/fooling around. As there are too many articles that IP has added fake casting to, here are few examples such as The Clowned Clown (just today only), The Last Princess (film), Kotodama – Spiritual Curse, and Suburra (film). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Editor RJS001 at JKR
Following on this edit to BLP J. K. Rowling by RJS001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who has previous talk notices re disruptive editing [89] [90] [91] and was previously alerted to a different discretionary sanction), my new discretionary alerts in the area of BLP and gender-related topics yielded these responses:
- And sorry you like to defend bigotry. Maybe you can get over that in time as you mature
- “how about this, just cause i say a few people are transphobic you ought to be too and imma defend it with saying there is a consensus”
- Sorry i don’t remove correct peronsalization of transphobes who defend each other.
Does not look promising re WP:NOTHERE. Notifying RJS001 next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Follow up: I was attacking the user’s transphobia. As was very clear in it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- RJS001 very persistently avoids any assumption of good faith. I support a block and hope their mind can change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Seems a proponent of the non-apology in many cases too... Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- RJS001 very persistently avoids any assumption of good faith. I support a block and hope their mind can change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, in edit conflict, failed to add this personal attack at Talk:J. K. Rowling. Yes, now more clearly in WP:NOTHERE territory; this came after the discretionary alerts were acknowledged, so is block worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Could that attack on me be oversighted pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Continuing, an hour later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked RJS001 for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks also for addressing the post at JKR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked RJS001 for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Trademark owner asserts 'right by law' to write about their cryptocurrency on Wikipedia.
Ychaim (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to adding mentions of a cryptocurrency called 'OTC' to Wikipedia. They have claimed here to own the copyright/trademark, and have now said that they have the right by law to add any related OTC cryptocurrency. If so, such a right is new to me. I suggest that the cryptocurrency general sanctions be applied. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ollie's being nice; User talk:Ychaim#July 2022 is filled with Ychaim making personal attacks against Ollie ("Whats your problem hater...soon you will understand you are not top of the world...You are hater and doesn't not know to respect the law...be a man", etc.). Also there seems to be a language issue. This editor should just be blocked for promo, PAs, poor English, CIR, etc. Levivich[block] 16:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Ychaim for promotional editing, personal attacks and lack of competence. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think some general statement needs to be made in policy that nobody has a legal right to have "their" subject included on Wikipedia, or, if it exists already, it needs to be better publicised. This issue seems to come up time and time again. Why does anyone think that the law would involve itself in such matters? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd imagine the Venn diagram of people who think this and believe that "freedom of speech" applies to them every and anywhere is actually just a circle. I doubt clarifying it in policy or anywhere else will make a difference. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Prax. There's no point in arguing with someone who would make such a ridiculous statement, just block and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am professionally competent to deem the assertion "my copyright has registered trademarks" (with a reference to some random purported UK trademark registration number) at best equally as sensible as "my hovercraft is full of eels". This is not pro bono legal advice to the WMF; it is a tautology. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Prax. There's no point in arguing with someone who would make such a ridiculous statement, just block and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- If someone does this sort of thing, use the advertising warning templates and direct them to WP:N. If they continue, keep warning them until they either stop, in which case stop warning them, or continue past the fourth warning, in which case report them. RteeeeKed💬📖 21:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd imagine the Venn diagram of people who think this and believe that "freedom of speech" applies to them every and anywhere is actually just a circle. I doubt clarifying it in policy or anywhere else will make a difference. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think some general statement needs to be made in policy that nobody has a legal right to have "their" subject included on Wikipedia, or, if it exists already, it needs to be better publicised. This issue seems to come up time and time again. Why does anyone think that the law would involve itself in such matters? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Ychaim for promotional editing, personal attacks and lack of competence. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Related to this event, see also the 'justifications' being presented at Talk:ISO 4217#'conflict' with ISO for inclusion of Ponzi scheme cryptocurrency TLAs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- My hot take is that WP would be better off if we banned any and all NFT/crypto crap, as would the rest of the world PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Beauty pageants and "pro" wrestling too, while you're at it, please. EEng 05:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is currently an essay on the notability of crypto at Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) which I have found useful to refer to. I would certainly support any effort to convert it into a notability guideline to provide a bit more support to those dealing with the issue. Gusfriend (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am pinging GorillaWarfare and David Gerard for their input on a possible cryptocurrency notability guideline. Both are very knowledgeable about cryptocurrencies, blockchain and NFTs. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are a lot of notable cryptocurrency and NFT articles on the site, like Bitcoin and Bored Ape. Not covering these articles would be a bad idea, since they're notable. RteeeeKed💬📖 20:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- RteeeeKed, no one disputes that there are many cryptocurrency topics that are notable and that we ought to cover those topics neutrally. It is also indisputable that the entire topic area is rife with spam and scams and deception, and that we need extra scrutiny in this area. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Neplota
Neplota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We currently have an editor (User:Neplota) having multiple slow edit wars in the middle of short talks and an RFC. Canada, UK, Japan.The main purpose of the edits is to add data to the infobox that despite being in other articles is being contested in these cases . I do find this edit odd that removed the data they are trying to add on other pages? Is this someone here just to mess with us and waste our time? Moxy- 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, the Australia page. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- this edit is to that page...what is odd is they removed the data they are trying to add in other places. Saying "as the categories included are very ambiguous e.g., oceanian"..but this is what they are trying to odd to others ...clasification with the term "oceanian". Are they just trying to start problmes/debates all over?Moxy-
17:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
User: Blondeignore
Blondeignore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does mostly abusive rants on fringe topics (eg claiming NASA killed JFK) - not just talk pages either.
They have not improved their behaviour despite several warnings on their talk page and have been doing so for over a decade with no sign of stopping. 2001:8003:34A3:800:4429:48C1:37E8:1992 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
DaneDN, legal threats, personal attacks, and wrong attitude to AfD
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm afraid I've run out of patience. DaneDN has been verging on bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Bioresearch Ltd defending this article on a company offering a crypto thing. Following a rather harsh assessment from an IP, DaneDN made a legal threat and was cautioned by Gene93k. They have not withdrawn the threat, instead they've reasserted it:[92] DaneDN was also abusive towards the IP (see the immediate run-up to the previous diff). This has been going on too long; I did note the verging-on-bludgeoning at [93], but I note that the argumentative attitude has continued. Elemimele (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- To my untrained eye, ~80% of the discussion is DaneDN wielding a brickbat. Time to stop. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- DaneDN has not edited in two days. The AfD should be over tomorrow, and there's already a clear consensus to delete. The comments about criminal defamation are a borderline legal threat. I think some admins might block, and others not. All that said, this is not "verging on bludgeoning" - it is bludgeoning. If the editor were still editing, I would block them now, but let's wait and see if they resume.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also afraid I've run out of patience. Entirely. Totally out of patience. I would not expect such an obnoxious behavious from a wikipedia editor, but I gues you are on a power trip and assume to be always on the right side, no matter what. You are constantly twisting facts to fit your narrative that I made legal treast, when this never actually happened. What really happened was we had the IP was intentionally making defamatory claims against the company. The IP claimed that the company is a scam with a bold statement. For some reason, you seem very supportive when it comes to abusive behaviours, as long as they are against the company. For this, you should be called out. Stating that publicly throwing mud on the company equals to a criminal defamation is only describing facts, If I say that robbing a bak is a crime, I am not making a legal threats, I am just describing the law. Never I observed a single positive contributions to find more sources for the article, as you have clearly no interest in contributing whatsever. DaneDN (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN I would not recommend engaging in personal attacks while you've already violated policy, not to mention demonstrating your utter failure to understand Wikipedia, with completely baseless legal threats. Unless your goal is to get indefinitely blocked, in which case, good job. