Done, by Smartse. -- Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not quite sure what this is about, but it looks like trolling and disruption from where I sit. After I deleted it, the user restored it . Account was created today; probably a sock account of someone with an ax to grind, but it should be taken care of right away, it would seem. -- WV ● ✉✓ 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Tauqonhcet
can someone block this troll and rollback this trolls edits? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
80.136.67.21
This IP address is constantly inserting fringe content into the article about Antoni Macierewicz. It is also improperly using templates and is posting personal attacks directed at me. ReliableBen (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
ReliableBen deletes properly sourced material about Antoni Macierewicz, replaces a section about "Controversies" with a section labeled as "False claims". Any criticism seems to be a "conspiracy" (which is pretty much the conception of Mr. Macierewicz himself). Properly sourced criticism needs to be mentioned, and my additions are based on highly reliable sources. It's rather a matter of WP:POV and WP:3RR on ReliableBen's side. 80.136.67.21 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Full-protected for 24 hours. Go to Talk:Antoni Macierewicz and resolve your differences, or to dispute resolution if you can't. And I don't see any edit that looks like vandalism, so don't accuse each other of that, please. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol, looks like User:ReliableBen has decided the matter for himself. It's a false claim to him, therefore, it's a false claim. Lol. Knowledge Battle 19:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that this man, Antoni, is a Christian Nationalist, which is well-known for it's anti-Semitism, after the views of Martin Luther. Many modern KKK are Christian Nationalists, and are denounced as not being "true Christians" by most Christians, for their hatred. The Christian National Union that he adheres to is a part of the Christian right and social conservatives – making it more likely that they really are anti-Semetic. Plus, the label "nationalism" often comes with the disdain for "others". And, one of the sources is the Jerusalem Post – a very reliable source. Sounds like Reliable Ben is unreliable. Knowledge Battle 19:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I found this unreferenced sentence in Antoni Macierewicz BLP: The committee has continued to publish reports proving Russian responsibility for the crash.. I think this is in sore need of editing towards neutrality and WP:COMMON, as no Russian responsibility has ever been proven, and frankly, Macierewicz's commission has been relegated by wide array of opinion to conspiracy theory trafficking. --Mareklugtalk 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Increasing protection level duration
Hi all. Banned user Vote (X) for Change has continuously disrupted the boards with their trolling and harassment of many editors here for quite some time now. Not just the boards but the Reference desks as well. All the protections made on ANI, AN, and the Reference desks have been limited in duration since quite a bit of anon traffic does edit these areas. A suggestion has been made to me that the duration of the protection should be one month. I understand that this will have significant impact so before trying anything drastic, I'd like to hear some input on what you guys would like. Longer or shorter protection, or no protection?
I'd like to note that an edit filter will likely not be effective here and would have to be continuously modified to be moderately effective. Rangeblocking is not an option. ElockidMessage me 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to suggest 2 weeks rather than 4, at this point. Impose 2-week protection on all of them, and once it expires, the moment that troll rears its ugly head, slap another 2 weeks on all of them. If 2 weeks proves insufficient after a few tries, up it to 3 for a while, then 4 for a while, and so on. If he has to wait several weeks every time, he might get tired of the routine and find something better to do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Doing it in steps merely trains them to return. The value of starting with a month is the possibility the user might find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Where's the disruption? They posts, someone reverts, life goes on. Respecting the editors who choose to edit without an account is more important than worrying about someone no one is really paying attention to, anyway. NE Ent 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good in theory, but it's an IP-hopper who won't stop posting his junk. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This comment describes the situation. Not so much on ANI/AN since these pages have a high a number of watchers. Though on occasion, there doesn't appear to be any admins present for a short time and this troll engages in edit warring with non-admins. For example on November 9, 94.192.27.218(talk·contribs) and 86.146.168.130(talk·contribs) were used to edit war. ElockidMessage me 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Except that the troll-in-question, is causing ANI & AN (for examples) to be habitually semi-protected, due to its persistance. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would easier to simply ignore their comments instead of immediately removing them. Their reports are generallynonsenseanyways. I think they thrive off of the perceived injustice of not being able to say their piece, whatever it is. clpo13(talk) 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is that trolling which is rife with personal attacks should not be allowed to stand. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Bugs. Personal attacks against our editors need to be prevented, not ignored. HighInBC 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Just RBI unless there's an unusually energetic burst of trolling. Keep protections short when possible. RD regulars should know about DNFTT and practice it. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
On a tangential note: Why isn't User:Vote (X) for Change included over at WP:LTA? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I've made a rough draft at User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. ElockidMessage me 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:LTA is a difficult area. My guess is that making a page (even a draft) for this editor would be unhelpful because they seem to thrive on attention. I think everyone should stop linking or mentioning their name. Edit summaries should be "[[WP:DENY]]" only. LTA is only useful to provide long-term memory for dealing with the problem, but there are pleny of people who know what to do. Unfortunately there are a couple of editors at the reference desks who love talking and liberty, and they inflame the situation by reverting the removal of messages. Next time that happens I think the editors concerned should be given a final warning or preferably topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Based on their trolling, not identifying who they are will only lead to more fuel that they have been unbanned or they're not really socking. Labeling the reverts as WP:DENY, banned user, socking, etc. has the same exact effect. They come back and you'll have a bogus report about how inappropriate your edit was. ElockidMessage me 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I would very much like not to see the reference desks protected for long periods. They must be kept relatively open, for anonymous editors. If the rest of us have to do a little more work cleaning up after vandals, that's fine. If we're at the point that we're considering monthslong protection as our only option, my opinion is that we should declare that the trolls have won, shut down the reference desks, and move on. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I appreciate the hard work of the Reference Desk editors, but it may be time to discuss whether keeping them around is worth the trouble if we're having to protect the pages from the very editors we're trying to help. Katietalk 05:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive campaign by IP hopper in United Arab Emirates, ongoing
For quite some time already, an IP hopper in the United Arab Emirates is disrupting WP and going after several users, using very obscene language , , , , , , , , . Both I and some other have protected user pages and talk pages as a consequence, and the user has also taken to ANI ,
In addition to this personal attacks, the user is pushing an anti-Christian and pro-Muslim POV on several articles, , , , , .
Some of the IPs are blocked (at least ten, I believe) while others (such as 176.204.58.178, 173.35.129.54, 2.48.70.55 and 31.219.96.85) remain active. It's obvious that this exceptionally aggressive vandal is an established user as they know WP and WP terminology well. I think an IP range block would be called for, given the extensive disruption. Jeppiz (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been attacked by the same person in the same way (e.g. ) sometimes dozens of times in a day on several of my user pages including, distinctively, archives. It started in May. Until about a couple of weeks ago, they were routing their IP around random global locations eg and . So, I'm not sure a range block would work. I don't know what the technical options are. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I've also been targeted by the same person; Jeppiz gives some of the diffs above. The IP-hopper repeatedly calls me a "son of a whore" or accuses me of molesting my mother. The edits have been on my user page, my user talk page and my user talk archives. The IP-hopper seems to be well-acquainted with Wikipedia terminology as he told me to read WP:NOTTHEM when I first posted at ANI about him. The person seems to be targeting me and Jeppiz because we reverted him when he repeatedly posted at Talk:Jesus that Jesus was the "bastard son of a whore" (or something along those lines). I took the liberty of running about half a dozen of the IPs through an IP tracker and all of them came up as in the United Arab Emirates. —Cliftonian(talk) 12:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
In true troll fashion, the user even alerts DeCausa and me to articles we (or at least I) have never edited, so it's obvious it's only done to disrupt. , Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The latest is creating accounts just to host the attacks: User talk:Decausa (i.e. lower case 'c' is a new/separate account to mine. Btw, I don't think there's an actual "Muslim POV" going on here - per Mary in Islam no real Muslim would ever say this. Looks like just a disturbed teenager trying to think of something to say he thinks will shock. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I thought when he kept on targeting the article about Jesus, who Islam reveres as second only to Muhammad. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both users above, I meant to say that he (trolls are seldom female) tries to pass it off that way. It's a troll, pure and simple, pretending to be a Muslim. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that long WP:AGF and WP:NPA violation. Everyone can check my edits and see that i am not pushing an anti-christian or a pro-Muslim POV. In fact, I am only pushing WP:NPOV, while this cabal of pro-christianity bigots are pushing anti-Muslim pro-christian POV. All my edits are focused only on removing honorific titles from the articles of christian figures per WP:NPOV. These christian bigots keep removing honorifics titles from articles of Muslim figures under the claim that they violate neutrality, but when someone like me removing these honorifics from articles of christian figures they fell offended. That is the point.. Same: these christian bigots pretend that wikipedia is secular while editing muslim related articles but they turn into claiming that wikipedia is for christians while editing christian related figures.--189.196.129.102 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that the IP (who has already been blocked around 20 times in the last 24 hours) claim to "only push WP:NPOV", I'd like to point out (lest anyone believes it) that the IPs edits include vandalism like changing the lead in the the good articleConstantine the Great from saying Constantine the Great to "Constantine son of the whore" , or by changing the caption of the picture to say "The Dickhead Constantine" . So much for the claiomed WP:NPOV. The user has caused 20 IPs to be blocked and dozens of articles to be protected, and is no doubt proud of that. Given the large disruption caused, I hope a throrough check-user could be performed to permanently ban the sock-master and to impose an IP-range block. Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the collateral damage in effectively blocking the entire UAE? Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the question I also pondered, though probably less than either protecting hundreds of pages or having WP:GA articles repeatedly vandalized. as in . Out of several bad options, it's probably the one with the least collateral damage. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
He's now at 176.204.38.78, it seems. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Now 103.10.199.149—which seems to be a Hong Kong IP address. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: & All: As far as technical options, a targeted blocking tool for IP-hopping trolls based on edit patterns should be feasible using Machine learning, but I don't know if the Wikimedia Foundation has this capability at the moment (I believe they have something similar for vandalism detection). It sounds like a fundamental problem, so it should. Do admins have ability to put in requests to the engineering department? If not, I can reach out to a former colleague there who specializes in this area. Msubotin (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Msubotin there is a proposal to modify blocking tools which looks like it is going to pass over at meta. There are still four more days for proposals if anyone has something on their tech wishlist that they want to see happen concerning all of the wikis. There are already many good ideas on that page for improvements, repairs, changes in functionality, etc. I see beneath the proposal that I linked to that there is a proposal for a machine learning abuse filter. I suggest that you and anyone else with good ideas head over to the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey to take part and offer their input. Now is your chance. —Berean Hunter(talk) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: would you be able to provide some insight as to how severe the collateral damage would be? Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
176.204.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): essentially nobody else has used this range since the start of November. (Only a couple of edits on the 8th).
2.48.0.0/17 (covers 32768 IP addresses): essentially nobody else has used this range since the start of November (other than a couple PowerPuff Girls edits earlier today). This range has also been hitting Bishonen's pages.
I am going to go ahead and block the two ranges for two weeks to start. Please make a note of the ranges for future reference. FYI I did not get the ping, and only discovered the thread whilst skimming the page. -- Diannaa🍁 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaaside note. not sure why the ping didn't work. Blackmane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Blackmane: You went back and corrected the spelling of my username; everything has to be perfect first try for the ping to work, i.e. the ping and the signature have to occur together in the same diff for the ping to work. -- Diannaa🍁 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah that explains that, thanks. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that this friendly person has reappeared (and been blocked) as 200.122.128.152. Harriastalk 11:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And again, as 185.65.206.157. Harriastalk 12:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And again 103.9.77.106 and again 77.247.180.147. @Diannaa:, can something be done or should we just accept that this user will continue to harass a lot of users until they get tired of it? Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
These two four IPs are not in the same range as the others, they are not even in the same country, so range block is out of the question. Another admin has added page protection to Mary in Islam. A combination of rangeblocks and page protections often works. -- Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Spamming by multiple accounts
Multiple new accounts have been using the reFill tool today to infiltrate spam links into unrelated articles. The initial perpetrator was IBNBIN who made changes to multiple articles, some of which appear innocuous; this was followed by numerous accounts which each made a single edit, e.g.
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Domains blacklisted and SPI filed. MER-C 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm. I haven't seen the use of reFill for spam purposes. Good catch. It looks like IBNBIN is mixing legitimate reFill edits with a few that also include the addition of a spam link. Legitimate: . Spam: here ("freelancevideocollective"), here ("trueblueloans"), here ("littlewoodentoyshop"), etc. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Got the rest of the domains added by this sockfarm:
A number of articles are in the CSD queue with a G7 tag. ( This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page.)
Normally, these are quite routine, but normally they are user space drafts which have been abandoned, or sometimes a user space draft copy of something that has been moved into mainspace, or scratch pads for various purposes that are no longer needed. It is less common for articles in mainspace to be in this category.
There are quite a few each of which were primarily written by user:rainbow unicorn. In many cases, such as in the case of Juan Alberto Puiggari, there isn't much there now, but there was a full-blown albeit limited article as of recently cf. Juan Alberto Puiggari
I deleted a few before noticing, and would like feedback before continuing. I looked at the editor's talk page to see if there were some dispute leading to a decision to leave Wikipedia in an attempt to remove their own contributions but I didn't see such an indication.
In an apparent coincidence, there are also a number of G7's proposed by User:Kivo, Most of which appear to be stubs regarding a football club. Again, I'd like some community feedback on whether we are fine with deleting these articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
please delete them, preparing for a new job, best to not have them up thanks (edit by user:rainbow unicorn)
I am not willing to delete what seem to be perfectly good translations of clearly notable people from the itWP. If the reason is that the ed. does not wish to maintain them, others can. The other contributors can in this case be seen as the people who wrote the original These are fairly close translations. I'm removing the tags. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
DGG some werent translation all or most content by me, could you keep the tags on them thanks
and some are questionably notable please just delete them now if someone genuinely wants to restore it, people here shouldnt count then let them thanks
I've so far been keeping the mayor, and the bishops from the deWP. As I said, I'm waiting for those that are not translations, & I will think about them as soon as I've done the others. I am goign to regard what you said above as you agreement to not deleting the translations. (I see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz agrees with me, and is helping remove the deletion tags. Thanks, HW. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
But I;v notice you've been reverting his tag removal and mine. This is not permitted. Anyone can remove a CSD tag except the author of the article, and it canot be restored. If you still want them deleted, take to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
they have short bios on every bishop it seems already got me on that one but i know you know what i wanted most deleted please just delete all until genuine users come by thats all you cant just do this at least see what others think
RW, I'm not quite sure what your concern is, but if you're concerned for some reason that your Wikipedia editing might somehow have a negative impact on your new job, it would be better if you requested a name change (to something like Anon User 98765) and removal of your old userpages. You can't remove all traces of your edits, since you've edited pages other than those you created yourself. I'm not sure what happens to signatures, though. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Kivo
Looking at the articles, they would appear almost empty stubs. But in at least some of the cases there was relevant sourced information in earlier versions. I have;t checked them all, but most belong to football leagues in which most of the teams are not notable. These need checking by someone who knows the subject. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd be willing to say that this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is a vandal/trolling account, especially given their "opinion" they seem to be fond of posting. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Urolagnia#Notable urophiliacs section violates BLP policy, particularly WP:GRAPEVINE. This section seems very tabloidish when it involves living people. LizRead!Talk! 21:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked for 31 hours for the BLP issue, no prejudice against another block (eg indef for NOTHERE) if another admin thinks it's necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
'being disruptive' - that is , making a point in a discussion, - attacking the misrepresentation of Sellstroms position, which is very clear - he regards theories of rebel responsibility for Ghouta as poor - but, whatever, you lot are getting like the Saudi religious police - you seem unable to cope with counter opinions. ban, abuse, silence, you'd probably behead if you could. you are a horrible lot really. everything is getting written by the biggest bullies and fakes about the place. wikipedia - thank God it is not highly regarded on serious issues like Ghouta - overrun these kind of articles with Putinist trolls. Sorry to have caused you trouble Kintetsubuffalo I'm sure. Just expressing an opinion. Oh i forgot, I'm a 'sock' , a banned ip. ffs. better try a range block. knock yourselves out. or you could try and grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.17.239 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Reddogsix's deletion of DJ Montay
The page was deemed to lack notoriety. It was originally deleted back in 2008, possibly due to it not demonstrating the artists notoriety; however, I believe that I have since done so.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (music)
In the new page, I clearly referenced several of the points that are required and this was overlooked by User:Reddogsix and then deleted by User:Drmies
I understand that admins are busy, there are hundreds of thousands of articles that are created, but please refrain from being negligent. If you are not knowledgable or educated on a particular topic, please refer to an admin who is in order to avoid such problems in the future.
The page could have been improved by the admins, rather than deleted. How on earth is a Grammy-Nominated/platinum selling producer not notable?
As can be seen in the history of the now userfied article:
* User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz declined the WP:A7 speedy deletion, due to the article subject's Grammy nomination, though this was without referencing from reliable sources.
* At one point there was a WP:G11 tag added, referring to "aboutmontay"; my (admittedly cursory) comparison did not find this.
* All this appears to have been overlooked in the flurry of edits leading up its speedy deletion
* I think this should have been a WP:AFD nomination, not a speedy nomination.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Re Stargrl(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·nukecontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) (for simplicity purposes, I’ll assume by the username that the editor is female): not vandalism in the strictest sense, but a continuing history of damaging edits that require repair by others. Nearly all of her edits of 12–13 November violate RS and/or NPOV (Paige Larson: 123; Theresa Donovan: 1;Hailee Steinfeld: 1 [strike edit: I've re-read the appropriate guidelines re fictional characters and plots; RS doesn't apply except where contentious]). Even her sourced edits have skewed toward celebrities’ personal relationships with a reliance on the tabloid (Billy Flynn (actor): 1; Gigi Hadid: 1; Emma Watson: 1; literally dozens more), and show no willingness to learn how to format citations. She has been advised, cajoled and warned repeatedly for these behaviors, and was blocked once; there is no indication she has ever read her talk page or, at least, that she intends to learn therefrom. The problem with a short block: she may make handfuls of edits, then disappear for weeks or even months at a time. I’m requesting an indefinite block (including account creation) to force her to address her problem editing, engage with other editors, and treat the encyclopedia for what it is. (Moved from AIV.) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
tap*tap* is this thing on? 😜 —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a topic ban from BLPs; I'm on the fence about an indef. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 00:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"Indef" meaning indeterminate—as in, lifted once she decides to engage. If determinate, given her otherwise NOTHERE, maybe three months or, again, until she so decides. Same effect—assuming she doesn't simply return to current behaviors after three months... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage🖖 05:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Indef means "indefinitely"; it does not mean "indeterminate". It would not "force her to engage", it would block her from editing. She's only had one other block, and that was only for 24 hours. There's no way anyone would jump from that to an WP:INDEF without demonstrable evidence in the form of lots and lots of incredibly disruptive WP:DIFFS. I don't see a single problem in any of the diffs provided here, except possibly one edit which added Twitter and Instagram citations. I don't even see any cause for any sort of topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm splitting hairs, Softlavender, but "indefinite" means not definite—it's why there's a difference between INDEF and PERMABAN. Meantime, if you can't see that virtually every edit she makes requires repair if not reversion—hence, disruptive—I don't know what else to add ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage🖖 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:INDEF. The burden is on you to provide evidence (diffs) of disruptive editing, and so far you've done nothing of the sort. Softlavender (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I have read INDEF, and the entire first paragraph supports my request. Following her block on 2 July:
Her refusal to learn {{cite [whatever]}} is admittedly little more than an irritant; apps like reFill do not always work, making for tedious, repetitious cleanup. It’s the “tedious, repetitious” part that’s particularly problematic; she either doesn’t know how to read the concerns left on her talk page (by more than a half-dozen different editors) or she doesn’t care; conversely, virtually every edit she makes requires significant repair. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any NPOV vios or any critical BLP vios. The only problem I see is using Instagram as a source. Just tell her not to use Instagram as a source. Have an admin here post a notice on her Talk page warning/telling/explaining to her that she can't use Instagram as a source, and she can't post anything uncited. These two edits she made were actually corrections to errors in those articles: , ; I don't know why you posted them above or why you reverted the latter one. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Specific to your examples: 1) no RS (edit: my bad—apparently I saw the reverse of what she actually did); 2a) no RS, 2b) CRYSTAL.
Specific to NPOV: 1) "best known for [anything]" is almost always a vio, usually the opinion of any journalist/blogger/etc. who doesn't cite it; 2) to assume from the source that Kardashian ended her relationship with Harden violates both NPOV and SYNTH, and turned out to be completely false; 3) "most popular friendship", also NPOV and SYNTH vios.
"Just tell her [anything]" is impossible if she ignores it. "Have an admin post [anything]" is irrelevant for the same reason. This is not a whim; if I wasn't utterly convinced that there is no other course of action, I would not be making this request. If you have an alternative that would actually work, please share it. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage🖖 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Good grief, Hailee Steinfeldis best known for starring in her Oscar-nominated role as Mattie Ross in True Grit. If you refute that, put a disputed tag and discuss on Talk. On this one , the source (which was already in the wiki article) specifically states that the Harden relationship ended the previous Tuesday when the divorce was cancelled, and again, Stargrl corrected the wiki article per the already-existing source. In terms of this , again, Stargrl didn't add the Pitch Perfect 3 information, she corrected it; and in terms of the already-filmingBesties, that doesn't need a citation any more than any of the other entries in the chart -- it's in her IMDB filmography. All of these edits were improvements to these articles. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* no, sorry. None of the above. "Best known for [anything]" is POV (fans of Asa Butterfield or Orson Scott Card may know her "best" from Ender's Game; young teens may know her best from "Love Myself"; Wikivoice cannot choose). The tabloid cited for Kardashian/Harden specifically says "slowed down", not "ended", hence SYNTH. When adding Besties, the commenting out of the not-yet-in-production Pitch Perfect 3 was removed in favor of adding "Pre-production", hence CRYSTAL (or, more directly, NFF). And... IMDb? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage🖖 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Best known for is not POV if it is a fact; please cite a specific policy that specifically says so if you think it is. In the Kardashian article , I misspoke slightly; Stargrl added the correct and current citation up higher, which states that "On Tuesday it was reported that Khloe had split from her boyfriend, basketball player James Harden" and "The news of the couple getting back together comes just one day after it was reported that Khloe and her boyfriend James Harden, 26, had decided to split after a few months of dating" and "Khloe began to realize she still had feelings for Odom when she rushed to see him in the hospital and just days later called it quits with Harden, who is also a basketball player." . Stagrl simply neglected to add that citation at the bottom as well. I didn't realize that Stargrl removed commented out coding, but she corrected the Pitch Perfect 3 entry from "Filming" to "Pre-production" (which it turns out is still not quite accurate because the film at this point is only announced); what she did was an effort at correction and a rookie move rather than disruptive editing. And again, since it is already filming and Hailee Steinfeld is a well-known Oscar-nominated actor, Besties does not need a citation any more than any of the other entries in the chart. If that one does, all of the others in all of the charts in the article do too. And yes, IMDB is a RS for filmographies, or else we would not allow it as an EL. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In your words, "if it is a fact"—unless absolutely unimpeachable, it is an opinion (and led, among others, to a sizeable argument here). The Daily Mail is widely derided as a WP:RS, per its many appearances on the noticeboard. Making an invisible entry visible for the sole purpose of adding "Pre-production" against NFF is not a correction. Per its lack of editorial oversight, I still have problems with IMBd, even for filmographies. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage🖖 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
These are all content disputes about good-faith edits, and I agree with Stargrl on all of them. You're bringing content disputes and apparent wiki-stalking here to ANI. That's not appropriate. Your continuing to argue about them here makes it continuously less likely that you will achieve even your legitimate issue about her edits (Instagram, and uncited information). If I were you I'd lay off templating her talk page, stop stalking her edits, and if you have a content dispute, raise it on the talk page of the article in question, pinging her during the discussion, and follow WP:DISCFAIL. As it is, your claims of any violations regarding any of the edits you've listed except posting uncited information or using Instagram as a source are your opinion at best and inaccurate (and your reversions and templates against policy) at worst. I myself am not going to continue this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* Yup. Fuck policy. Fuck the encyclopedia. Sounds about right ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage🖖 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal
Stargrl is hereby formally banned from using Instagram as a source, and banned from posting uncited information. Any violation of these restrictions will result in blocks of increasing duration. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support, though we disagree on what we see—and what we don't. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Possible legal threat at Team USA (roller derby)
Came across this edit: which references a "cease and desist" letter. Honestly unsure if this qualifies as a legal threat or not. No reliable sources that I am aware of cover the requested name change that I am aware of (what ones calls their social media page is hardly reliable) so basically looking for guidance here. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not a legal threat against Wikipedia. It appears to be from someone at the USA Roller Derby squad (new name of "Team USA") that THEY had been contacted by the U.S. Olympic Committee on their unapproved usage of the trademarked "Team USA" and explained that they voluntarily (ie without legal action) changed their name. I would support renaming the article to their new name, which seems to be the point of this comment. Their Facebook page has 30k likes and seems to be reliable enough that the team name has changed. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - like I said, wasn't sure. But I also am unsure if it's a representative of the team in question or the USOC posting there. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure it matters who posted it. I doubt it was someone from the USOC as I doubt they would care too much if the page was deleted. I've renamed the page to match their Facebook page, which I don't envision will be controversial. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a reply on the talk page does show that the poster is from a representative of USARS (and not the actual article's subject) seeking to claim the old article name for their own use, which relates to the announcement the poster linked to in their comment - an announcement which was viewed as highly controversial within the community when it came out. If they get to the point of creating such an article (with their version of the team not yet formed, will remain to be seen when that could happen given lack of sources) the existing redirect created by the article move would need to be addressed. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like they will make a new article titled Team USA Roller Derby, at which point the redirect will need to be discussed. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Koko Jones
The apparent subject of Koko Jones is asking for the article to be deleted. As it stands it is very poorly sourced and probably would go if PROD ed of it went to AfD. A speedy delete is unlikely to succeed as there is some grounds for assuming notability. However, I can empathise with the concerns that he/she expresses here and wondered , given the lack of notability whether an admin could not consider a more direct route to oblivion. The content of the article clearly indicates the reason for concern and, although such personal material may be in the public domain, its inclusion here might be considered harassment particularly in as it relates to gender issues. I think the veiled legal threat in the edit summary may safely be ignored. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 20:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Per this diff, it's not a veiled threat at all. They should be blocked until it is redacted, and it should be PRODed if you think it will work. After that, AfD if that fails. Impersonators come and go all the time. Scr★pIronIV 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. I have prodded it as a BLP and we'll see what happens. I am not certain that "I'll find a lwayer" is strictly a legal threat, it could after all be an indication that he/she wishes to take legal advice and not action but I'll leave that distinction to wiser heads. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not eligible for WP:PROD BLP because there are sources in the article. It is eligible for the similarly-named but separate WP:PROD process. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That said, this article is a minefield because of the (alleged) gender-related issue. On the surface, I'd say the article needs renamed and recast, but I'd want a more exhaustive search of sources before I did that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
There are better sources available than those used in the article, e.g. , and the contested content seems mostly to be available on the subject's own website, but as this is a request for deletion by a marginally notable individual leaving the prod to expire seems best per the advice at WP:BLPDEL. Fences&Windows 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to address what was unsourced solely based on that; further investigation revealed more information. As I posted on User talk:Velella:
This Huffington post article [1] makes it harder; looking at that source, the subject has voluntarily disclosed, and also asserts some notability. Her official website[2] is also open about it, as is this interview.[3] There are additional sources in a short google search that lend to her notability. World Music Report[4] is one, and asserts her openness on the issue as well as add to notability. I am not certain we are doing the right thing here, acting on the word of an an editor claiming to be the subject.
I am not an expert in these matters, and believe it would be best left in the hands of those who specialize in these matters.
Please note that I am not making any personal statement or taking any stand here; I want to do right by the subject of the article, and in accordance with the rules. If I have made any error, it is only from a lack of experience in the topic. Scr★pIronIV 22:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I have declined the PROD after adding several citations to sources, and there are more out there. It may be that the subject wants to keep mention of being Trans or her former name (under which she initially gained fame) out of the article. But she has discussed both in several published interviews, and can't have things both ways. Still I have emphasized her music and its reception, not her trans status, in the edits I have made, as that is what she is primarily notable for, IMO. DES(talk) 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment On another note, this edit summary is a clear legal threat. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Now at SPI. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
10 -- Portal:India/Intro was edited by both Mar4d and Lyk4. Lyk4 with very few edits, can edit complex templates. Article match between them can be justified. They edited many templates and categories. It's very unlikely that Lyk4 with less than 1000 edit count, edited many templates and categories which were edited by Mar4d.
Note-- Previously i gave two evidences regarding their edits in Kannada Wikipedia and Fiji Hindi Wikipedia, which I had removed due to comments by Future Perfect At Sunrise. I have read the comments by Wikimandia and Future Perfect and rearranged the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Avengers (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to readers: The Avengers has also modified and added claims above; responses below may be to previous versions. NebY (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d is the alternate account of Lyk4
Lyk4 account is older. My assumption is that Mar4d account is edited from home and Lyk4 is edited from office. In two AFDs they voted together to change the consensus, and edit warred in Fiji Hindi Wikipedia. Check User can't connect them. Administrators can check the details of the picture uploaded by them. As Mar4d is very senior editor and Lyk4 account is inactive, i brought this case in ANI. The Avengers (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, if this were a sock issue, I would bring it to SPI instead. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 05:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Check User can't catch this guy. He is using multiple device. There are edits from Other language Wikipedia. Lyk4 account is inactive for few months. This is the best place as In WP:SPI this case will remain for weeks without any action. Here Administrators and users can give their views. He is an experienced editor. All these years he was not caught, SPI won't show any result today.The Avengers (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
How exactly do you know he is using multiple devices? SPI is the place to report this. Even if they are using different devices, an administrator can look at the total evidence. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any evidence of socking in what's presented here, certainly not enough for a successful SPI case. The seemingly striking common edits on the Fiji and Kannada wikipedias weren't in fact made there at all – those were edits made on en-wp; the pages in question just happened to get imported to those other wikis later. The picture upload list contains nothing relevant at (if there's something about deleted image contribs, you'd have to provide some other link; but in fact neither account appears to have any further image uploads than those shown). The large number of article intersections appears to be mainly due to the fact that Mar4d did a lot of systematic category edits across many Pakistan-related articles. The common edits at the two AfDs would of course constitute sock abuse if socking was independently proven, but they don't in themselves constitute evidence of socking as such. So, in sum, the only thing I'm seeing so far is two accounts that share a common interest (and possibly POV perspective) in Pakistan-related articles. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a few suspicious edits to obscure articles. Almost all of their edits are on Pakistan/India articles but, for example, Lyk4 made this edit to the Chinese cuisine template that was removed inadvertently by two warring IPs in the following weeks. Mar4d then added the same edit back though he had never edited that template before. They also both edited the Italian diaspora template , , and The Sheffield Private School, which having nothing to do with Pakistan/India. If they both had 50k edits OK, but Lyk4 has fewer than 1,000. Additionally, that Lyk4 edited a userpage in Mar4d's userspace, though there was no apparent talkpage conversation between them about the page, strikes me as either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikimandia Thanks for collecting more evdence.And @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, can you explain: why two editors without any interaction with each other in their talk page, edits the sub-userpage of another editor? Why both accounts were opened in same time. Both accounts having similar edit counts editing in same subjects can have similarities, but Lyk4 with very small edits had edited similar articles. You simply didn't look at the details. I was expecting this. Its very difficult to pin down an old editor , even with crystal clear evidence. And are you saying those edits in Kannada Wikipedia and Fiji Hindi wikipedia were not made by them, and i am seeing wrong due to software problem? If they didn't make those edits who did? And if those pages were imported from English Wikipedia that means Mar4d was edit-warring in English Wikipedia not Fiji Wikipedia as i mentioned before. The Avengers (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read up on how the Importing function works. Some wikis have this function of wholesale-importing pages from other wikis including their edit histories. This makes it appear as if editors in that history made their edits in the importing wiki, when in reality they made them before the import. So yes, they did make those edits, but they made them here on their home wiki, which makes the whole coincidence look a lot less conspicuous, doesn't it? Fut.Perf.☼ 08:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
And now, having said this, I guess it's time to take a good hard look at the reporting editor and start asking ourselves why an account with just two months of visible wiki tenure (but two self-delared alternate accounts used for no apparent reason) suddenly starts investigating an editor he has had no visible interaction with, about an alleged sock that hasn't edited for half a year, dragging up old edit histories from five years back. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter whether or not it was made originally at the Fiji-language or English-language wiki - they made the same edit on a fairly obscure template due to an edit war with the same editor who wanted a different image used. Btw I have close to 20k edits and I don't think I have ever edited an image map template. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think having undisclosed alternative account is allowed on Wikipedia, but using it abusively is not allowed. Evidences produced by Avenger and Wikimandia does have some genuine points. Yes, there are many group of editors on India-Pakistan arena who edits same pages and have same interests, but how many of them edit sub-userpage of each other? How many of them edit same article on Fiji Language Wikipedia, how many of them do same edit on some topic on Kanada language Wikipedia? We are ignoring similarities in name of Mar4d and LyK4 but other evidences are very strong. And they have used both accounts to comment on 2 AfDs to change the consensus of the discussion which is violation of alternative account policy. We know Mar4d is very experienced editor and some of us may have some soft corner for him, but this case is very genuine. I had many content disputes with Mar4d but I always respected him as editor, but this will surely break trust on him. --Human3015TALK 10:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Before anybody else starts parroting the false claim about editing on the Kannada and Fiji wikipedias: please remove your posting, read the thread above again, and then think again what you think the evidence is. If you don't understand why the thing about the Kannada and Fiji wikipedias is false, think harder. People who keep making demonstrably false charges despite having had the facts explained to them will be blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't MATTER regarding Kannada or Fiji. The edits themselves are problematic and not on which wiki they were made. This is valid confusion so it is hardly a personal attack. It's certainly not any worse than trying to boomerang and cast suspicion on the reporter who has done nothing wrong. The Avengers, please take it to SPI. Obviously you're not going to get any help here. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Kannada/Fiji thing does matter, as long as drive-by commenters like Human3015 keep falsely citing it as alleged separate evidence. This needs to be rectified, before any other, potentially valid evidence can be considered properly. As for the edits themselves: the template in question is transcluded on hundreds, maybe thousands of India infoboxes. The edits affected a POV issue to which both Indian and Pakistani editors are (understandably) highly sensitive (how to show the international border in Kashmir). Both editors were actively editing multiple articles related to those issue at the time. It is entirely plausible that both of them could have noticed independently, on any of those thousands of India-related articles affected, that the map in question was in a state that would have felt equally unacceptable to most Pakistani editors, and followed the transclusion trail to that template. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@future, even if we remove Fiji and Kannada things still there are sufficient evidences, both accounts created in April 2010. See, I am not saying to block Mar4d and all that, I am not even editing India-Pakistan topics actively these days. But I'm just commenting here because I am interacting with Mar4d right since I joined Wikipedia, he is one of editor who inspired in me in my initial days, DYK icons on top of my userpage I copied from Mar4d's userpage. Contribution template etc on my userpage is also copied form his user page. I don't have any bad faith against him. But this will surely break the trust of India-Pakistan community. I know he will not get blocked, but he no more have moral basis to report other socks which he reports on your talk page, also he has habit of "reverting to pre-socking version" etc. It was not expected from Mar4d. Does Mar4d has courage to come here and say that LyK4 is not his account? Today is Sunday I think, people usually have time for Wikipedia on this day.(Though it is not always correct).--Human3015TALK 10:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Administrators should not threaten anybody for posting comment. He may not have read the importing link from Meta.
You still haven't been able to explain points raised by Wikimandia.
Portal:India/Intro is actually a masterpiece connection between Lyk4 and Mar4d. Future perfect didn't look at intersect combo properly. Lyk4 and Mar4d connects in many templates and categories. Article connection can be justified, but editing so many templates and categories together including Portal:India/Intro together can't be termed as "things happen" when editors have interest in similar area.
You still can't explain why both accounts were created during same time with the number "4"?
You still can't explain why Lyk4 edited a sub-userpage of Mar4d without any interaction between them?
Why they edited so many common articles, while Lyk4 has few edit count?
You can never explain how Lyk4 with less than 1000 edits can edit so many complex templates including Portal:India/Intro?The Avengers (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Future Perfect" is welcome to investigate new editor if he wants. He supports someone who edit warred with undeclared sock account and tried to change consensus in two AFds. I didn't edit-war with anybody or voted in AFDs with my alternate accounts. The Avengers (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the more-smoke-than-light around here, I do find a couple of more serious indications too: on 3 February 2012, 02:40 UTC, Mar4d created Khalid Anwer (about a Pakistani politician). Half an hour later, with him still the only contributor, he moved it to his userspace and then immediately asked for it to be deleted . Three hours later, at 06:23, Lyk4 recreated the same page in mainspace, with essentially the same text. That does look suspicious. I also note that a few months later Mar4d was CU'd and found to have been using another alternate account, Drspaz(talk·contribs); Lyk4 hadn't been active in the weeks leading up to this, so presumably that account would not have been detected by the CU if it was indeed him. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@future: You are admin so you can see deleted page, thats good. If we seen contribution of his another account DeSpaz, he also edited Mar4d's sub-user pages same way LyK4 edited. And in this SPI Mar4d was not CU'd, we can read that one admin is saying "Given that Mar4d has admitted a connection, I see no grounds to checkuser this", means CU was not done, that maybe the reason why LyK4 survived. But you have given strong evidence of that LyK4 and Mar4d are same users and they have violated alt account rules by commenting on 2 AfDs. But what should be the next step now? --Human3015TALK 12:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment by Mar4d
First, I'm not sure why ANI was chosen for this mudslinging Wikifest. From the above, it is obvious some involved user(s) have vested interests behind it. Second, I still don't understand where the user established the (supposed) connection or what link, as he mentions, I have to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LogAntiLog. Having said that, I do edit a lot of articles and categories and there's bound to be cross-overs, especially with thousands of users in the same topic area, or those who I follow or interact with (or even just stalkers). There are Wiki collaborations, and I do tend to help out users in creating articles, templates etc. Just saying, intersection tool is a pretty lame excuse. Examples: Shyamsunder, Smsarmad, TopGun, Faizan (I was called a 'sock' of these users too btw). Thirdly, I didn't edit the Fijian and Kannadian Wikipedias, they are cross-wiki import transclusions as per @Future Perfect at Sunrise: (again, relevance?). Another thing, I don't see why my user page being edited by someone else is odd since I have users editing my userpages all the time (barnstars, vandalism, talk page stalkers, copying stuff etc.). Here's one. This draft was moved from my userspace to mainspace by some unknown editor without me even being asked. I don't have a problem with users making edits or changes to my subpages if they are helpful or constructive.