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Facts are facts. If you state publicly that a company is a scam, you are intentionally damaging its reputation. Making legal threats would mean to threat to sue the website for posting defamatory material. But I would not even be in the position to make such threats because I do not own the company. So your accusation does not even make sense. It's a fictional narrative that you are creating just solely to accuse me of something, DaneDN (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- So, stop making them. But it's clear you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia and you're not here to do anything but be combative, so... PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Facts are facts. If you state publicly that a company is a scam, you are intentionally damaging its reputation. Making legal threats would mean to threat to sue the website for posting defamatory material. But I would not even be in the position to make such threats because I do not own the company. So your accusation does not even make sense. It's a fictional narrative that you are creating just solely to accuse me of something, DaneDN (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN are receiving any compensation from anyone to edit on Wikipedia? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir are you receiving any compensation to work against the comapny page? Or to make personal attacks against those who are tyting to positively contriuting for the page? DaneDN (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN No, I am not receiving any compensation to edit Wikipedia. I've never heard of the company. I am an admin and saw this section in my watchlist. Now, please answer my question. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir are you receiving any compensation to work against the comapny page? Or to make personal attacks against those who are tyting to positively contriuting for the page? DaneDN (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN I would not recommend engaging in personal attacks while you've already violated policy, not to mention demonstrating your utter failure to understand Wikipedia, with completely baseless legal threats. Unless your goal is to get indefinitely blocked, in which case, good job. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- We. That's not a good sign. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 16:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposal
It's obvious DaneDN has no intent of contributing meaningfully and only wishes to promote this article/company while denigrating editors in good standing and given their inclination to lean into legal threats, I suggest an indefinite block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- support as proposer. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not a fan of these votes for banning things, but, yeah, that we strongly suggests they and their meatpuppets can go. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 16:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support it's quite clear, even going back to their first edits over 6 years ago, that they're only interested in promoting this company. Every single edit has been about it. And in fact, I've just gone ahead and done it as it's quite blatant they're not interested in anything other than this promotion. Canterbury Tail talk 16:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, gee @Canterbury Tail would you look at that, immediately after your block this spa shows up to restore their edits! PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sock, or rotten meat, has been put in the trash. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, gee @Canterbury Tail would you look at that, immediately after your block this spa shows up to restore their edits! PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support Going back over other interactions Dane has had, it’s clear that they are hostile and not suitable for the collaboration needed for improving Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support I too Support an indef block, would have to agree that regardless the interactions Dane made, Dane is indeed hostile, and not here to build an encyclopedia. Indef block is hightly recommended. Chip3004 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
User:LathanBarbinTheFanOfYoutube
LathanBarbinTheFanOfYoutube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor was blocked for disruptive editing on June 19, 2022. Since returning, they have made 32 edits, and in 9 of those edits, they left an edit summary threatening to block anyone who reverts them. I told this editor this was unacceptable, after which they continued leaving the edit summary "Stop or Block", and left a note on my talk page asking me to stop. I'm not sure this editor is getting it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Ficaia repeatedly adding content I believe to be a copyright violation.
Please can someone review this series of edits and reverts on this article Xiangkhouang_rebellion_(1834) I have removed text after being told of the original source. Because the text is clearly a copy/paste from the original with very minor changes to make it look like it isn't, it's not even paraphrasing, it's just swapping out a couple of words. with no original content or addition. User:Ficaia has repeatedly re-added the same text with minimal changes without addressing the copyright violation concerns. I think the article should be deleted anyway per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiangkhouang_rebellion_(1834) but in the meantime do not believe we should leave the article with the only on-topic content being a plagiarized paragraph from a source.
The article text, (It has been even closer to the source than this, this is the "Completely reworded section")
In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang revolted.[8] The uprising was violently put down, and the Vietnamese massacred the population of the entire kingdom. Many tried to seek asylum in Siam. Around 6,000 Phuan crossed the Mekong, but soon found that they would be deported by the Siamese to Bangkok, and some 3,000 attempted to return home. Most of those who tried to return died; others returned to see their homeland in a state of despoliation, occupied by Vietnamese troops.[9]
is clearly the same as the source
"In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished."
(Simms, Sanda (2013). The Kingdoms of Laos: Six Hundred Years of History.)