Lastly, I have some serious reservations as to how a new editor who I don't know, with less than 3 months of record (and two meaningless alt. accounts) knows about SPIs or for that matter, using tools like Twinkle in their first edits. For the record, my talk page has been under attack by trolls and socks of one editor and I've been getting spam emails. There was a blocked sock who put up this flimsy SPI linking me and TopGun. I am pretty sure where this is heading and whoever this user is, they'll be found out. Mar4d (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I second this. Making no comment on the dispute between you and The Avengers, I have previously had concerns about their multiple accounts, which I have warned them about. I can see this boomeranging samtar{t} 12:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: For transparency, The Avengers is Galaxy Kid, who has frequented AN/I recently samtar{t} 12:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
samtar For super transparency i am watching this page, would you stop pinging me. You can ask a Check User to Run a CU on me. The Avengers (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I use that template regardless - it allows other editors to quickly get to the mentioned account. I apologise if my use of it upset you, and would recommend you calm down a little. I have no horse in this race, I'm only trying to assist those who have the difficult task of closing this thread. I have no interest in getting you Checked, as I believe you've disclosed all your accounts samtar{t} 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Avengers removed the Fijian/Kannadian Wikipedia edits from the 'evidence'. Since I referred to it above, it's here for reference. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You have not made any reasonable explanation as why this other account edited a page in your userspace, which is NOT the same as editing your talk page, nor why they recreated a page you and only you worked on, three hours after you deleted it, with much the same content as your deleted page, and remarked "Fresh start" as an edit summary. I have started an SPI so perhaps you can explain it there Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar4d. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to take it to SPI. I don't think you've read my comment above regarding the userpages. Here's the links again. . . Mar4d (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Remember that if Mar4d is not related to the other account, they may not be able to fully explain that account's actions - any more than I can fully explain yours or you can fully explain mine. NebY (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d should answer questions related to LyK4, who is this "Avenger" is different matter, attacking on "Avenger" will not justify your own mistakes in past. We can open SPI againt "The Avenger" also.--Human3015TALK 12:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: I think it would be better if you stay out of this for the moment. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimmychases sended me a personal threat in Spanish, because I was reverting a war edition in Enrique Odría Sotomayor.
(Used Google Translator)... TAICHI: A Panamanian little guy who hides in an alias to attack people. Fortunately people thanks to guys like Wikipedia do not take this seriously.
Stop fooling nonsense and just. We have been a victim of your personal attacks and are not fair. You will receive your deserved because people like you should not be part of prryecto. If there is someone to watch this guy, take him out for Wikipedia.
This article has a serious matter about a suspicious lobby over this politician. Several sockpuppets were blocked in Spanish Wikipedia as Peru2016 and Peruanoamigo, (see local checkuser resolution). --Taichi (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
YES THIS GUY HAS PERSONALLY DESTROYED MY PAGES AND BLOCKED ME MANY TIMES. THIS GUYS SHOULD BE EXPELLED AS A LIBRARIAN. MY ARTICLES ARE WELL DOCUMENTED BUE HE CONTINUES TO USE GESTAPO PRACTICES....NAZI TAICHI...HE IS A RACIST INDIVIDUAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmychases (talk • contribs) 08:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Not much need to look beyond the post here. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threat of murder
Articles deleted and user blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this new article, duplicated from the creator's sandbox there is a threat of murder against an unspecified person. Norvoid (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Article deleted under G3. I doubt this is a credible threat of violence. — foxj 12:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The article in question has been recreated by the author (or a sockpuppet/another account). I have left another speedy deletion notice on the talkpage of the author. Rarkenin (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, It's the same editor, not a sockpuppet. Norvoid (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP-violating edits by an impersonator on Joshua Feuerstein
Nothing requiring admin intervention here. Sam Walton (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is reducing the size of every university Seal in every infobox he finds. I have addressed the user and he is positive that 200px is much too large for an infobox Seal. I was wondering what the community's opinion is, is BMK correct in mass change of university seal sizes in their respective Wikipedia pages. If so, I will respect the user's decision. However, practically every infobox Seal I have come across, prior to BMK editing them, was 200px or very close to it.Threemonths (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not worthy of admin attention. In fact, I am 150% certain this doesn't belong here. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It says to post here after speaking with the user directly. Well, I have done so and it has not been resolved. Where am I supposed to report to if he is acting unreasonably by mass editing all university webpages without documented justification?Threemonths (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It also says in big letters when you start a comment on an editor that you are supposed to notify me, which you did not do. BMK (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
he/she did notify you by pinging. sst✈(discuss) 05:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It states it must be on their user talk page.--Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no ping in this discussion, and, in any case, pinging is not a substitute for direct notification, that's well establishbed.I note that in about a month of editing Threemonths been the subject of an AN/I report and a number of complaints on their talk page, which does not bode well for their career as an editor. Perhaps they might be better off following what other more experienced editors do rather than trying to ignore them, or report them? BMK (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Threemonths: Assuming good faith on your part, ANI is not the place to address content disputes. ANI is more suitable for disruptive behavior that cannot be corrected without administrator intervention. In this case, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This definitely doesn't belong here, but there are other channels to address content disputes. Regular discussion may still succeed if BMK elects to explain his changes and engage in a civilized conversation about them instead of blowing you off or responding with sarcasm, as he did on his user talk. If he elects not to go that route, you can try an RfC. ~ RobTalk 05:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Serious editors get serious responses .... nuff said. BMK (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And BMK is almost certainly correct in that belief. (And this is not appropriate for ANI, blah, blah, blah...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit war at Calculus
Resolved amicably --NeilNtalk to me 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mesmerate(talk·contribs) is edit warring at Calculus. He seems to believe he is correct despite having been reverted by five separate editors. He has announced his intention to continue edit warring until he has his way (see summary of ) Diffs:
(done by IP, but he announced that it was him in )
The following is writtien by mesmerate. :There was an editor who agreed with me, but decided that it over complicated the article. I, infact, decided to compromise, and try to add a little less complicated comment of it. The person who originally edited my edit, was the same one who posted a "Warning, you are edit warring" thing on me. Then, his friend is now trying to beseige me, how nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmerate (talk • contribs) 05:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Mesmerate, you've racked up quite a number of reverts in your short time editing Wikipedia. Now that you've been informed of the WP:3RR policy, you'll stop reverting and use the talk page to see if your change has consensus, right? --NeilNtalk to me 05:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
For the moment, I'd be satisfied if we try to work this out at Talk:Calculus. Ozob (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
In view of this edit summary I'm a bit pessimistic about taking part in further discussion. But we'll see how it turns out... - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following is written by mesmerate: yes. also, I do not know how to properly sign a comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmerate (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Might i add, a second person agreed with me, but thought i was talking about "old calculus" if you will, what calculus was when it was still being developed. So, i clarified with the user it was not in "history" but instead in "principals". Although i have looked over the section i edited, and have realized it defines dx as a number less than any natural number, more than 0, and smaller than any real number, i argue this is incorrect, and a mistaken use of "old calculus" definiton in a "modern calculus" section. I argue the article should replace that "old calculus" definition and replace it with a "modern calcus" definition, where dx can be defined as the change in x as it approaches 0. I hope continued clarity and talking in the page may let us resolve the issue. For the time being, i think there is enough support of my opinion to at least keep the discussion going. Mesmerate (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have resolved to the other persons opinion, and have agreed not to revert again. Mesmerate (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I realise we have a board for requesting closures (and indeed I've sometimes helped with reducing the backlog there), but I'd like us to make an exception for this discussion and close it without delay as the underlying situation has already resulted in three temporary blocks, full page protection and re-protection. There's been no new discussion in almost two days now. Hopefully once a consensus is identified, the to-and-fro might stop if the full protection is lifted. One can hope... Thanks in advance for the closure - admin closing only please, in this case! Alternatively, if you think I should close it, I'd appreciate the mandate. Cheers! Samsara 13:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
98.215.193.216 - Editorializing and POV pushing through the use of categories like "Counterfeit consumer goods"
IP was blocked 6 months by Favonian. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
98.215.193.216 just came off a 1 month block for POV editing and editorializing through the use of hand-selected categories suggesting that certain cloned video game devices are counterfeit and fraudulent. For instance, here at an article about Nintendo hardware clones, he adds Category:Counterfeit consumer goods, though there is nothing in the article about the concept of counterfeiting or fraud. There were other problems as detailed in my comments on his talk page. The user was adding this content without providing supporting sourced prose that indicated, for example, here he implies that the drug store chain CVS is selling counterfeit products, which could be defamatory.
Fresh off his block, the user has continued this practice. Here he indicates via category addition Category:Copyright infringement of software that PolyStation is infringing on software copyrights. Here he undoes a redirect to restore obvious original research and POV editorial content like The Zone consoles are a line of unauthorized clones of the Nintendo Wii that are manufactured by various companies and sold under the false brand name "Ultimate Products" to avoid legal action. (Emphasis mine) And "These consoles are notorious for being poorly constructed." and so forth. Here he decides to POV-up an article, changing content from The N-Joypad is an unauthorized Nintendo Entertainment System clone to The N-Joypad is an illegally sold Nintendo Entertainment System clone (emphasis mine) again, with no supporting, sourced prose to substantiate the assertions.
The user obviously doesn't seem to comprehend that this is a problematic editing style, and I very strongly question their competence to edit here if, after the number of blocks they've received so far, they keep adding this sloppy, OR-laden, agenda-driven POV crap, which may put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Im sorry,i wont do it any more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.193.216 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks after improper copy-and-paste moves
User blocked. No further action needed. Collapsing per WP:DENY. --Jayron32 03:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This diff (later reinstated with a clearer edit summary) might already tell all there is to know.
This was over the fact that the editor repeatedly "moved" a page (against consensus) by means of a crude, unattributed copy-and-paste from Haredi Judaism: . Several warnings were issued (the user always blanked their talk page without interacting).
Two different users who've never edited the same page.
LjL forcing your antisemitism like all Jewish editors are one single person to hate? Racist. Bostonnine (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been told on a Jewish forum that LjL has already done that to other Jewish editors,
and right after they were banned for one article,
he reverted ALL OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTHER UNRELATED ARTICLES,
just to get them banned and mad again.
That's a Jew-hater with a plan more complex than Hitler had. Bostonnine (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
143.223.0.1
I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by the above IP address, which is registered to the William Morris Agency (I assume the well-known PR firm). The IP address appears to have engaged in several incidents of disruptive editing on Casey Anderson (naturalist) by making changes of a PR (conflict of interest) nature, removing substantive information without explanation, removing sources, and repeatedly making edits after being reverted. Some examples here: Special:Diff/691609003/691609074 and later, again with Special:Diff/691611833/691615434 and then most recently Special:Diff/691617248/691619718. The IP address has been warned by three different editors including myself on the Casey Anderson page alone. When I went to the user 143.223.0.1(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) page to discuss about the most recent reversion, it appeared from the postings on the Talk page that the same IP address had been engaging in disruption on other articles such as Patrick Whitesell. Since this appears to be a pattern of behavior I would suggest that the IP address might need to be banned. It would be good if an admin could please look into this. Thank you, TheBlinkster (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow. This may be a case for the good folks at WP:COIN as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Do I need to repost it over there? Sorry if I put it in the wrong place, I have not had to report anyone in the past so I am just getting up to speed on procedures...TheBlinkster (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It's good that you brought it up. At this point it's somewhat a toss-up of where it belongs, or whether it belongs both places. If the behavior isn't stopped here, then yes it should probably go to COIN if it hasn't already. It looks like Drmies just gave them a stern warning about the Casey Anderson (naturalist) article. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
A COIN case is much more interesting than some admin warning some IP editor... It may well be that there is more to this; the other editors that warned the IP may have had a hunch but no proof yet. I wonder if COIN regulars like Ronz or Brianhe have any thoughts on the matter. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours, since this easily qualifies as edit-warring. Please keep discussing; I'm not trying to end the discussion, especially since it looks like this may well resume after the block is done. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Good, although it just now occurs to me that since this is a work/business account (per the Geolocate info), they probably don't edit on the weekend anyway. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hm, you're right. Still, reblocking is procedurally easier than first-time blocking; if we say "You already got blocked once for this; the second block will be longer if you don't stop now", it makes more sense to the average reader. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Some promotional content has been removed by regular WP:COIN editors, so the content issues seem to be under control and the article is on watch lists. We'll know in a few days if the suspected COI editor comes back. As usual, WP:ROPE applies. John Nagle (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Challenge closure on Climate change denial talk page
I am following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging_other_closures. I claim there is a problem with the close by User:Jess of the RFC on the Climate change denial talk page at Redirects to this page. My grounds are: Jess is "inextricably involved". Jess started the RFC here with non-neutral wording about redirecting to denial, and supported redirecting to denial here, and so it's no surprise that Jess closed with the comment "Consensus appears to support having these redirects point to climate change denial." I discussed this with Jess, see here, here, here, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You are challenging a close of an RfC that had a ratio of two to one. What point would there be undoing the close and then having someone else reclose with the exact same result? I happen to be one of those editors who think "denier" is about as wrong as letting anti-abortion groups call their opponents "anti-life" but a clear consensus is a clear consensus whether or not you and I happen to disagree with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
And of course we're here... Earlier this year, climate change denial was expanded to cover "climate change skepticism" explicitly, and the relevant redirects were fixed. Reverts ensued, and discussion started at Talk:Climate change skeptic and a few other talk pages. Peter apparently wants the redirects pointed to an article which treats the topic more favorably (by not discussing it in detail), see edit summary. Peter refused to engage substantively in discussion (e.g.), but refused to let the redirects be changed (). The dispute went to AE twice (, ), and there appeared to be some agreement that disruption was evident, but no action was taken. I started an RfC October 10th, advertised broadly (, , , ...), and adjusted the wording based on input (). Pete objected to the RfC, claiming we should instead go back to the stalled discussion he had refused to answer questions in. When the RfC expired, and no new comments had been generated for days, consensus appeared to me to be exceptionally clear, so I implemented the changes and archived the RfC, noting that formal closure was likely not necessary (). Peter then objected to my archiving the discussion, so I told him he could request formal closure if he felt it necessary (). He didn't, and brought it here instead. I'm tired of this... I think enough editor time has been wasted on this nonsense. —Jess·Δ♥ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Note, I will be away from a computer for an EMT exam for at least the next several hours. —Jess·Δ♥ 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we do have somewhat of a problem, in that User:Peter Gulutzan seems determined to refuse accept the community consensus and continue to engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. After it was clear consensus was not behind Peter Gulutzan's position at the second CFD in a two days, he subsequently posted to WP:BLPN trying to circumvent the proper community process of category discussion. Now he has forum-shopped to here. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP/N is a proper noticeboard for discussions concerning certain types of categorization of living persons. Collect (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not the place to object of the existence of a category because you dispute the outcome of two CFD's. Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Peter received a routine CC DS last March. It is unclear to me if he has breached the DS or not, but if he has, he should be blocked. He's been at this for three years now. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Update, based on Jess' comments up above, it looks like a block is needed per DS. Three years of disruption is long enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Gobsmacked While there's nothing wrong with an involved editor starting an RfC to resolve a difficult question, is it really acceptable for that editor to close the RfC with her preferred outcome? And then someone who thinks this isn't quite right is threatened with a block? When I went out for a couple hours, did I return to Bizarro-pedia?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are a neutral admin on this issue, but you do appear to have been at it longer than Peter.Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not following. Why the snide comments? What do they have to do with anything? Have I called you names?--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a claim upthread that the support had a ratio of "two to one".
I count 20 editors with a bolded position. 12 expressed Support while 8 did not. That is not remotely a 2-1 margin. It means, if as few as two of those expressing support were changed to Oppose, we'd we talking 50-50. I don't know that any of those weighing in were on the fence, I am simply point out that it is closer that " two to one". I also suggested, that one editor who !voted with the simple explanation per WP:ASTONISH should be viewed as an oppose, because I think that point is better evidence for Oppose than for Support. I wouldn't literally do that if I were closing, as I know the editor, and I know their position, but if it were removed, becasue their explanation isn't consistent with their !vote, we'd be much closer to a push, which would mean you ought to have a responsible, experienced closer weighing the arguments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
So your suggestion is that we count all the editors who didn't !vote as opposing (even though they didn't), and then switch one of the supports to an oppose against that editor's wishes because in your opinion it fits better... and then assess consensus based on vote counting... and if we do all that, we end up with something that's not quite as skewed. If you really think an uninvolved editor would assess consensus that way, I guess you could have requested a formal closure. In reality, the support votes actually do outnumber the oppose votes by 2:1, and this proposal perfectly elucidates why the current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible. —Jess·Δ♥ 04:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that wasn't my suggestion. Try rereading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
...current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible. On this point, we are in complete agreement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I just rechecked my count. 12 support, 6 oppose. Does anyone other than Sphilbrick get a different count? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Folks who want to spread tales about me should start their own threads in more appropriate places. I'll only reply to statements that were made about the topic, a challenge of Jess's close. (A) Jess has said that the close was not "formal". I thought that "formal" meant going through the formalities with the templates for marking a closed discussion ("The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it" etc.). I'll leave it to an expert to decide whether Jess is right and whether it matters. (B) Jess has said that I should have asked for a close myself rather than challenging. That's impossible since Jess had aleady closed and refused to re-open by self-reverting, and in any case I am not the person who wanted a close, I was happy to let it peter out. (C) There has been no dispute that Jess is an involved editor, and no dispute that that's a criterion for a legitimate challenge according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (D) Discussion of this matter had already taken place on Climate_change_skeptic#Centralized_discussion_plus_list_of_redirected_pages. There was no consensus. Jess decided that wasn't good enough so made this second discussion, "starting fresh". But it's possible a conscientious closer would have realized that it's the same topic and so must be taken into account, which would mean that the policy-related objections there would have been observed. By the way, by counting the editors there as well as the editors on Jess's thread, and counting editors who called for dismissal as well as editors who opposed, I get 14 versus 9 -- but admit that the strongest objector has been topic banned now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you aren't allowed to fabricate pretend votes from another discussion and apply them to an RfC as if they were RfC !votes, any more than Sphilbrick gets to turn clearly labeled support !votes to oppose !votes because he doesn't agree with the rationale. The count is 12 support, 6 oppose. The consensus is support, by a 2:1 ratio, no more, no less. The close is valid, no matter who made the close, because anyone else would have made the exact same call. It is time to drop the WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
S Philbrick's counting method is more reasonable than Guy Macon's -- editors who said this RFC should be dismissed / is improper are against the RFC's motion, and anyway the exact formal word "opposed" was not one of the options (Jess changed the RFC's wording after those comments had been made). As for my method, I counted as not in favour of changing the redirect: Ssscienccce Markbassett Philbrick Morphh JaykeBird Gulutzan Capitalismojo Connolley Tillman (9), tell me which of these is supposedly fabricated and I will supply a diff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a nice fantasy world you created; it would be a shame if something might happen to it, such as reality intruding into it for just a bit. Let's see, Tillman was indefinitely banned from the CC topic in August, yet you feel his opinion from before that ban should apply to an RfC held in October. Are you feeling okay? You are way over the edge here. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Support climate change topic ban for Peter Gulutzan based on the above nonsense (whether rooted in incompetence or deliberate disruption) that is incompatible with editing Wikipedia. I would support it for Sphilbrick as well but since the community elected him as an admin, he's automatically immune and exempt from all policies that regular editors must follow. Some editors are more equal than others. Oink. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This thread was archived by a bot. I restored manually and added a do-not-archive-until-21 template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the wrong venue. This belongs at WP:AN. The filer, Peter Gulutzan, claims to be following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging_other_closures, but that states clearly twice that close-challenges belong on WP:AN. Not only that, when this thread was archived after three days of inactivity, he resurrected it and made it unarchivable for 21 days. I recommend that an admin close this thread immediately, or move it to WP:AN. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC); copyedited 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender is correct, I'm sorry for my mistake. I am removing the do-not-archive-until template. If/when the conversation is archived, I intend to copy it to WP:AN with the same heading, unless an administrator moves or closes first with different advice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiBriefed is on a crusade to establish boxofficeindia.com as the one and only reliable source for Bollywood movies.