JeffUK (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ficaia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has previous notices of copyright issues:
- from Dark-World25 on 5 June 2022
- from Diannaa on 6 June 2022
- from Diannaa again on 26 June
- from Johnbod on 6 July 2022
- And was blocked for edit warring on July 3, 2022, but is now edit warring again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the paragraph in question as it is far too closely paraphrased and left detailed information on the user's talk page as to why it's not acceptable. The user has received some postings on their talk page regarding attribution issues and a couple of not-too-detailed warnings about our copyright policy, so instead of my usual indef block for copyvio I have gone with a one-week block for the edit warring and copyright issues. I intend to monitor the user's contribs once the block expires and will re-block if the copyright problems resume. There's no way for me to tell if they are copying from books I don't have access to though. — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Somebody might want to have a gander at the articles they've created. Saint Catherine Reading has text that is closely (almost verbatim) copied from the cited sources. I don't think an editor with such a poor understanding of copyright policies should have the autopatrolled right. – 2.O.Boxing 13:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, Squared.Circle.Boxing. I meant to remove the autopatrolled right and have now done so. If you wish to file a request that all their contributions be reviewed for copyright, the place to go is WP:CCI. — Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The texts at Saint Catherine Reading are in the public domain and are okay to copy if properly attributed. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Specifically, most of the article is a direct copy of Hurll 1901, which already has the proper
{{PD-notice}}
template. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC) - Sandy, the post by me re Yoruba art related (see talk) to text he had not added, which I pointed out was copied from the cited source. He was trying to avoid the copyvio by rephrasing, but imo had not done enough to achieve this. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
user:HTGS Repeated edit warring, constantly wanting to start trouble without explanations for their edits.
- HTGS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SjShane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- List of political parties in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- New Zealand National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
user:HTGS has been attempting multiple edit wars against sourced content I added, and playing ignorant on each subject matter and as far as I can tell, trying to play the system. It started on List of political parties in New Zealand, this user reverted edits made by another user correctly listing party ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand&diff=1096712131&oldid=1096706282
Following this I reverted the edits, and added additional content for each party. The user reverted my edit once more, and proclaimed I needed a source. I reverted the edit again, and stated they were listed on the party page, as such with all the listed party ideologies.
Once I mentioned this, the user then started attacking the page that listed the sources, by removing them, New Zealand National Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand_National_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1096817226
This resulted in edit warring between me and the user, and I admit I was mistaken to do so. We have both talked over on Talk:New Zealand National Party, and User talk:SjShane, but the user chose to continue edit warring over discussing the edits and sources. They have made multiple attempts at stating the sources aren’t accurate, or that they don’t state the party ideology by name despite listing them by definition (this one I have sought help on, as I believe it is justified, but can’t find a wikipolicy on it). Ironically though, the version of the page they are opting to revert to contains the same perceived issues with the source. I also provided New Zealand government website sources to show the party’s voting history aligns with the ideologies listed. The user has continued to edit war throughout this discussion though, eventually stopping replying to me and still reverting to their preferred version. I requested that the page be locked until further discussion which was accepted. The user then attempted to get their preferred version back by contacting the admin, while also admitting a bias, with their request declined. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mifter&diff=prev&oldid=1097364499
Throughout this I have been engaging with the user on both the party page and my user page, asking if they could please establish some recent sources that counter what the ones I provided stated before removing the edit. The user has instead just opted to say they can’t take me seriously, and doubled down on attacking the sources.
After not getting the version they wanted back in place, the user has now opted to remove information from Christian right by stating it’s unsourced (despite once again, being listed on the party pages with sources). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_right&diff=prev&oldid=1097541905
This gives me the impression the user still wishes to edit war in regards to this rather than be productive over these pages and actually discuss the changes. I feel I have done everything possible to sort the issue out respectfully but the user still wishes to ignore the subject and put their personal opinion before sourced articles.
I have not made edits on this page, buf I also see a potentially biased edit they made over on another page I follow, Clarke Gayford by removing additional/helpful information there too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarke_Gayford&curid=54973863&diff=1097537005&oldid=1091517545 I’m not sure if this os a frequent trend with this user, and I do not wish to start personal trouble, but feel it’s very unfortunate that sourced content is being deleted and removed by a user because of their personal opinions.
Any help is greatly appreciated, as I wish for these articles to be factually correct, but do not wish to engage in pointless edit warring when they refuse to reply to the points I make or establish any counter evidence. SjShane (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SjShane: You are required to notify any editor you report here - you have not done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content dispute, not a conduct one. On List of political parties in New Zealand, HTGS reverted twice, to the status quo. You reverted twice, away from the status quo. On New Zealand National Party, HTGS reverted four times, across two days, to the status quo. You did the same, except away from the status quo.