Judging by this is not any sort of decided consensus on the issue. I believe it would be wise for WikiBriefed to stop removing reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I was coming here to ask admins to take a look at this user as well, because I think I might be marginally involved. The user is demonstrating some inappropriate behaviors including personal attacks like: HOW STUPID ARE YOU? MANEESH SHARMA THE DIRECTOR SAID ITS A THRILLER. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IDIOT! although so far there has only been one instance of that. The unilateral decision that only BOI can be used as a reference is clearly disruptive. I will also note that the editor is misusing the minor changes box. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is BOI a reliable source at all? Certainly not at the expense of other, more established RS, but do links to that site have any value? If the answer is no, then is the blacklist an option? UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ultraexactzz It's a grander question that you are asking, and one that I'm attempting to answer at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ, although with not much help from the community. So far the community seems okay with BoxOfficeIndia.com (there is a BoxOfficeIndia.co.in that should not be confused for this other BOI) but that doesn't make it the definitive resource. Frankly, there are major problems with Indian box office data. There's no absolutely reliable source like BoxOfficeMojo.com is considered for western films. Producers lie about box data to lure more people to view the film, or wrangle some resources into reporting low numbers to hurt their competition. Times of India briefly discontinued their box office feature because they were sick of corruption. And, to top it all off, we have paid editors, sockpuppets, etc. who don't care that the box office numbers are all estimates, they still come back daily, sometimes hourly, to report the newest number even though they're still just estimates. What makes BOI's estimate any more reliable than Times of India's estimate? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The community will decide if boxofficeindia is a reliable source. Meanwhile, a swift block will prevent further disruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.180.151 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering this blurb is in the disclaimer
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOX OFFICE INDIA AND ITS AFFILIATES DO NOT CONTROL, REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE AND OTHER USER AND MEMBER GENERATED PAGES AND THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, SERVICES, OFFERS OR OTHER INFORMATION OR CONTENT PRESENTED OR DISSEMINATED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES ARE THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AUTHORS WHO ARE SOLELY LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT. BOX OFFICE INDIA AND ITS AFFILIATES RESERVE THE RIGHT, IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, TO EDIT, REFUSE TO POST OR REMOVE ANY MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO OR POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES.
I wouldn't be inclined towards accepting it as a reliable source. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
BoxofficeIndia has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. It was discussed in 2008 at RSN here and again here in July. We still have zero information on who is behind the website and the .co.in is a legitimate trade publication whereas the .com is not. I also argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination) to give rid of the page since we have no idea about it. I've already changed the guidelines at the Indian cinema task force Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines on sources to reflect this. I think it's clear that it's not a reliable source but if not, we can go for another round at RSN again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I note that we're back to the same concerns we had in 2008, namely that no one actually considers this a reliable source in line with our policy requirements but we acknowledge that some newspapers (which we presume are reliable sources) refer to it so it falls under WP:USEBYOTHERS so it's an issue about the fact that it's been used extensively even if no one has any idea here who's behind it: do we need to have a separate analysis of its reliability or do we just defer to the actual sources. Now all the discussions acknowledged that there does exist actual reliable sources so on that basis WikiBriefed should be warned to knock it off immediately and blocked if the editing continues. Again, as I suspect with the .co.in versus .com confusion, I think we're being used for spam purposes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The major problem with this website is that they simply delete the reference that users use from their website. There are dozens of Bollywood articles, where boxofficeindia links have become deadlink. Today i will use a boxofficeindia report for a movie as a reference. After two weeks that reference becomes dead link. The user considers Koimoi as bad. As if he has some personal grudge against the website. In other sources the link don't become dead link. Few months ago i used to read articles in boxofficeindia about highest grossing movies from 1940 to 2010. Now i don't see those individual pages from 1940 to 1970. Unless boxofficeindia sources don't create deadlinks, we shouldn't use it. Other websites change the URL, while BOI simply deletes the entire article. They revamp their website again and again. Galaxy Kid (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You should try www.archive.org on those pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I will point out as well that BOI (.com) writes these ridiculous Q&A pages that aren't attributed to anyone, and in some cases totally contradicts other information on their site. Typically people use these ("What was the final gross for Lingaa?" or something) as unassailable fact. They're really problematic and we should really consider ignoring those. I wish I'd taken note of them when they've come up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
user:Knowledgebattle editing disruptively
Knowledgebattle(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) is anine-day-old account that has been editing disruptively with a strong political POV. The account has received a notice of discretionary sanctions relating to American politics and on 19 October was blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Recently the account created Carsonism and then blanked an AFD for it. (I have re-created the AFD.) I will notify the editor of this ANI report. Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The account's editing history goes back to September 2014. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Account created 10 September 2014 samtar{t} 14:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I somehow misread the contribs -- I fixed the statement, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"Strong political POV"? Well, don't most people have that? However, if something seems to be POV'd, then someone can just fix it. That's no reason to block someone.:-\ That's why, after all, Wikipedia is open and free, yea? If something is true, then it's true. If you feel that a certain inconvenient truth has a certain political bias, just remember Stephen Colbert's words: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias.";-) Just fix whatever article you think needs fixed. Problem solved. Knowledge Battle 15:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgebattle, it was incorrect for you to blank an AfD and an unwise idea to blank any page unless it contains copyright violating content, personal attacks or vandalism. Please do not do this in the future or you can be blocked. LizRead!Talk! 18:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgebattle is still pulling crap like this: (restoring a mass deletion and BLP-vio refactoring he had made while this ANI was in progress ). I suggest it's time to consider a block or another kind of sanction. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Excuse you? It was released that the Koch brothers are now engaging in political spying. I'm "pulling crap"? I think you ought to shove that crap down your throat, with all due respect. I'm not in charge of the Koch brothers' activities. I'm not making them do what they're doing. User:DaltonCastle didn't take it to the Talk Page before he deleted it. Use your brain a little, Soft. No need to come after me, when the edit was constructive and relevant. Knowledge Battle 23:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well thanks for dragging me into this. Your first task should be taking a step back to calm down, assume good faith, and behave with civility. Now note that the edit you are referencing, my "deletion", was a reversion of your edit that 1. deleted reliably sourced content and 2. added your intended information with a fairly strong POV. Its not a spy agency and its goal is not to "disrupt politics". Phrasing it as you did was a POV violation. If you do not understand that, can you at least understand that the rest of your edit deleting reliably sourced content is disruptive? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Dare one suggest that "Knowledge Battle" is an editor with a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality who is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? BMK (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@DaltonCastle: I was trying to figure out what you were talking about just now, by looking back and forth, and now I see what you're talking about. "Educational grants" section. I'm not sure what I did there, but it looks like the "Educational grants" section was removed. That wasn't my intention, it was only to add the new section. If that's the only issue, which was unintentional, then this conversation is over. Knowledge Battle 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
List of German supercentenarians
More information WP:DENY ...
WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(non-admin closure) More ban-evading trolling from the 166. IP range. BMK (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please be topic banning Ricky81682 from List of German supercentenarians. GreatGreen has been monitoring that page for years and his content shouldn't be ruined by ignorance. Lots of people depend on this site and lies don't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.196 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Editors from this IP address are topic-banned from world's oldest people topics. clpo13(talk) 23:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Close
Not being vary nice
A brand-new IP's first edit being a complaint about a nonexistent user makes me wonder if it's duck season. There really isn't enough information for anyone to take any course of action here; in addition, there is no proof that the user on Wikia is indeed the user whom this complaint is about. (non-admin closure) Erpertblah, blah, blah... 01:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to be nice and asked polightly if they (Andrey Andrey) would stop deleting my stuff and they just exploded on me! I confess that after that I was not vary nice eather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.36.10.77 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
We have no user account named "Andrey Andrey", and the IP you filed this report with has only this one edit (which means you didn't notify the other editor as you are required to do), so how do you expect anyone to do anything about this complaint. Either provide the correct user name, or the IP address with which you made the disputed edits. BMK (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Andrey Andrey clearly exploded, thus leaving no trace. It's a real problem. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In any case, while it's good if you were originally polite, that isn't sufficient. You still need to deal with whatever problem is causing your stuff to be deleted in the first place. Asking politely doesn't mean we're going to ignore our policies and guidelines for you. Presuming your story is correct and you didn't leave out key details, they shouldn't have "exploded on" you, but realisticly it's fairly unlikely anything requiring admin intervention is going to happen to someone for a single instance of uncivility or WP:BITE. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be a User Andrey Andrey on Wikia and other places but of course Wikipedia has no involvement with those sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.253.221.44 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that might explain it. I spent a hour or so looking through the list of our users and couldn't find anything that matched. BMK (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Torqöquat, a brand new user with fewer than 10 edits, is making disruptive edits to the following articles:
Editor has been warned to cease this behavior. The image itself should be deleted. If this user resumes their behavior further steps should be taken. Hope this can be resolved fairly and quickly. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
All I need was add a new and improved photo of Lindsey Graham to update the Wikipedia project and DaltonCastle keeps reverting my edits. Perhaps he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Torqöquat (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And after warnings and notifications they continue vandalism:
I've also nommed the image for deletion at Commons. —Berean Hunter(talk) 00:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Misc desk question repeatedly removed in error
tendentious forum shopping by block evading sock
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help?
I've asked a question on the ref desks (misc) about police brutality and the relationship on race. I am being censored. Can anyone step in and intervene here. It's a valid question as far as I can tell and the removers have no provided any validation for their actions.
--24.90.133.76 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That your immediate response is to come to this page is pretty unusual, especially without saying anything about the post or its removal anywhere else. I'd bring it up with the person who removed it, Medeis, and on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk before bringing it here (clearly no admin attention is needed at this stage). —Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
My first instinct was to AGF and assume the unsigned IP editor was referring to something locally, not a worldwide issue with black brutality. I don't think any more time should be wasted, though, given Bug's evidence the same user has been posting anti-Jewish trolling. The IP is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Notice these edits come immediately in the wake of a long semi-protection of the ref desks for just this issue, racist trolling. IP User:80.195.27.47 and IP 24.90.133.76 could both use blocking, and IP 80's comments about Bugs fall into line with User:178.104.65.199:I really don't know where Bugs gets his hare brained ideas: obviously a dimmer is used for dimming lights, not for MAJOR appliances. Dimwit!. I am not sure what the rationale is for tolerating this sort of offensive disruption by anonymous users feigning ignorance. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Can admin please block the trolls listed here, close the thread, and perhaps consider re-protecting? Thanks, GABHello! 20:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing to be censured from the IP poster. The IP editor asked a perfectly reasonable question. It was not even a racist question - if that were something we should prohibit - in a sense, asking if the black-on-white brutality occurs would be aimed to confirm an anti-racist notion that the races commit similar sins. The fact that the IP reverted a troll's edit (the anti-Semitic one), calling it trolling, is not exceptionally suspicious. The fact that he asks a question about racial violence without happening to confine it to his hometown, given that the U.S. has been in the news about it for the past year, is not suspicious. The fact that he's an IP who knows procedure is marginally suspicious, but not incompatible with him simply having edited from a lot of different IPs in a range over time. Altering his posting without his consent, rather than posting your own comment that his geolocation is whatever if that's any use - that is an abuse. And more "protection" is unnecessary. Bottom line: the only problem on the Refdesk is the would-be police officers who treat discussions of factual matters as an unwelcome diversion from the core Wikipedia mission of prosecuting and banning editors. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that User:Drmies has blocked User:80.195.27.47 (geolocating to Gloucestershire, UK) who created the Black Brutality thread diff for a month, will he or some other admin be blocking User:24.90.133.76 (who geolocates to Jamaica, Queens, NY and who says above "I am being censored") for having posted exact same question? Given the sockpuppetry is confessed, I am not sure what else needs to be done. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The OP remains unblocked, but he won't be back. Not under that IP, anyway. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The socking is continuing, even in the face of a semi-protection, such as here by User:178.33.138.104, a known proxy server. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Zzuuzz blocked the proxy; Elockid semi-protected. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that When Other Legends Are Forgotten is correct, that the IP must log in to his account, to make sure he doesn't avoid sanctions. I even think that in such a case it should be allowed to stalk the IP, to make sure he doesn't avoid any sanctions.
Can some admin please look into the matter, and take the necessary measures? I have posted a notification on both talkpages. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, @Debresser:, edit warring like you did at Rabbiis against policy. I'm glad you finally found your way to Talk:Rabbi; now maybe you can explain why you want to change language that's been in the article for years -- as I've repeatedly asked you to do. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The same policy page you quote also says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account" - so let me be direct: Do you have an account? yes or no? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha, 107.10.236.42. Don't forget it takes 2 to edit war. In addition, as far as I am concerned, you are one of the many pushy IPs with POV contributions, and I am doing this project a favor by stopping you from pushing your POV. And I happen to be very sincere in that conviction of mine in your case, because it is obvious to me you came here with an agenda. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I am joining my colleagues in expressing significant concerns about user 107.10.236.42(talk·contribs).
S/he indeed is quite pushy with POV as demonstrated on countless of occasions, along with suspicious IPs tagging along him/her. WP:SOCK?
But what concerns me the most, is that s/he quickly deletes notices and warnings from talk page, including this notice to Administrators' noticeboard , and does this frequently with disparaging remarks as in here: "Taking out the trash" . MarkYabloko 07:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
What concerns me the most is that you still haven't read the talk page guidelines. And yet you deleted my messages from your talk page without comment. So perhaps you figured out that deleting talk page messages is not vandalism. I'm sorry it took a little trip to WP:AIV for you to learn that lesson. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone needs to open an SPI on Debresser and When Other Legends Are Forgotten. It smells like a duck pond here. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Asking for a sock investigation into an 8-year editor with 84,846 edits and several edit privileges is not nice. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting to note that Jabberwock2112 (talk), who is blocked now, joined wikipedia just today, and his/ her ONLY contribution was to give Debresser (talk) hard time and divert attention from the original complaint.
Can our dear administrators investigate the origin of these, supposedly, random acts, yet familiar insults? MarkYabloko 19:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The editor in question was an obvious sock, and is now indef blocked. BMK (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
So? Who is 107.10.236.42, and why is he editing not from his regular account. Can anybody anwser that question? Debresser (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that most his edits are reverts. Hundreds of reverts since October 13. I think we have a serious problematic editor here, and ask again somebody please investigate him. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to explain at Talk:Rabbi why you feel the consensus language that's been in the article for years needs to be changed. Please don't try to change the subject, as you did above, by accusing me of POV pushing.
PS: If you want to talk about editors whose contributions are mostly reverts, be sure to look in the mirror. WP:OWN much? 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
All you can do is incorrectly accuse people of all kinds of faults you have yourself. See Tu quoque. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This IP also engages in removal of sourced information, while WikiLawyering, like in this edit. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Godson rao uploading from image sites and claiming ownership
Godsonrao(talk·contribs) is copying images from image sites, most likely picasa and claiming ownership. Most images of the celebrities uploaded look like selfies. Seems to be ignoring instructional messages on his user talk page. I tagged the images as needing proof of permission but extremely unlikely that will be forthcoming. I would consider his adding the images to bio pages as copyright violations and he is persisting after two warnings about that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Geraldo Perez: I have removed your F11 tags. F11 should be used if the uploader sources the file to someone other than the uploader. If you dispute the uploader's authorship claim, then you should take the file to WP:PUF instead. I found all of the pictures on other websites, so I tagged the whole set for speedy deletion per WP:F9 with links to those websites. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2:: Thanks for proving the copyvios and tagging for speedy. I used F11 as the stated source was picasa with no internal link to the actual image on that site. Source was not the author as claimed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This user has been creating unsourced, nonsensical articles on Latin-American TV stations with call signs that do not exist. They have been blocked several times for this on eswiki. The record so far on their creations in enwiki:
All of the above have been deleted from eswiki. They have been warned several times, I also tried engaging them in Spanish (for which they thanked me but did not reply). All to no avail; they continue to create similar content. Aside from the language barrier, I suspect a very young user as their communications on eswiki have been simple. At any rate they are not communicating or modifying their behavior after repeated warnings: WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Vrac (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Neelix-created redirects, yet again
Legacypac is not judge, jury, and executioner: admins are, and they have a variety of tools in their arsenal to undo the damage done by one editor/administrator, some requiring more steps than others, some requiring more discretion and judgment than others--including the most recent IAR-y tool just handed to them. In all cases, process ends with an admin either making the call or enforcing a community decision. Legacypac, lacking admin status, can therefore not be accused of singlehandedly destroying the legacy of one editor/administrator, even if some of the decisions they made or procedures they started may seem a little partisan. That's the good thing, folks, about being in a collaborative project. Lots of people of good will here, with some minor disagreements, but no single person is calling the shots. That's a good thing. Ivanvector, I know you have been working hard on this and related issues; your care and due diligence is appreciated. Alright folks--there's more to clean up. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm sorry to have to bring this up again. Over the last number of days, Legacypac has taken it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner for all of Neelix's many, many, (many) contributions. He was previously brought up here (#User:Legacypac -- NAC closes as "delete") for improperly closing as "delete" deletion discussions regarding pages created by Neelix. Since then, he has moved on to tagging pages with inappropriate WP:CSD criteria seemingly in order to "expedite deletion" (see also this AN thread), and some administrators have been ignoring that the criteria are obviously invalid and deleting the pages anyway.
The vast majority of the discussions that Legacypac has helpfully listed have resulted in a handful of plausible redirects being kept, generally one or two per target. However, starting some time yesterday (as far as I can tell) Legacypac started tagging already-listed redirects with invalid speedy criteria, such as Pieingly which was tagged WP:A11 and deleted by Versageek. Granted, the redirect was stupid, but there are not currently any speedy criteria which applied to it - certainly not A11 which only applies to articles. Today, he listed a number of Neelix-created redirects (see today's log) and seemingly within a few hours tagged nearly all of them with WP:G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). In particular, these three were listed for barely an hour before they were deleted by Beeblebrox, giving no opportunity for discussion.
I'm concerned that Legacypac is pushing to erase Neelix's page creations without allowing discussion, for no other reason than that they are creations by Neelix. I think this is in good faith because otherwise we're going to be at this for a while, but as far as I am aware (and I've been following this since the first thread) there is no consensus to shortcut process here and mass-delete all of Neelix's contribs, or at least we haven't had that discussion. Maybe we should, but in the meantime I think that Legacypac should refrain from closing any Neelix-related discussions or tagging any Neelix-related pages with speedy deletion criteria. He may simply not understand the speedy criteria: earlier I reverted him tagging Chiineses (a 2-year-old redirect) with WP:R3 which specifically only applies to recently-created redirects. That one is not a Neelix creation.
As for the administrators who aren't paying attention to the speedy criteria, I asked Beeblebrox about why they accepted "garbage redirects created by Neelix" as uncontroversial maintenance under the G6 criterion; their response is here - essentially that we needn't wait the usual full week for discussions with an obvious result. I fully agree - that convention is WP:SNOW, but they deleted discussions today that had been listed for little more than an hour and which had no discussion at all. It would be more helpful to act on discussions from a few days ago (such as Singleplayer games which is clear enough), which other administrators have been doing (e.g. Singleoperate) and which probably could use more eyes. I don't think that any of the deleted redirects should be recreated (let's say per SNOW or IAR) but I don't think there's any reason to be this aggressive with the delete button.
Again, sorry for the wall of text. tl;dr: can we confirm that there is no consensus to mass-delete Neelix's redirects? Or, can we agree that we should mass-delete them, and then do it? Ivanvector🍁(talk) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is a concern. There are some redirects that should not be redirects to what they currently are, but these are in the minority. Most are simply low-traffic redirects. Even if they are near zero-traffic redirects there is no benefit from deleting them, the database still gets bigger. Clogging up RfD with them makes the overhead hundreds to thousands of times worse.
Of course it is not intuitive quite how cheap redirects are. They cost maybe a few dozen bytes, and generally need zero or near zero maintenance, sometimes a bot fixes a double redirect.
Today's RfD is already 27k, including history this is 571,711 bytes. This waste of resource, mainly human resource, on non-harmful redirects is by no means a new thing, but it is a problem.
Allthebest: RichFarmbrough, 05:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
I actually think the process has generally played out reasonably and sensibly thus far. We need to quickly delete the nonsense redirects and save weeklong RfD discussions for when they are needed. It doesn't bother me a bit that we aren't spending a lot of time discussing sillinesses such as "blackishblue" and "pieingly." Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree there is no such hysteria. Scrolling the redirects you can see many are worthless variations with permutations ignored by Google indexing in the first place (plurals, hyphens, etc). These were mass created to boost his edit count. Delete away as far as I'm concerned. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for trying to do what I can as a non-admin. I nominated a whole bunch today that User:Beeblebrox deleted on their intuitive after I listed at RfD. Beebebrox did not accept "garbage redirects created by Neelix" they created that phrase. Kindly don't tag me with Admin decisions here. I absolutely send the most blatant junk for speedy. 90% of the time an Admin deletes but if not I RfD them next. I even sent Muff (genitals) to Rfd but if someone wants to overturn the speedy delete I'll be interested in the rational. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I think there is no consensus to mass-delete anything, so RfD is the proper way to go, cumbersome as it is. You pointed to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Singleoperate--yes, I just deleted that set, but if you look at the ones I tackled I think you see my MO: in the case of "Singleoperate", there are three votes to delete (including the nominator's), so yeah, per SNOW, more or less, as you said in your close (thanks for doing that, by the way). As for Legacypac, I don't think calling them judge etc. is totally fair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Since some think I'm out to wipe out Neelix, it is not true. I've actually evaluated dozens of his articles and thousands of his redirects and decided NOT to nominate them. You can look on the subpage archive of his user page and see that the vast majority of nominated stuff is being deleted or redirected. At AN I've just suggested G5 creations of a banned or blocked user as a better code for he is in fact banned from Redirects for a year. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The key here for WP:G5 is that it is in violation of their ban. None of Neelix's redirects are G5 eligible unless he creates one between now and next November. Legacypac, you really need to read the criteria of a certain CSD before you tag them. A prefixes don't apply to redirects, for example. --Tavix(talk) 06:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Legacypac, I thought I deleted that "judge" comment before I posted.
Admins: I share Rich Farmbrough's concerns regarding wasted resources (CSD noms also consume resources) and I agree that there's really no discussion required for redirects such as "singleoperationally" or "egregiosities" or "fussingly". I assume that you'll get 'em eventually. As for us non-admins, would it be more helpful for us to go through Legacypac's lists to find any cases which are questionable (not clearly keep or delete) and just list those, or is mass-nominating them helpful? Or would it be helpful if we just left you to it? Ivanvector🍁(talk) 06:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that most of Beeblebrox's deletions from the 18 November log should be restored so we can resume proper discussion. I'm all for early closes via WP:SNOW, but a couple hours is not enough time to allow for that. I noticed that Peter James contested his deletion of Tripleheader, for example. Also, the ones that were deleted under A11 should be restored as well, that was clearly not a valid criteria. I'd lump Anthony Bradbury's deletion of F-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen in that category. --Tavix(talk) 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I'm not even going to read this thread. As I said at RFD, a fairly strong consensus was reached at the previous, epically long ANI threads on this subject that the majority of Neelix's redirects were junk and not desirable. Most of the very offensive ones have already been deleted, now we are dealing with the ones that are just stupid, mostly based on made up compound words or extreme over-simplification of broad subjects. If we have a week long discussion of each one RFD will be backlogged for months, possibly years. It isn't worth it. If any responsible user in good standing wishes to recreate any of these they are perfectly free to do so without needing to come here, and without consulting me or anyone else. I do not believe further discussion of this giant mess is a worthwhile endeavor. I'd also appreciate no more pings on this subject, of which I have now been informed four times. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm glad someone else started this discussion, I had meant to yesterday when I declined a bunch of pages Legacypac had tagged for speedy deletion, but I didn't really want to get involved in this Neelix issue and risk getting tarred as an apologist of his as I've seen some people be. Here are the speedy deletion requests I declined: , , , , , , , , , , , . These were all tagged as G8 even though in every case the article/redirect page attached to it did exist and they had no similarities to the distasteful Neelix redirects that have been rightly nuked. They were simply redirects left over from old page moves. I haven't looked through Legacypac's other contributions, but judging from what others are saying, it seems this is not the only case where they have misapplied the CSD criteria. I'd suggest Legacypac refrain from making more CSD nominations until they have a better understanding of the policy. Jenks24 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, my G8 for talk pages was only because many talk pages redirects started showing up on the Neelix redirect list as deleted based on G8 (see at around 50,000 and on ) and various Admins accepted my G8's for talk page redirects. Let us know when the admins have worked out their differences of understanding about G8 policy as it applies to talk page redirects.
As for WP:THE on redirects, I've now started an RfC to adjust the policy to include redirects (adding two words) here Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Presumably because the actual redirect page was deleted in those cases, so then the talk page should be deleted too. You have marked talk pages for deletion when the corresponding article/redirect pages were not deleted, were not nominated for deletion in any way, and clearly were never going to be deleted. Your response appears to show a complete lack of understanding about what G8 is for. Again, if you don't understand this, I would suggest staying away from CSD. I have no idea what WP:THE has to do with my comment. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You presume wrong. If you check the link the G8s on talkpage redirects at 50,000 (right near the bottom) are all on talk pages of perfectly valid move generated redirects. I did accidentally CSD two real article talk pages, but that was quickly caught as an error by an admin. The reason for the error was not a lack of understanding its process. To CSD a redirect I follow the redirect link, go back to the redirect page and twinkle it. I was doing them in batches and I just missed a step on two of them. No damage done. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Legacypac, I apologise. The link you provided (I missed it in an edit conflict) does indeed show admins incorrectly deleting talk pages of redirects as G8 for seemingly no good reason. While everyone is responsible for their own actions, I can understand why you saw those deletions and therefore thought your nominations were acceptable. I've just restored one which had incoming links and I would not be surprised if most of the others did too considering the talk pages had been there for a long time before they were moved by Neelix – they would almost certainly have incoming external links that have now been broken. Pinging Liz and RHaworth, the deleting admins, to see if the can explain their decisions (see from around the 50,000 mark at User:Anomie/Neelix list). As a tangential note, Legacypac, I was the person who declined those two article talk pages you tagged – I linked them above – and to just dismiss it as "no damage done" does not fill me with great confidence. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've literally tagged thousands of redirects this week with twinkle, so accidentally tagging two pages that should not have been tagged and were not deleted seems like not a big deal to me. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Jenks24, can you be specific about which deletions you are referring to? LizRead!Talk! 09:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Noting that Nyttend restored the first link, it was red when I made the comment at 10:01. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
All restored now. RHaworth and Liz have been actively editing in the interim, so I assume they do not care to defend their deletions. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
An appeal to common sense and IAR here is a prime example of what we are dealing with (randomly selected as the first and only CSD decline I've had since this thread started):
Singlelevelers redirect created 28 August 2009 by Neelix, CSD R3G3 by me, declined by User:GB fan as "not recent" .
Does applying Wikipedia guidelines so strictly make sense here? Maybe we need to adjust the guidelines to accommodate the present problem. Maybe IAR applies here. Let's see, cause I checked this term before CSDing it, and got this thread in thanks for my efforts.
We find a grand total of 10 search results or let's be generous and follow Google's idea to split it into two words, and get these 478 junk search results [.
Maybe you need to be more specific than just giving a criterion. You nominated R3 (not G3 as you state) with no further explanation. No talk page comment, no |reason= field in the CSD nomination. How are we supposed to know what you are thinking? I took the nomination at face value and declined it at face value that it was not recently created. --GBfan 12:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not leveling criticism at you GB fan, you are literally following the recent part of "Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created" and admins are being called on the carpet for bending the rules. However we all know he created some real junk that looks plausible until you start checking it. Automation is the only way through this, and there is no place in Twinkle to put an explanation for R3. I'm told that the G# are only applicable to articles. And some are complaining about speedy deletes at RfD here. So what to do about Singlelevelers and Argentically and Goldishblacks and other fiction? Legacypac (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The "G" stands for general and is applicable to all pages ("A" for articles, "R" for redirects, etc.). I really would recommend reading WP:CSD. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And the |reason= parameter does work for R3, you just have to do it manually rather than with Twinkle. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Like I said in my initial response, maybe you need to do a little more work. It might take longer than just slapping on a speedy deletion tag with twinkle but in the end it would probably save time. You can manually add a reason parameter to the tag or you can make a talk page comment and explain your reasoning. When I see an invalid tag placed on a page with no explanation on why the rule should be ignored, it gets declined. --GBfan 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That article had been tagged with issues for years, and the nom to me seemed like a moment of levity for all. Some people lack any sense of humor. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't expect anyone to believe this ham-handed attempt to retroactively turn what was obviously just a stupid deletion nomination into a deliberate joke, do you? There is nothing in your nomination that reds even remotely like humor or sarcasm. You made a mistake. It happens. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a very involved admin I'll close this anyway since there is broad, broad support for this, another indication to which extent this editor's work broke all kinds of community boundaries. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this is necessary now, or we're going to go around in circles on this for months. Neelix created tens of thousands of redirects which individually are probably harmless but the community believes that as a lot they are harmful for various reasons (several users have stated this, and we had a number of great big discussions about it recently in various venues). However, deletion of the redirects without discussion is not currently supported by any of the speedy delete criteria, except for redirects which have already been deleted, and tagging them improperly is just making more work for admins. So I propose:
Any administrator may delete any redirect created by User:Neelix as uncontroversial maintenance under the WP:G6 speedy deletion criterion, if they reasonably believe that said redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause. and
while (1) is in effect, no user may place a speedy deletion notice on any redirect created by User:Neelix. struck as redundant, see below
This should allow admins to quickly deal with the silliest redirects (the implausible modifications, at the low end anything ending in "-nesses", "-ingly", "-ically", etc) without creating extra overhead (as Rich Farmbrough calls it) and without needing to wait for discussion. At the same time it will prevent obvious discussions getting punted back to RfD when users apply invalid speedy criteria and get rejected. And most importantly as Beeblebrox demonstrated, this is already happening, so we might as well make it official. This should be temporary, either being revoked when the admins involved determine that the most obvious cases are dealt with, or automatically on some date not too far in the future (say November 30, or open to discussion). Ivanvector🍁(talk) 16:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I understand the rationale for #2. Users, in general, can't be expected to know about this "exceptional decree", and would place a speedy tag as they see fit; and if admins are neglecting a particular inappropriate redirect, I don't see why users should be prevented from doing so. LjL (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(2) is meant to prevent what's happened with singleoperate (see above) - by the letter of WP:CSD, pages that have had a speedy tag removed cannot be re-tagged, they must be listed in a deletion discussion. The overall idea is that pages subject to (1) don't need to be tagged at all, because tagging them is going to add 50,000-ish extra entries to the database for no reason, and admins are already looking at them so there's no need to draw their attention. However, I see that G6 is one of the criteria which can be used after a page has survived deletion anyway, so maybe (2) doesn't matter. Ivanvector🍁(talk) 16:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I don't believe there is any stipulation in WP:CSD that says once a speedy tag is removed it can not be re-tagged. --GBfan 18:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I'm thinking of WP:PROD. Well (2) is redundant, then. Struck. Ivanvector🍁(talk) 18:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I Support IAR and auto-delete at will. Will save an enormous amount of time, and God knows the Neelix cleanup is time-consuming enough as it is. Softlavender (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support — This will save valuable time and help us focus our energies, and it is in line with WP:NOTBURO principles. Note that this isn't completely curtailing process—WP:G6 deletions can be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND without much fuss if any editor disagrees with an administrator's action, and later nominated for deletion under the proper discussion process if necessary. Mz7 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support, please exercise IAR and common sense as needed. There is no point to creating red tape around this. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm a bit worried someone will get overenthusiastic deleting Neelix redirects; but that's been happening even without this proposal, and unless it gets completely out of his hand (to the extent where we spend more time and effort undeleting Neelix redirects than we'd spend discussing them at RfD) the upsides should outweigh the downsides. Sideways713 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support as nominator. Per, you know, this guy --> Ivanvector🍁(talk) 20:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support now we are getting somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sympathetic oppose - the most deletionist admin might have a very broad idea of what is included. Happy to support blanket RfD for Neelix created redirects ending with "-nesses", "-ingly", "-ically" and whatever other suffixes are deemed appropriate. Allthebest: RichFarmbrough, 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
Oppose, I still feel RFD is the correct forum for this. Neelix has plenty of perfectly acceptable redirects and I'm afraid that many of them will be "tossed out with the bathwater" so to speak without the scrutiny that only RFD can provide. At RFD, we can screen and filter which ones are "good" and "bad" and go from there. --Tavix(talk) 22:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it seems like I'm in the minority here, I'll conditionally support, on the grounds that only the redirects that are obviously unhelpful be speedy deleted. If there's any doubt that a redirect could be helpful, please take it to RFD. I just don't want "made by Neelix" to become a speedy deletion criteria when he has a lot of acceptable redirects. --Tavix(talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I trust the admins' judgement on this of what is obviously inappropriate, versus what should be discussed. Mistakes in that regard are very likely to be harmless, or at least much less harmful then listing every one of 50,000-ish clearly nonsensical redirects at RfD just because none of the CSD fit. If they delete something useful then someone will recreate, or request undeletion. WP:CHEAP goes both ways. Ivanvector🍁(talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Rereading your proposal, my condition wasn't too far off from what you originally proposed. With that in mind, I'll give it a full support. I'll look over the list again once the dust settles and see if there's any deletions I disagree with. Good luck with the clean-up, admins. I hope this isn't too much of a burden on you. --Tavix(talk) 20:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
meh This is pretty much what is already happening, without any need for a proposal or whatever, but if this is what it takes to calm everyone down about admins just doing their job cleaning up a mess that involves literally tens of thousands of pages and may take months or even years to deal with entirely, so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. As a regular at RfD, I feel the balance between admins autocratically deleting the most stupid, and admins and others making a full listing at RfD, has been reasonably well achieved after a few hiccups and without WP:IAR. (I am not an admin.) Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Speedy deletion criteria are not to win a certain discussion. That way, it is not allowed to instate a speedy deletion criteria just to "stop an user from making disruptive redirects". Anybody can feel free to list the redirects at WP:RFD, and maybe even nuke them. --TL22 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this proposal as short-circuiting discussion. Rather, it's intention is to forgo discussion in cases where it's blatantly obvious what the outcome would be. The goal is to save time and legitimize what's already happening anyway. As Tavix mentioned above, "created by Neelix" should definitely not be the sole deletion rationale for admins seeking to employ this proposal. If an editor feels there is any possibility of contentiousness, RfD should definitely be the way to go. I would support a stipulation along the lines that if any editor contests a deletion under this proposal, either by removing a CSD template or by recreating the redirect, it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion under this proposal. Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Nuke is not appropriate, as many of his redirects are valid and a nuke is all or nothing. But I feel that this is a situation where admins should be allowed some flexibility. there are several examples right now at CSD which are clearly nonsense redirects, but which were added eight years ago. and there is currently no appropriate deletion criterion, assuming that eight years cannot be described as recent.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support as a statement of the de facto situation, not as a formal action or precedent. @ToonLucas22: If you think it would be acceptable to nuke all of the redirects, why is it unacceptable to take the less draconian action of deleting just some of them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support - an expedited process is necessary due to the sheer volume of redirects we're talking about —МандичкаYO 😜 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. Going through the full process on some tens of thousands of redirects is not reasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a broad consensus here. Can the ball start rolling? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a broad consensus here. Can the ball start rolling? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Seems a reasonable application of IAR. I also second NYB's clarification. ~Awilley (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Support with some provisos. Firstly, that the delete summary should probably contain mention of it being a Neelix-related delete (so that it can be audited easily afterwards). Secondly, if a non-admin places a CSD tag on this ground on a redirect, and another user contests the deletion, the correct way to resolve it is to take it to WP:RFD. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparent sockpuppet to edit war on AE protected articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are under ARBCOM restriction WP:ARBPIA so it's worrying to see the obvious sock 7uperWkipedan appear with the sole purpose of edit warring on these articles. Not knowing who the sock-master is, I bring it here rather than WP:SPI. The very first edit of 7uperWkipedan was a revert in an ongoing edit-war , and from its very first edits, the account is familiar with "POV-pushing" , "original research" , so obviously not a new account. As seen by its edit history , the account is used solely in edit wars related to ARBPIA. Lots of controversial reverts (some examples , , , , , , , , , ) yet not one talk page contribution, showing that the account was created just to be able to edit war in these contested articles. (It's ironic that this sock often reverts other by saying "take it to talk" , , despite never taking it to talk itself, perhaps leaving that to the sock master). This edit summary is rather revealing as the sock ironizes over Nishidani, showing that this "new" account apparently has both knowledge and a grudge. As edit warriors in ARBPIA are active but not very numerous, I hope the sockmaster could be found and blocked. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I count 4 sure (perhaps 6) socks, just on experience, tone of edit summaries and a few stylistic ticks, operating there in the I/P area. No background, just a few edits and then straight into an I/P fray. But it is wholly subjective. Most of those, however, that I said were socks, most recently User:Settleman, picked as such from the outset, turned out after some months to be so. This however means nothing administratively. My approach, in lieu of proof, is just to keep working, despite the nuisance factor.