- If your bold edit is reverted it is time to seek dispute resolution; I note that HTGS attempted to start a conversation on List of political parties in New Zealand, to which you responded with a simple expression of disagreement, and an accusation that HTGS was engaged in vandalism.
- I see a longer conversation has occurred at New Zealand National Party, but there you appear to be demanding that HTGS satisfy you, and insisting on your preferred version of the page if they do not rather than engaging in dispute resolution.
- On a related note, it appears that you were attempting to include content without references, instead citing references on a different Wikipedia page. Per WP:V, this isn't permissible; content pages should include all relevant references. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Incorrect, as the user is refusing further discussion on the issue while still reverting edits. All I know at this point that they “can’t take me seriously” while continuing to engage in further revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SjShane&diff=prev&oldid=1097556601 They are also partaking in the removal of information on other pages unrelated to me such as Clarke Gayford.
- In regards for the term “vandalism”, that’s typically what it was called on Wiki years ago if someone removed sourced content without reason, which at the time, did lack reason. And upon further discussion, seems to have run dry over the last few days with reverts without talking.
- I am not expecting the user to “satisfy me”, but rather find more accurate and recent sources to back the edits they have been making to the page, which would directly counter the edits I have been making. I believe if you check the sources under ideology on their edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand_National_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1097215040, you’ll find them to be much more disputable, and ironically suffer from not aligning with the ideology. The only opposition to my edits that they have offered is their opinion, while I offered many other sources on the talk page, some which offer a balanced view. This is about making the article factually correct, any sources that suggests the reverted version the user seeks is accurate and recent would be extremely helpful and I would no longer be fighting for what I feel is accuracy, but none have been provided. I actually find your reference unfair when I have been doing everything to find mutual ground with the user responding only with an opinion, and have attempted messaging for Third Opinions and help from an admin. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1096852907
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&diff=prev&oldid=1097229363
- If you are referring to the unsourced content on either List of political parties in New Zealand or Christian right, none of the prior or corresponding information for other political parties is sourced either. In this situation, why directly remove my edits when there’s an entire list to be removed? I’d argue that’s targeted. I’m happy to provide the same sources listed on New Zealand National Party on the pages, along with other sources for Vision NZ and Conservative NZ, however literally none of the other parties have sourced content either, so it seems strange to add them for my edits when every other page expects to user to explore the Wiki page for each article. Given this situation, perhaps the entire list should be removed? SjShane (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some final thoughts from me. If this is an ongoing dispute, the user needs to be focused on the discussion rather than claiming they they “can’t take me seriously” as an excuse to not engage, while continuing to revert edits and remove content that does not sit with their opinion, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia: No Original Research.
- On New Zealand National Party I disputed the sources this user is reverting to, with no argument from anyone except this user. They have failed to provide additional sources to support this edit.
- I wish to no longer engage in edit warring with the user, however this will mean the pages will likely be reverted to incorrect information without a valid reason. I am happy to continue discussion, however it has been on going for days now, remained between me and this user, and they have not responded to key points I have brought up, nor offered any evidence or logic behind their edits. I don’t believe there will be a proper resolution, as no other users have joined the discussion on this matter, and imagine the page will be reverted the moment it is unprotected under the same labeling from the user which has already been discussed to death.