What is obvious in any case with this account is what Jeppiz documents: the editor doesn't 'waste his time' (as opposed to others) on talk pages, has no productive history on Wikipedia and doesn't show any promise of building a record of useful contributions.He just trawls around to make reverts. I think there was some consensus that we should just not allow new accounts to pop up and make serial revert abuses in the I/P area,- it's deeply troubled enough without this nonsense, and yet this behavior continues to enjoy a large tolerance leeway. His edits are pointless exercises in abuse, and there is nothing constructive there. Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Can probably be blocked as a WP:DUCK simply based on this diff, but since WP:ARBPIA3 is almost done, such socks will be gone anyway soon. Kingsindian♝♚ 19:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's good news, I'd lost track. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
While that is good news, I think it would be relevant to take action against the sock and the sock master. Jeppiz (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tanbircdq, you might want to ask for a checkuser in your SPI. Meanwhile, I have topic banned 7uperWkipedan. --NeilNtalk to me 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Despite the topic ban given by NeilN, the sock continues to edit exactly the kind of articles he's forbidded to edit under the topic ban , . Time for an indef block, not only is this an obvious sock, they also show their complete disrespect for the topic ban. Could we try to find the sock-master, to whom the topic ban of course also applies. Jeppiz (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
7uperWkipedan is indef blocked. --NeilNtalk to me 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DanDud88 has over 14000 edits and has been editing since 2006. In 2013 he started showing signs of not understanding that he cannot plagiarize content. At the time, circa these edits and later, he appeared to copy large passages of content from Wikia without attribution. Drmargi brought this to his attention in this discussion and DanDud88 failed to rectify it, or even ask anybody how he could rectify it. The burden fell to Drmargi to remedy.
There were other issues as documented on the user's talk page. Circa November 2014, Drmargi brought up a number of problems that Dan needed to address. His response? So basically your saying your a Grammar Nazi There was no indication that he intended to do anything differently or that he even understood the problems.
In October 2015, I was in a position to have to instruct the user not to add interpretive content as he did in this edit. At that point I started becoming more aware of the user. I saw the notice from CorenSearchBot that content he added at Dragnet (1951 TV series) appeared to be plagiarized, which he did nothing to fix, and that had to be remedied by Tek022.
Here he copied content from the main List of Gerry Anderson's New Captain Scarlet episodes without attribution. He did nothing to remedy this after I brought it to his attention and told him that he should use the {{copied}} template. He had already been told about proper attribution in 2013. I've had to remedy the attribution issue here and I don't know that I was able to locate all the sources of content.
In these edits (among many others) he introduces large See also sections, apparently with no awareness that there might be guidelines about usage. This seems to be part of a pattern of doing things without researching how to do them correctly.
In these edits he introduces prose that is not written in proper encyclopedic WP:TONE. It includes misspellings, contractions, ellipses, rhetorical questions and exclamations. Drmargi points out that it's likely plagiarized, and it appears that some of the content is coming from here. (Note this pdf contains some of the prose). The content might conceivably be in the public domain, but 1) we don't know that for a fact and 2) it's unclear if the Plot Extension content at OTRR.org is generated by OTRR, or if the content was generated by the Dragnet producers. 3) While OTRR.org appears to be a wiki of some sort, it doesn't have an obvious copyright license, so there is no presumption that content they generate is free for us to use. And 4) assuming the content is in the public domain or free for use under CC-SA, it's not adequately attributed!
In this edit (which I couldn't establish as plagiarized) he introduces significant grammar problems that require at least seven things to be fixed. This was the last straw for me, which he followed up with these edits where he introduces the bizarrely worded "leaving him in a critical condition" and "Friday decides to do his speech about the use of narcotics by teenagers." Like what, Friday's got one speech?
I don't know what DanDud's goals are here, but I don't know if he has the linguistic skills to edit here effectively () and I have serious doubts about his community skills, since his pattern tends to be to add plagiarized or other problematic content, and let other users do the clean-up. This is not cool. Compounding matters, he rarely participates in discussion, rarely uses edit summaries, doesn't seem to acknowledge any problems, and rarely, if ever, cleans up after himself when problems are brought to his attention. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Ignoring the rest of the behaviour (which does appear to be problematic) it's worrying that an editor is being attacked for poor grammar when these two example ("In a critical condition" and "Friday decides to give his speech") are perfectly fine and correct. Wikipedia has an international editor base; many people have English as a second language. When you see an error you should i) Check that it really is an error and not just a style choice or an international usage, ii) just edit it, with discussion on the talk page if needed. But using it as evidence of bad faith is not nice and you should avoid doing it. (I tried talking to Cyphoidbomb and they were rude in their reply.) Moted Dryly (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I am this close to just indef-blocking your account and removing this comment, since it appears this account was only created to mess around with Cyphoidbomb. At any rate, your comment just not do justice to the extent of the problem, and your comments toward Cyphoidbomb are the rude ones. That Cyphoidbomb referred to you as an SPA is hardly a personal attack, since that is what you are. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Dryly's comments are a red herring. He seems to be conveniently ignoring the other glaring problems in the same submission, like the missing "a" in "he also steals large quantity of narcotics", the missing comma after "meanwhile", the use of "my" when he meant "by", the misspelling of "adict", the use of "decided" when DanDud should be writing in unfolding present tense, the incorrect capitalization of "Teenage" and the incorrect capitalization of "Narcotics". Are all these mistakes attributable to international usage, or do they demonstrate something else like laziness, lack of proofreading, or a lack of competence? I make occasional grammar mistakes (as Drmies knows,) but this isn't the only instance of this with DanDud. Look at the stuff I've fixed here and here and figure out from the article's edit history who added the problematic prose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't echo what Cyphoidbomb has said strongly enough. I've worked with DanDud88 off and on for a couple years now, and find him to be totally resistant to any guidance, generally adopting a persecuted stance rather than simply admitting he mad a mistake an clearing it up. As C noted, he plagiarized the entire articles of a series of characters on Person of Interest from the Pedia of Interest Wikia to created the POI characters article. When this was pointed out to him, he simply shrugged his shoulders and said that someone else should fix it. When the Pedia of Interest admin objected (justifiably so!), he left several pathetic messages there (I'm so sowwy), but made no effort to clean up his plagiarism. He clearly lacks any understanding of what is expected of him as an editor, or what makes good content; one needs only look at his arrangement of character lists in some TV articles to see that.
How acute that lack of understanding is became clear with the "Grammar Nazi" remark. Beyond the utterly offensive reference, I had tried at length to address his grammar, plagiarism and tendency to invent content; if I recall this incident was in reference to Law & Order: UK, where he created titles for characters and more out of whole cloth (I'll hunt it up and add a diff later). Two additional points need attention. First, DanDud88 refuses to use edit summaries. I can't find more than a handful on his contributions list. He's been warned about that over and over again by multiple editors, to no effect. Second, when DadDud88 can't have what he wants, he resorts to personal attacks. His level of maturity is low, and he becomes petulant when he can't have his own way.
Clearly, he sees WP as a fan site, not an encyclopedia. He's not interested in policy, or in collaboration, just in doing what he damned well pleases. He's not the worst offender around here, but he's damned disruptive, and it eludes me how he's escaped being blocked up until now. --Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
DanDud88 was last warned about copyright violations on October 18th. Have there been more instances after that? --NeilNtalk to me 20:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, that depends. Looking at these edits we see the addition of "A lone bandit robs a jewelry store in broad daylight and takes five thousand dollars in precious stones." This appears to be taken from the opening voiceover of a Dragnet episode, per this reference:
"First Line Narrative and Plot: 'A lone bandit robs a jewelry store in broad daylight. He takes five thousand dollars in precious stones.'"
If we assume that these episodes are in the public domain, and they probably are, then that may not be a copyright violation, but isn't it still plagiarism? The user also adds, "Then the robber escapes from the lockup and must be recaptured again", which can be found at the same source:
"Plot Extension: '... Then the robber escapes from the lockup and must be captured again.'"
Clearly an almost verbatim summary. If the source of the plot extension prose is the Dragnet episode, then that might not be a copyright violation. But if this OTRR site generated the prose, then this would represent a copyright violation. He also added the content "a club owner later identifies a drug addict as the probable suspect. The killer is convicted of manslaughter and paroled in 6 years." which is verbatim with the same reference. There are no edit summaries, no talk page discussion that explains the origin of the prose, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason that an episode of the 1951 Dragnet series would be in the public domain, but in any even, until there is evidence (proof) that it is, it must be dealt with as being copyrighted. BMK (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
BMK, I will not pretend to be a copyright expert. I don't believe that the theme is in the public domain, but the scuttlebutt (which of course would be totally unsuitable as a fact in a Wikipedia article) suggests that Universal let the copyright lapse on the 50s radio and TV series, which shared scripts. Some eps can be found at Archive.org, although I'm not suggesting that Archive.org has vetted the public domain claim. So tl;dr: I don't know, and yes, we'd have to err on the side of it being copyrighted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that assumption, and I think it demonstrates sloppiness and inappropriate tone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Also not definitive, and not necessarily a WP:RS, is this blog entry, which basically says "maybe yes, and maybe no". If that's case, then we must assume that they're still copyrighted. BMK (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd err on the side of caution until it is ascertained whether it is a copyvio or not. To that effect, an indef block should be levied straightaway. This case is reminiscent of User:Primetime who was sitebanned after prolific copyright violations. Their MO was to adopt a "oh it's ok" sort of attitude until shown repeatedly that they were placing the pedia in legal jeopardy. After that, their articles were picked apart and ultimately mass deleted. They also took on a persecuted victim tone playing the part of some sort of Robin Hood figure who would "steal" copyrighted materials and be seen as a hero. section is telling. DanDud88 seems to have a similar attitude to being confronted about their plagiarisms. Blackmane (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you want me to say? Im sorry? I didn't want to read all your silly rules, I didn't know people took Wikipedia so seriously. D.Dudley (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding plagiarism is hardly a silly rule. clpo13(talk) 16:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
D.Dudley, what steps are you going to take to change your editing behavior? --NeilNtalk to me 16:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
What should I do, your all ganging up on me to quit, so I quess I will D.Dudley (talk)
We're not in high school anymore; please give a more appropriate answer to the question. If you don't, if all you offer is sulking and you can't be bothered to address the problems ("copyvio" is not a silly little rule), then you will be indef-blocked, and you will have dug that hole all by yourself. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when it comes to anything that places the WMF in legal danger. Whether you apologise is immaterial, all you need to do is assure the administrators that you will make sure to read the copyright policy and understand that what you were doing is illegal. Otherwise, I, or another editor, will put up a formal proposal to indef block you right now so you have plenty of time to absorb the policies. Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we need any further evidence that this is an editor who lacks the competence and maturity to edit, and is clearly WP:NOTHERE? I see no difference in his petulance here than I did in mid-2013 when I first attempted to help him understand his gross plagiarism and lack of response to even the most basic policies was unacceptable. As unforgiving as this sounds, he should be indeffed now, not allowed to continue to flaut policy and behave as he does. --Drmargi (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
More sloppy editing after being reported to ANI and thumbing his nose at all our "silly rules": here
"Note: The name Shadow Alpha one is a reference to Gerry Anderson's first 2 live action tv series, SHADO (Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation) from UFO and Moonbase Alpha from Space: 1999."
He forgot to capitalize "one", "2" should be "two", "tv" should be TV, per MOS:ACRO "SHADO (Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation)" should probably have been "Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation (SHADO)", and where is the reference that supports this otherwise interpretive statement? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. He says he's quitting because we're all picking on him by expecting him to a) play by the rules and; b) address our concerns; then thumbs his nose at ANI, and goes merrily on making the same incompetent edits as before, clearly signaling his intention not to abide by policy or address our concerns. And this despite two admins (@Drmies and @NeilN) saying they expect him to address our concerns or will indef? OK, boys. Where are you? Why is this allowed to continue? --Drmargi (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the kitchen, cleaning up, and then getting kids to bed. NeilN is probably out bunburying. Sorry, there's only so much I can do from my phone. Maybe later. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't indef someone for writing "2" instead of "two". I can see a block for OR, if they've been warned about that--OK, I see that they have been warned on that unholy talk page of theirs. Is it OR? Look, I can see that this editor is trouble, and uncommunicative, and not getting any better, and I can understand it if someone else thinks this is indeffable. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
But what about So basically your saying your a Grammar Nazi? Misspelling "you're" twice in one sentence should at least be a one-year block. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You can propose such a rule on AN, or start an ArbCom case. Let those suckers deal with it. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
But depending on the outcome of the current election, "those suckers" could be you! BMK (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. If an editor with 14,000 edits is going to be indeffed, let them be indeffed for something solid. Pretty sure since that sucker Drmies has pulled their head out of the sand, they would agree. --NeilNtalk to me 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admin intervention needs to Socialnetwork395(talk·contribs) for his/her advertisement/promotional article creation. --AntanO 11:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Everything's been deleted now, many were G11 deleted before this report and I've G12ed another now. Left a paid COI notice and a spam warning.—SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt action. --AntanO 16:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hillbillyholiday chronic "whitewashing" of Edward Furlong
I'm not seeing convincing evidence of whitewashing here, but there do appear to be legtimate concerns about the quality of the sourcing. Furthermore, the article history and talk page appear to show that Lx 121 has promoted a battleground mentality in discussion, has invoked an essay that has nothing to do with the matter at hand in an attempt to discredit individuals trying to balance coverage in relation to concerns over due weight and our policy on biographies of living persons. Consider this a warning that continued behavior along these lines on this article or elsewhere will result in a block. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 11:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hillbillyholiday has been "camped out" on the article page Edward Furlong since 2013. If you look @ the edit history, his name appears 30+ times.
In all this time, the user's only substantive edits have been to remove "unflattering" material about the subject; which he does repeatedly, intransigently, regardless of source, with flimsy or nonexistent edit rationales.
The user has repeatedly removed content that is not in factual dispute; material that is in the public record, with a WIDE ARRAY of sources available. This is blatant "whitewashing".
The user has been in conflict with multiple users over their removal of material, over the last 2 years. The user does not have "consensus" for these actions, or anything remotely resembling it. The user has had only 1 intermittent "supporter" throughout these disputes. Aside from myself (& i only became involved thus by in restoring inappropriately deleted material), the user has bulk-deleted material contributed by dozens of other users, as well as coming into direct conflict with at least 6 other users.
When "defeated", the user returns weeks or months later, to continue their actions.
The user is completely ignoring talk page discussion.
I really don't like bans or blocks, or etc., & i think we overuse them massively, but i do think it is time to contemplate at least banning this user from editing this one article.
At the very least, a "stern warning" would be nice.
I just looked through the diffs and I agree that this user is whitewashing. As long as that content is carefully sourced it should stay. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The coverage was, alas, undue, as was the parenthetical aside about his age etc. BLPs are not the place to give undue weight to "celebrity gossip". Collect (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
comment -- "celebrity gossip"? really!? how is stating the actual age of the subject, @ the time of an actual event "gossip"? how is an arrest record, court hearing, or imprisonment "gossip"? these points are factual, verifiable (via multiple sources), & in the public record. invoking "BLP" is not a license to erase fact. IF this that is REALLY where the "BLP" crowd is @ now, then is it time for a community-wideblowout discussion about what's happening @ "BLP". Lx 121 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Collect is correct. What do we read here? His wallet was stolen, according to the Daily Mail? Some really sensitive BLP information is sourced to something called "various [full citation needed]"? Who restored that? I have no opinion right now on the editor's behavior or whatever, but can we please look a bit more carefully? Sometimes the opponent has a point, you know. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
comment -- the editor is question is not "surgically removing" unsourced material. the editor is taking an axe to material that is widely know, in the PUBLIC RECORD, with multiple sources available. there is a difference. Lx 121 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
While Collect has deleted some of the details of the article subject's legal problems, drug problems, etc., enough remains to get the point across. See Edward Furlong#Substance abuse and legal problems, with 13 sentences of negative info. Lx 121 seems rather wound up about this on Talk:Edward_Furlong. Their edit warring complaint from Nov. 15th (same article, different editor) was rejected. I took a look at this from a COI perspective, but it doesn't seem to be a COI issue; no party seems to be affiliated with the article subject. Looks more like a minor content dispute between fans. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
comment -- re: "enough remains to get the point across" -- this is wikipedia, not "wiki-summary", or "wiki-mini". the article is a BIOGRAPHY of the subject. we would not conceivably be having this argument about having "too much FACTUAL, SOURCED info" for an article about ANYTHING but a "BLP". Lx 121 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have a real grudge against Mr Furlong. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem to want to write a hit-piece, not a biography. Learn the difference and you might understand why no one appears to be agreeing with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kartiktiwary and copyright violations
User blocked by NeilN (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an administrator please consider blocking Kartiktiwary(talk·contribs) for persistent copyright violations? By my count the user has already received over 40 warnings on their user talk page for copyright-related problems (mostly uploading infringing images and contributing infringing text, but also removing copyvio deletion tags, removing comments from copyvio deletion discussions, and contributing non-free files without a fair use rationale). However, they have continued to contribute infringing images and text (e.g., has material copied from ; File:Rihand Dam.jpg was deleted as a copyvio at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 13#File:Rihand Dam.jpg but was uploaded yet again at File:Attractions in Sonbhadra.jpg). I suggest the block should be indefinite until the user confirms that they understand the copyright issues and agrees to abide by Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely with an explanatory note. --NeilNtalk to me 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of copyright violations, but he was one of those users in Indian Television articles , who would insert unreliable websites.The Avengers (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CurtisNaito and TH1980 editwarring on Talk:History of Japan
I'm not going to bother trying to unpack everything that is wrong on Talk:History of Japan, but a few things rising to the top include 1) the sometimes deplorable level of discourse, 2) repeated attempts from Curtis to push an article to GA when it does not appear to be ready, and 3) the lack of a structured "list of issues" with the article that Curly Turkey mentioned that can be easily understood (i.e. use something similar to Template:GATable so editors don't have to parse through all the drama like I did). I'll note that Curtis has made attempts to ask for some solution to #3, only to be told that people are tired of repeating themselves. That may be so, but perhaps they wouldn't be tired if the feedback was well-organized in the first place.
Curtis has noted that they will not renominate again until consensus is formed. I'm not entirely sure a local consensus is absolutely needed for a GAN, given that the article could really benefit from uninvolved editors/reviewers. In any case, the edit-warring and behavior consistent with WP:OWN from Curtis is problematic and has come up here repeatedly (see here and here). Curtis is blocked for 24 hours as a result.I, JethroBTdrop me a line 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite an agreement not to renominate the article without consensus, CurtisNaito has repeatedly renominated the article in the last 24 hours , and User:TH1980 has tagteamed to do the same thing twice . Both editors are well aware of how contentious this renomination is: there is a long list of issues in the article that have not been addressed despite the large number of editors who continue to bring them up (at the very least, myself, Hijiri88, User:Sturmgewehr88, Nishidani, Signedzzz, and MSJapan). Prhartcom was involved in the article's delisting and is aware that CurtisNaito was to seek consensus before renomination—consensus has not been sought, and CurtisNaito's own edit comments confirm that he is aware that there are issues with the article that have not been dealt with. TH1980 has a history of supporting CurtisNaito in a fashion that has drawn accusations of meatpuppetry, and he is now editwarring on an article to which he has made virtually no substantial edits. Both CurtisNaito and TH1980 are parties to an open ArbCom case where both CurtisNaito's and TH1980's persistent editwarring is being examined. CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for reverting, but I think we can resolve this issue by better structuring the discussion in the talk page. It was said during the good article reassessment that, "This is a temporary status; a few editors are expected to improve this article according to the sources then renominate it back to GA in due course." That was a month ago, and much discussion has taken place since then. What we should do is make a concrete list of any issues that still need to be resolved, and then implement those ideas. I certainly have the time to implement any suggestions which other users might make, as soon as we know what has consensus to be implemented. I believe most of the outstanding issues have been dealt with, so I think the article is at good article status. However, whatever might still be left to be implemented, can certainly be done in short order if we just make a list on the talk page. I absolutely don't mind if more changes are made to the article, by both myself and other users, as is needed. I don't see this as an issue that requires administrative action.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I often refrained from entering discussions there because a lot of unconstructive comments have been made towards me. But there was no reason for Curly Turkey to keep on reverting the nomination. Why not just let the good article reviewer decide the matter?TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You are fully aware of the answer to that: the agreement was that CurtisNaito would not renominate until a consensus was formed to renominate. CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 03:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I could not see that as being reasonable due to the unconstructive nature of the talk on History of Japan. I too felt that the discussion had run its course, and that a renomination for GA status was in order. I am also all for amicable, constructive discussion about this.TH1980 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The unconstructive talk was mostly on CurtisNaito's part, burying every comment, and it cannot have run its course with so many issues left unaddressed. Your own participation is suspicious, as it always has been, and is not focused on getting the article to GA quality. CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 05:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate TH1980 supporting my nomination, but whether it's nominated or not, I should reiterate that we need a more concrete list of changes to implement in the article. A month of detailed discussion has already taken place on the talk page, but discussion did seem to end last week. I could withdraw the good article nomination myself, but if I do that, then at least a concrete list of the changes which allegedly need to be made to the article should be drawn up so that someone can implement them. I was explicitly told that the article should be re-nominated "in due course", and I don't believe that my current nomination should be halted unless we have a clear plan to re-nominate again the near future.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The agreement was that you would not renominate until a consensus was formed to renominate. Not only is there no consensus, but you never even sought one, and are editwarring to push through a nomination that is against consensus. CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 03:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Could we maybe find a way to restart talk page discussion in an amicable manner? I want to know what more should be done to the article. I had thought that the renomination would take place "in due course" and it seemed at the time like the discussion had generally run its course.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You can take down the renomination and cease trying to renominate it until you have received the consensus that you were required to get before renomination. You have not come anywhere close to either bringing the article up to snuff nor gaining that consensus. CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 03:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Will an admin please just block them already? The ArbCom case is in its final stages, and they've edit warred again. If being blocked for a week doesn't keep them from edit warring in the future then at least it'll put a stop to it until the arbitrators have made their final decision. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will withdraw the nomination. I never wanted other users (TH1980) to revert over this matter, which seemed fairly straightforward to me. I was assured that the article would be renominated in due course, and I waited a month for all outstanding concerns to be dealt with. However, it might be worthwhile to keep this thread open for a while because the central problem here seems to be lack of clarity over what needs to be done to the article. We need someone who can say what needs to be done in clearer terms so that the changes can be implemented and the article renominated.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The requirement is that you wait for a consensus to renominate, and don't simply bury every comment until the issues are safely hidden away. There is no statute of limitations—without consensus, do not renominate. CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 05:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I had believed that I had followed the conditions laid down the last time, and I did wait for all the talk page discussion to go through. I wasn't trying to rush things, but we were supposed to renominate in short order, so I think the timetable was based on months rather than years. At any rate, maybe we should start talk page discussion from scratch and perhaps over the next month we can try to focus on specific content issues as much as possible.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
we were supposed to renominate in short order: no, we were supposed to renominate after—and only after—all the issues had been properly dealt with and you obtained consensus to renominate. How many times are we going to return to ANI over this, CurtisNaito? CurlyTurkey🍁¡gobble! 06:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will not renominate again and will continue to sort out any remaining concerns.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite an end to this. When Curtis noted that a consensus had been achieved,TH1980 replied aboved
'I could not see that as being reasonable due to the unconstructive nature of the talk on History of Japan.'
I.e. Since TH1980 saw the consensus as 'unreasonable', he persisted in backing the other editor's violation of the consensus. It is this wildcard refusal to stick by the rules which has made this minority of two's behavior problematical in the area. You can't keep pushing at the edges of policy, or defy the rules, until exhaustion prompts a serious editor or several to express their exasperation, and then, after more wasted time on a board, then slowly withdraw. It's called attritional obstructiveness. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like process wonkery. Anyone can nominate any article for Good Article. Its then up to the reviewer to decide if it meets the criteria. Generally the nominator should be a significant contributor to the article but there is no actual requirement to seek consensus from other editors to nominate it. If the nominator is not a contributor to the article in a meaningful way, the GA instructions state they should seek advice from those who are, but it does not say 'must'. If it meets the GA criteria the reviewer will pass it. If it doesnt, the reviewer will say why not and then people can address those concerns. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well this is the place to go for pointless wonkery of all types and styles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Use of discretion by Bbb23
No action needed here. Disagreement in this case over what is sufficient evidence for a CU or an administrative action in an SPI is not indicative of abuse. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 23:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Krzyhorse22, checkusers are limited when they can use their tools. Bbb23 has absolute discretion about when he uses the tools. If he does not believe there is sufficient behavioral evidence to possibly connect the users he shouldn't use the tools. We do not have the ability to force anyone to use any tool. If Doug Weller feels there is enough evidence they can block based on the behavioral evidence without check user data. Doug can even reopen the investigation and perform the CU if he feels there is enough info as he is also a checkuser. There is no abuse of discretion. --GBfan 20:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And I have to agree with Bbb23 that your evidence is skimpy at best. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 20:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My "evidence is skimpy at best"? What more should I do?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if Bbb23 makes a decision you disagree with I think the section title "Abuse of discretion by Bbb23" is a bit out of line. Having a different opinion than you is nowhere near "abuse". I have updated the section title accordingly. HighInBC 20:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Krzyhorse22: Bbb23 is a conscientious admin and CU, and I have never seen anything like "abuse" from him. Further, I see nothing in your report to justify a charge of abuse of discretion. In fact, its hard to abuse discretion as a CU by declining to run a scan. If Bbb23 was not convinced by your evidence and ran a scan anyway, that would be abuse of discretion. BMK (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if my evidence was not substantial, it was reasonable and probative, especially after I showed all the reported names using the same words ("PoV" and "Lede") while editing the same pages covering the same area. He closed the SPI too quickly, and to me that (in addition to declining to conduct a CU) constitutes an abuse of discretion. I'm studying law and I deal with these issues but let's not get into that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well your wrong, it is not an "abuse" of anything. I suspect that whatever law you are studying is not consistent with how Wikipedia does things. No volunteer is ever required to use their tools. HighInBC 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If the checkusers aren't willing to help, then you should continue documenting similar patterns, and also remove bad edits that the user in question might perform. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. More documentation is always helpful. Even if there isn't enough evidence for a checkuser, a regular admin might block for behavior if the evidence is convincing enough. clpo13(talk) 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Clarification. In this instance, I did not just decline the CU request; I declined the SPI itself and closed it. That doesn't prevent an administrator from blocking, but it would be outside the SPI and unlikely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm requesting additional editors to review my block of 173.66.63.102(talk·contribs·IP contribs·WHOIS). This is my second block of the user. After the first block, I tried explaining policies and guidelines. Either I was not clear, or they were incapable of understanding. They eventually asked me to leave their talk page, which I did - with the stipulation that should they continue the disruption I would block them again; although I'll leave it to someone else to notify the IP of this ANI discussion.
At this point, they are claiming I am involved and biased - which is why I'm requesting a review of the current block.
Would you mind taking this to the proper venue, which is WP:AN? This board is for behavior problems, WP:AN is for block reviews. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unfair Block on New User : Avoiding Suggested Procedures
Consensus among admins is that the block was justified. OP is advised not to create a storm in a teacup but is welcome to mentor the blocked IP. Block is short, no further admin action required. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am currently in a current discussion on the seemingly unfair blocked sanction imposed on User talk:73.49.33.101, Bishonen block this User for 31 hours for Edit warring. Upon my request to lift the block, it was declined by OhNoitsJamie
Whilst technically the User did break WP:3RR, the editors had already broken and completely ignored normal procedures − especially adopted for new Users and notably just ignored usual WP:GF. The actions here IMO have done great damage to Wikipedia, by acting without either wisdom. compassion nor understanding. I feel the wider implications openly discourage new Users, which we really require for the project. Users applying these sanctions seemingly disregarding the wider issues.
I am acting on this User's behalf, because I feel no one is willing to advocate for their position, and not understanding that this individual may need to learn the ropes. He has been treated quite terribly by multiple users, and now probably two Admins have judged this wrong. As 73.49.33.101 has already asked McSly "Why am I being accused of an edit war? My edit is being undone without cause. It appears as if OTHERS are engaged in an edit war, not me. My edit is valid and is NOT vandalism in any way." Looking at the edits in question, none were improper against well established editing principles.
Furthermore,
1) No one actually suggested this new User should register nor sign with the four tildes.
2) No one actually bothered to respond on the Talk:Flood geology page. Avoiding any appearance of seeking consensus.
I have explained my point of view, and have been meet by responses like Bishonen "As for awaiting my response here, you'd be waiting a long time." and OhNoitsJamie simply saying "Good luck." , clearly avoiding explaining these sanctions properly. (Admins clearly should really behave like this?)
I strongly request that 73.49.33.101 have these these block sanction be immediately lifted, and that Bishonen properly explain the wisdom of his current actions.
Note: I have no association nor responded with 73.49.33.101. I am only advocating for his rights as a new editor, which appear to have been either ignored or unfairly abused. I am quite prepared to assist this User further in the practices of editing here. (I've said this "I'll gladly get you up to speed and help with you with these and future edits.")
Comment User repeatedly edit-warred "secular" into Flood geology and similar pov against consensus. . User was warned several times . User was blocked for 31 hours. The end. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I asked Bishonen nicely if I could unblock, not because the block was poor or in bad faith (it wasn't) or against policy (it was a textbook 3RR block) but rather that it would reduce the likelihood of nonsense like this thread. Arianewik1, playing the victim over a moral panic is not nice, and while there's a legitimate point that we could all be nicer to newbies, sure, jumping up and down on a soapbox about it is not the way to achieve that. Furthermore, as Ohnoitsjamie points out, the block is for 31 hours, which is not a very long time and a rather pointless thing to get worked up about. And from what other things I see from Bishonen today, I think you have picked the wrong person to cry "abusive admin!" over. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a reasonable block for a short period of time. Can you better articulate what you think is actually incorrect about this block Arianewiki1? HighInBC 17:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Good block, completely useless drama thread by Arianewik1. "done great damage to Wikipedia" - going to be rolling my eyes at that all day. --NeilNtalk to me 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
On Comment That is not the issue. Several users completely avoided assisting this User in the first place, violating many basic principles directed towards editing, especially WP:GF The first edits were only regarding spelling of several words only because they were non-American English, and violated no adopted rules at all - and all without adequate explanation nor consensus. Reaction was multiple fronts, and NO ONE bothered discussing it or the alleged 'consensus' on the actual article talk page. Quite ignoring agreed editing procedures then imposing blocks is a violation against all users rights. Furthermore, you could have stopped the edits by making autoconfirmed users. This user is not only blocked, but is not able to edit after the sanction is lifted. Admins have grossly erred here, and 73.49.33.101 seemingly battered into submission. There is no justification for this behaviour. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
When the IP comes back from his 31-hour holiday, he has the option of using the talk page to discuss his edits, and if he can get consensus, it'll go in, although if he uses the same abrasive language he has been using on his talk page, I don't really fancy his chances. We are talking about reducing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, not human rights abuse in North Korea, you know - now please kindly drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The damage at first was quite incidental, but the IP was clearly being intimidated from the onset. I have only advocated for the IP, not because of the sanctions but because he was not offered due process. These edits and aledged disruption at first were actually very trivial, but the methodology in enforcing and ramping-up the editing by this IP was quite heavy handed without any compromise or fairness - made worst by a new user who needs to learn the how to edit in this environment. Editors are required to treat new users kindly, which has seemingly failed in this case. User mistakes are one thing, experience users then ignoring protocol and then blame new users for their mistakes is unacceptable.