- This in my humble opinion is vandalism, as it is one person’s opinion vs two sourced articles, and results in clear misinformation on the page. Last I checked a “liberal” political party does not oppose abortion rights or a ban on gay conversion therapy, which I have cited in the discussion page. SjShane (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it appropriate or necessary for me to respond here? I find much of what SjShane has claimed to be mischaracterisation and misrepresentation. I also have counter-allegations on conduct, but I’m not very clear as to the level needed to post this forum (I try to avoid this sort of admin stuff, so I do appreciate those who get their hands dirty). I will just point out that warring takes two (and more), and SjShane has been warring over the National Party page since June 29, taking ‘unconventional’ action and argument to protect his version. — HTGS (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Edit warring is serious but since both of you are edit warring so we might as well block both of you. Far more serious than edit warring are personal attacks. It's clear this is a content dispute and so anyone who calls it vandalism is engaging in personal attack which should lead to blocks of repeated. Also a reminder that what editors think a '“liberal” political party' does is irrelevant. What matters is how reliable secondary sources describe the political party. If this doesn't tally with editor's personal views of what an X political party is, this is not our concern. Another reminder that "party A supports position C as per source E, so this makes them an X political party" is not an acceptable argument on wikipedia. Nor is "party A supports position C as per source E, and source G says parties of position C are X political party, so we can say party A is an X political party". Both of these are forms of WP:OR. Editors wanting to add that party A is an X political party needs a source so. Also, as always if the two of you cannot resolve this dispute by yourselves then use some form of WP:dispute resolution. Don't edit war and don't bring a content dispute to ANI. By definition if it only involves two of you then "no argument from anyone except" is pointless since there's no argument from anyone except the two of you. Finally if other articles have unsourced or improperly sourced content, the solution is to deal with those articles in some way, not to add more unsourced or improperly sourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clarification: Above SjShane says:
: On New Zealand National Party I disputed the sources this user is reverting to, with no argument from anyone except this user. They have failed to provide additional sources to support this edit.
- This is grossly misleading. I reverted the section to restore a pre-war version (clearly an error in retrospect), but not to re-impose old sources. This was precisely to remove the same content that had been previously removed by three different editors before me (The Wolak, PatricKiwi and 122.58.217.36). — HTGS (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clarification: Above SjShane says:
Self-promotion in user talk page
- Buntu Dila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After being blocked indefinitely for being not here because of self-promotion (see contribs), they are continuing to use their talk page for such purposes. Nythar (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
History of problematic editing and addition of unsourced content
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See edit history for MadgeWildwood (talk · contribs). Dozens of recent additions of content, with unsourced edit summaries claiming "based on Wikipedia sources" and "additional verifiable content" [95]. Today's edits include this bloating of the lede to Yoko Ono [96]; this elaboration at a dab page [97]; and random and off-topic musings at article talk pages [98], [99]. Generally, an abundance of WP:NOR, as was reverted here [100]. Numerous warnings for various and sundry concerns in the past two months, with one from Drmies. They seem to mean well, and refer often to experience as a journalist, but this doesn't look like the appropriate venue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great minds think alike. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what this editor is here for Here is some silly charge about "edit robots", which is a stupid insult, and here is a sneer at someone who dropped a note on a talk page eleven years ago. "too much is being erroneously written online by revisionist historians with personal agendas"--come on--we're not Facebook. I think NOTHERE applies here. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- This really isn't the place for them, as I don't think they grasp how Wikipedia works [101]. But they have left a metric ton of rough edits in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Though they are capable of vandalism when contradicted [102]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked them from that article and its talk page. I still think a NOTHERE block is valid, but I'm waiting to see how other editors think. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- A good start. I mischaracterized the edits to Yoko Ono as merely 'bloating' the lede. They, and all subsequent edits to the article and talk page, were malicious in intent. Given the number of unsourced and editorial edits I've already reverted, I'm more convinced that WP:NOTHERE is correct, and a full block is warranted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please make it a full block [103]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Drmies, you showed real composure in not blocking them long ago [104]. Their m.o. on article talk pages is to complain about article quality, sexism and nationalism of editors, and launch personal attacks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- HA! yes now I remember why I remembered the user name. That's hilarious--they're complaining I got their name wrong--really, they got their name wrong in their own signature. Yes, this, that's just...well there's a word for it. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- A good start. I mischaracterized the edits to Yoko Ono as merely 'bloating' the lede. They, and all subsequent edits to the article and talk page, were malicious in intent. Given the number of unsourced and editorial edits I've already reverted, I'm more convinced that WP:NOTHERE is correct, and a full block is warranted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked them from that article and its talk page. I still think a NOTHERE block is valid, but I'm waiting to see how other editors think. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've indeffed the user. I thought disruptive editing fit better than NOTHERE. I wonder if she fancies herself the similarly-named character in Breakfast at Tiffany's.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)