Note: Banning is no "holiday" for any User, and dancing on someones grave can earn you a direct block. Please stick to the topic on an WP:AN here and drop the personal irrelevancies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Pepsi1500
Would it be possible to temporarily block Pepsi1500(talk·contribs)? This editor has made a number of good faith edits over the past day, but the edits are a mess. The editor has been following a map through Utah, adding the names of highways that pass through many small towns. The problem is, the edits are a mostly wrong. Towns are called cities, highways have been added that are already in the article, Wikilinks aren't used, and most of the time the editor names some highway that doesn't even run through the town (they called a ski resort a town too). I've been trying to clean up the edits, but it will take a while and it's pretty boring stuff. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a little early to be talking blocks -- or, really, for an AN/I report -- since you left your message on his talk page almost 2 hours after their last edit, so it's quite probable that they haven't seen it yet. If they start the same kind of editing again without responding to your comment, that's a different matter. In the meantime, if the edits are not improving the articles, revert them. BMK (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I've put a message on their talk page asking them to respond to your comment before they do any other editing. BMK (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Threemonths
This user is linking Seal in every university infobox he can find. While the link is relevant to the word as it's used, I think it's a good example of over-linking. Specifically, it breaks up a caption used for an illustration in an infobox - as in: Seal of the University of .... We've had a brief dialogue via edit summaries, and he's adamant that this is an important edit. Before addressing the user further (warnings, etc), and mass reverting, I thought it would be prudent to get the community's opinion here. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You do not need to mass revert my edits, I will change them all once/if the community comes to a conclusion. I have multiple edits of text and higher quality vector graphic Seals and logos in each edit, so I can go back personally and do it if the community decides the Seal link is overlinking. Threemonths (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest talking about it here to gain consensus Talk:Seal (emblem). Personally I agree it is overlinking as words like seal/logo etc do not need explanation in this context. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It is massively overlinking and completely and totally unnecessary: nobody needs to be told what a seal is. It's not even funny. --24.244.29.40 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking might be a better place for the discussion. For one thing it is likely to be on more editors watchlist - though I can't be sure about that. Wherever the discussion is held WP:CANVASSing like this should be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any administrator action is needed here; I've warned Threemonths about the canvassing issue and as noted above, discussion at somewhere like Talk:Seal (emblem) is more appropriate than here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I am truly sorry. I had no idea that this was considered rallying. I am reverting my edits to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. I have no malice and am not trying to vandlize. I appreciate your assistance in this issue, everyone. I assure this will not happen again.Threemonths (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
At first I thought linking "Seal" was appropriate and useful; now, after reading WP:OVERLINK (which includes "What generally should not be linked ... Everyday words understood by most readers in context" I think linking "Seal" directly under the picture of a college or university Seal is not a necessity. Contributor321 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Even putting the word "seal" directly under the image of a college or university seal is not a necessity . EEng (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Removal of copyvio template, editing of blanked content
See and . clpo13(talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a compromised account, just another user who's gotten tired of being harassed by vandals and socks (check the history of her user page...). Thomas.W talk 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't really tell us anything of any relevance at all. Have you seen the history of my userpage? Unless someone knows of something off-wiki, this looks like a compromise to me. A checkuser should take a look. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose, but it's a weird way to go about it. clpo13(talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
They made nearly 30 normal edits in the day since their userpage was last vandalised, and were editing constructively until just a few minutes before they called themselves worthless scum. It would be very weird to suddenly decide that they suck for no apparent reason. However no one can read this user's mind - only a checkuser, or a next edit, or a contact by the user could confirm what's happened here. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to see if someone sent her an email (which could have been harassment)? I think this mystery has something to with a possible/suspected paid-editing scheme she has been looking at lately. Thomas.W talk 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser note: The account is not compromised in the sense that someone else is using either a different device or editing from a different location. I can't speak as to the issue of someone else using Bonadea's devices from the same location because the other person has access to Bonadea's password.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. My sincere apologies for causing concern and extra work for people. I can confirm that nobody else has been using my account - all edits from this account were made by me, and nobody else has access to my password. As a matter of fact it never occurred to me that anybody other than myself might see those edit summaries - I guess that lack of thought rather confirms the sentiments I expressed... Sorry again. --bonadeacontributionstalk 21:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's good to know. Hope all is well. clpo13(talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Diego Grez-Cañete (yes, again)
For better or for worse, a siteban it is. The discussion has been open long enough, the support is overwhelming. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know how it is possible that this user is still allowed to edit (and disrupt) Wikipedia after several incidents (see: ---, and many more if you search). Last incidents? First, he retired from Wikipedia saying that time was "definitive" because "This is full of shit and it's disturbing to know unimportant strangers harass people everyday on this fading website" . But no, he wasn't retiring, because only 12 days later he returned to revert editions in Pichilemu-related articles and, of course, to insult some users (I don't want to reproduce all here, you can see it by yourself ). And last, but no least, he also is starting to edit Pichilemu articles under IP, and now he is attacking me: "the Rancagua guy loves to lie" and "so called laughable President of WM Chile" . For all this reasons, I strongly believe that Diego grez account (and all his sockpupets) must be blocked. He is not contributing to Wikipedia, he is using it for his personal benefits, self promotion, and he is also acting in bad faith. --Warkotalk 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I ping @Vrac: and @Sietecolores:, other users also attacked by Grez. --Warkotalk 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Check out the latest on COIN: . Definitely time for an indef or a site ban. I Support and indef or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked him for two weeks in the SPI case. If the community wants to discuss an indef or some form of ban then this is would be a reason to keep this thread open to make policy-based arguments with reasons to assist the closing admin (it won't be me). —Berean Hunter(talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend a more permanent solution, he will most likely return after 2 weeks. Diego Grez knows very well how to WP:GAME THE SYSTEM. Sietecolores (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Diego's very first edits were about himself (he would have been very young at the time); here we are almost ten years later still dealing with immature and unacceptable behavior. In between there have been many incidents of sock puppetry, COI, self-promotion, personal attacks, revenge attacks on other editors, edit warring, etc... The history up until 2010 is covered here. Diego was conditionally unblocked under mentorship which, given the ensuing events, completely failed. Warko's opening post in this thread includes some of the more recent problems but there is an awful lot more. Diego's saga on es.wikipedia.org is similar. There is also dodgy behavior on small wikis; Diego is an admin on the Scots wiki (WTF?) where he has abused the tools, has been blocked on the Russian wiki, has spread his COI articles to the Latin wiki and other obscure places.... Like Warko, I am shocked that he has been allowed to continue this long. He has produced some good content and seems to believe that his good contributions excuse his bad behavior. It's time to put an end to this; dealing with Diego has become a major time sink for myself and others. Vrac (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Holy moly--I saw Softlavender note somewhere that the editor created all these villages or whatever and that all them should be deleted. Well, lots of geographical features, including villages etc., are notable, but as it turns out all the ones I just looked at are neighborhoods, which are not automatically notable. I started PRODding and did a half a dozen, but there are a lot more. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah: Warko has a big AfD going (for Los Navegantes), and bundled a bunch of articles in there. I hope we're not overlapping too much. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies and Warko: Another crazy-ass list of articles to speedy, prod, or AfD: . -- Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Bleh. Well, Julio Waidele was a mayor of that town, so it would have to be AfD, and I don't know if that would lead to delete--elected official. I looked at a bunch of BLPs they created, and while they were all poorly verified, they seemed to squeak by as far as notability is concerned. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
See Mayor of Pichilemu: Ten Several of his mayor articles have already been successfuly AfDed and deleted. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender Isn't this all systemic bias? Just because you are a New Yorker things from a "population 13,900" town, provincial capital, which you consider a "tiny village" (a discriminating comment) should go? Behave! (BTW, only Cordova's article was AfD'd and deleted, the others (red links) were never created or were redirects). You also claim "Pichilemunews" is mine; incorrect. You guys make fun of many things that happened several years ago (i.e. sockpuppeeting), yet I did not insist on that anymore, go and do me a checkuser. I urge you to! You guys have nothing to claim but "Longterm abuse" for trying to create a neutral, referenced article related to myself and defending it. You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves. (And yes, I'm "sorry" for evading a block -which I think is unjustified- to comment this, which will be the actual last one, how could I anymore like to edit here when there is people who have pissed so much over me and my reputation). Whatever you guys decide, indef, or site ban, it will be actually a favor, I'm not coming back!!! --191.112.59.3 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Indef or site ban
Propose that Diego Grez-Cañete be indef blocked or site banned for longterm abuse including socking, gaming, massive COI, repeated personal attacks and wiki-stalking, and longterm disruption. Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, and by far a net negative. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban (or indef block, which to be determined by community consensus or closing admin [or ArbCom, if it comes to that, but I think it is clear-cut enough by now that it shouldn't need to]). Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban. --Warkotalk 13:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban. Evidence above is enough. --TL22 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban per AndyTheGrump's analysis at the 2014 COI case: he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Wikipedia facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. The time has come. Vrac (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban. I want to congratulate Vrac for summarizing the issue and Warko for having the patience to stand up against unacceptable behaviour. —Sietecolores (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban, long overdue. Max Semenik (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support site ban, as the only way to deal with this user, who has been a long-term issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, what's another option? Berean was kind, with a two-week block, but this has been going on for a long time. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Wouldn't a topic ban work better? Maybe also requiring that he acquire a mentor (I volunteer to help here, unless anyone else is more capable and willing to do it). I don't think site-banning Diego is going to be a solution—it would most likely prompt him to IP edit (or create a new account) and continue the misbehavior.--MarshalN20Talk 02:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No. He doesn't need mentoring -- he's been gaming and abusing the system for many many years. He doesn't need a topic ban, he needs a full site ban. This has nothing to do with topics, and everything to do with a destructive and manipulative personality across all topics and all Wikipedia spheres. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This makes me wish for the good old days of RfC/U, where this kind of stuff could be discussed calmly and quietly, and all the relevant issues could be laid out and a block or ban was not the desired outcome. Marshal, in a case like this a topic ban is probably the same as a regular old ban. I really don't want to call for yet another ban, though I don't see any options--I don't think mentoring here will work either. What good a ban will do, yeah, who knows. I have little doubt that the editor is not done editing, despite what they said above (as an IP), and the only thing a ban does is make it easier for us to delete articles and revert edits. That and make the banned editor angry, of course. If only that about-to-be editor were a bit more communicative, they could help us figure out a different solution. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
For those considering mentoring, they really should read this where it was tried. Diego did enough to get the restrictions lifted then back to his old behavior. He has been given many, many chances (see this 8 of 9 lives comment at the end of that discussion, and that was about 15 incidents ago...) How many times does he have to abuse the community's confidence before we say enough is enough? And then there is the cross-wiki abuse, the wikiverse has served as Diego's personal playground for years. If meta had any teeth I would take it there but it's hard enough to even get people to act in enwiki where the evidence is overwhelming. Vrac (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note: It seems to me that those hesitating here are not fully acquainted with the entire history and scenario. If this doesn't get settled here with a site ban or indef, it really is going to have to go to ArbCom. As it is, I would personally rather spare ArbCom that so that they can focus on less black-and-white (and also less time-consuming -- the level of this user's destruction and disruption is quite time-consuming to get a full grasp of) issues. For those of us who have been following this case to any degree, this is one is very black-and-white and self-evident. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mohsin17 was previously reported for disruptive editing here. He/she has continued editing in a disruptive manner which prompted me to report them at ANEW. Since the block expired, Mohsin has continued to engage in disruptive behavior. S/he has once again engaged in edit warring on articles such as List of urban areas by population and List of slums in Pakistan the latter of which I reported in ANEW. Reverting them will get messages that you're racist or Anti-Pakistani.
Aside from the edit warring, s/he was been warned multiple times about using reliable sources and adding original research. Even if there is a source available, s/he doesn't use the information from the source. For example, s/he made this edit on List of cities by GDP. The source (See page 31-34) states the following Karachi as having being 78 billion instead of the 108 billion that Mohsin17 changed. According to the source provided Faisalabad, had 14 billion instead of having 23 billion that Mohsin added. Mohsin again continued to add data not according to the source here. The continual increasing of figures is an indication to me that s/he is here to try and warp information in order to portray Pakistan in a positive light. This is further proven by edits on List of slums in Pakistan.
This is not the only time these kinds of edits have occurred. On List of metropolitan areas by population, s/he made this edit. S/he added Faisalabad with a population of 6,480,000 according to this source. However, when looking at the source (page 22) it states a different figure of 3,560,000. S/he also added Rawalpindi-Islamabad with a population of 5,510,000 using the same source but the source states a much different figure of 2,510,000. S/he has continued to add this here. From experience, the inflation of figures is another sign of trying to put one's country in a more positive manner. In this case, bigger is better.
It appears that Mohsin17 is not here to contribute constructively. Many of their edits have been unhelpful and has continually engaged in behavior not consistent with building an encyclopedia. ElockidMessage me 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Elockid, Mohsin is routinely present on my daily vandalism cleanup schedule. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not yet clear to me what is ultimately motivating Mohsin17(talk·contribs). Their edits are of a nationalistic nature, and there is a pattern in how their changes are applied. The modus operandi for Mohsin17 has been to add unsourced, improbable, or otherwise unverifiable content, and when challenged on this will provide references to either WP:USERGENERATED internet forums or will cite an incomplete link pointing to the base domain of an official government website (as opposed to a complete and fully qualified URL which can be verified), both of which are grossly insufficient to meet our verifiability policy. If one attempts to revert these edits on the basis of not meeting WP:V and related policies, Mohsin17 will blindly revert without any logical explanation. When attempting to engage in discussion on these issues, Mohsin17 resorts to making personal attacks toward those who are communicating said policies. This cycle has been ongoing and repeating itself for many months going on years now. Mohsin17 has yet to provide any indicator that they hold an interest in editing collaboratively, and their continued disruptive behaviors are a considerable drain on our valuable time and resources. I defer to the community on how we should best proceed. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely, I see that some serious problems remained unaddressed and that they had 2 blocks in the past. Max Semenik (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this Max. ElockidMessage me 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you Max. There is a secondary concern which Mohsin17 brought to light, and that is the heavy utilization of SkyscraperCityweb forums as a cited source. This is an issue which predates Mohsin17 and affects a wide range of articles. The LinkSearch tool presently shows 1,933 links back to www.skyscrapercity.com, and with rare exception, all of these links are pointing to a forum post. Would it be appropriate to remove these links (to forum posts) in their entirety? I am unsure what the most appropriate noticeboard for this concern might be so I am raising it here. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I did just recently add this section to a talk page about human rights, where i saw what appeared to be a slow-motion edit war, and i though i would set up a talk page discussion to have an actual dialogue about it. I was not involved in that page before, but i listed the diffs and pinged the people involved. I thought this could be helpful to having the discussion that appeared to be needed. I did not weigh in an opinion on the matter.
Then very shortly afterward, i noticed that a page i have edited today was seriously decimated. A huge amount of community contributions to the page were ripped out of the page. That page is Danbury, Connecticut.
As you can see at the edit history, user ScrapIronIV, who was one of the people i pinged when i set up a discussion on the other talk page about human rights, had come through and deleted huge amounts of the page, citing lack of sourcing and a couple other guidelines.
Now, these may be technically allowable edits, in a by-the-letter interpretation of the guidelines, about sourcing and challenging, but this is actually destroying a HUGE amount of good input and work done by a huge number of people at the article in question, and affects a huge number of people who added to this page and who use the page.
It was obviously not done in a caring way, for the good of the article, and it appears very strongly to have been done as a revenge against me for some reason because i have been standing up against bullying? Or because i brought up a conflict on another article that is controversial, and tried to set up a good dialogue about it? Of course i cannot see into this other editor's mind, but the circumstantial evidence is extremely strong and it feel like this action violates the community spirit of Wikipedia, even if it's largely by the "letter of the law" so to speak.
It feels to me like a revenge attack on a page that the user can see i care about. I would be very happy to hear from the other user who i have pinged to get their explanation of how they came to this page that they probably have never edited before, and why they chose to go on a spree of deletions.
There is also this entry on the talk page that appears to support the appearance that the deletions were for the reason i suppose it may be.
I would also ask them to voluntarily revert the edits, to restore the content, even though much of it is unsourced, and to release their challenge to the sourcing. This is an article cared about by many people, and could be worked on with care, and more slowly. It just feels so wrong to me.
Thank you for your consideration. SageRad (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
So you are complaining that unsourced content was removed as unsourced and now you want the unsourced content to be readded because you think your public contributions were looked at and followed? People look at others contributions all the time and perform edits to bring the article into compliance. That looks like what happened here. You are very much into the anti-bullying but not into assuming good faith. You do know that there is a very easy solution to this, find reliable sources for the information and add it back in. --GBfan 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Per instructions at WP:V, non-contentious material which is uncited should be tagged for a reasonable amount of time before removal. I have gone and restored the entire set, removed anything which either had been tagged for a long time or is likely to be contentious, and then tagged anything else to give interested parties the opportunity to provide references, per WP:PRESERVE. If these tags remain for a reasonable amount of time, then stuff can start to be removed. Also, some selective paring of a few lists (the notable people and in popular culture lists), as they are likely a bit too long, but again the selective paring down can be done by people with specific knowledge and interest in the area. I hope this approach shows the middle road, which is preferred than simply wholesale removal and/or wholesale restoration. The concerns over referencing are valid, but unless material is specifically contentious, removal without tagging for a reasonable amount of time is ALSO not ideal. --Jayron32 19:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The first of the "ideal" options would have been to be notified of this discussion. The second is that, while we now have a lovely page full of maintenance tags, we still have a good bit of material that was specifically removed for policies in addition to sourcing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE and every hiking trail (an entire unsourced list) does not belong even if it were sourced. Ditto for the prison inmates; they belong on the prison's page, not the town. I more than decimated it, but when more than a tenth of the article is unsourced cruft in violation of multiple policies, it needs to go.
As for the accusation that my edits were an attack on anyone, I deny it, categorically. I often edit with an axe - particularly when it comes to unsourced violations of longstanding policy, unencyclopedic content, and fancruft. Scr★pIronIV 19:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that the allegation of vandalism in a content dispute, when there is no evidence of vandalism, specifically, no evidence of deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, is a personal attack, and a serious personal attack. ScrapIron disagreed with your edits. Read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the content dispute forums, if you haven't already made calm discussion of content impossible. Before posting here with charges of vandalism, please reread the boomerang essay. Unfortunately, it appears that you, User:SageRad, are no more willing to edit collaboratively in other areas than genetically modified organisms. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is why I clearly said "appears to be". Unfortunately, this is the response I expected. I am very able and willing to edit collaboratively, and I do. I do it very well with others who are collaborative. SageRad (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate the consideration, and I do understand the guidelines on sourcing. I am sorry if my perception was off base, but I do hope it is understandable why it may feel that way based on circumstances. Sourcing and selectivity will need to be applied to the page. I will make a note on the article's talk page to that effect. SageRad (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The information ScrapIronIV "axed" from Danbury, Connecticut is hardly all fancruft and unencyclopedic content, including which major companies are headquartered there, the city's parks, etc. These are standard things in city articles. Being unsourced is not a reason to remove non-controversial information like this. Additionally, you have never edited the Danbury article prior to today, so it would appear you only went there after seeing SageRad's edits, and this looks like WP:HOUNDING. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate that this was taken seriously by admins, and once again i am amazed how the guidelines are so well designed that when they are followed, disputes can be worked out. I appreciate this experience so much. The article will be improved as a result, because the citation-needed tags will get people motivated to really decide what they care about, then then we'll see what is really sourceable to reliable sources to establish notability. I think that there was some cruft to be sure, but it's just that much of it seemed to be good material that simply was added by newbie editors, or people who didn't feel it was controversial enough to require a source. Thank you again to the goodwilled people who helped out. SageRad (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
disruptive WP:IDHT behavior by multiple editors, PA by User:Btljs
I merged the pages and Btljs DELETED my comment on Talk:Green Party of England and Wales saying merge was endorsed and reverted my redirect saying it was an "unendorsed action by one individual with a grudge against this page." As a generally liberal, pro-green individual (who is American to boot) I take offense that I have some personal beef with the Green Party of Wales. Btljs then accused me of being a fascist stating "one editor is acting as judge and jury on this decision." This is hardly the case as article was nominated at AfD (NOT by me) and two administrators concluded at AfD and Deletion Review that this was a merge.
It's been explained throughout this process by multiple people that Wales Green Party must meet notability requirements of WP:BRANCH as it is a regional branch of the parent party, which is clearly called Green Party of England and Wales. I have tried to explain, as have others, that there is simply no in-depth coverage of the Wales Green Party outside of Wales. I have tried to explain on the Talk page of Green Party of England and Wales the kind of coverage needed. Members of the Wales Green Party have popped up accusing Wikipedia of "ulterior motives", and now I am a being called a fascist for applying WP decisions and policies. Btljs stated they want an administrator involved (even though the previous administrators' actions are apparently irrelevant). —МандичкаYO 😜 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Shocking conduct from user wikimandia
The consensus on the talk page was that the wales green party should continue to have a stand alone page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Wales_Green_Party.Indeed after the end of the discussion wikimandia was the only editor still arguing for merger. Any actions user Btljs took simply reflected the consensus of editors on the talk page.If anyone has been 'disruptive' - and should be the subject of a complaint - its the user wikimandia.
Firstly merging the page while a discussion was still taking place on the merits of a standalone wgp page and then - despite a clear consensus against and users supporting their case with numerous examples of 'notability' - unilaterally merging the page again.wikimandia's conduct during this saga has been frankly outrageous and i fear it brings wikipedia's editorial processes into real disrepute.
And not content with flagrantly disregarding the views of users on the talk page on the matter it now appears wikimandia seems to want to get users who challenged his/her autocratic manner banned from wikipedia.Words almost fail me. The strength of the case for a standalone wgp page is there for all to see on the talk page - as it was on the deletion review page created on 2nd november https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_November_2#2_November_2015 - and the wales green party page should be restored in accordance with the wishes of a clear majority of users on those pages.Or doesnt democracy count on wikipedia? If it doesnt then it's sadly wikipedia's reputation that is getting dragged through the mud if it disregards evidence an users views in such cavalier fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been explained to you that Wikipedia does not go by "number of votes." We go by guidelines and policies determined by consensus, and guidelines and policies have been followed in this case. The arguments brought up on the talk page essentially add up to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and poor understanding of in-depth coverage. These arguments were rejected at both the Articles for Deletion and the Deletion Review; that the same people continue to argue them on a talk page does not reverse these decisions. Additionally, I do not want to get other users "banned from Wikipedia" and have never said such a thing. Btljs stated they want an administrator involved so they got their wish. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the decision to get rid of the WGP page was dreadful - just about the worst admin decision I have seen on wikipedia. While I'm not endorsing any disruptive behaviour such as the removal of tags from pages etc, I do think the views of the community have been ignored, and sadly one person who did clearly have a grudge (not anyone who has contributed to the discussion in the last few weeks I hasten to add) has got their way. I completely accept that this was a close call taking into account the requirements of BRANCH, however, I feel that when it is a close call we should err on the side of not deleting articles, especially when there is a strong consensus in favour of their retention. Several sources have been provided to demonstrate notability, and the UK national broadcaster considers the WGP important enough to include their leader in both a UK General Election debate and their coverage of the last NAW election (where they were considered a "major" party, along with Labour, Cons, LD and PC). True, the article was not great in the state it was in yesterday (or back in June when the first AfD was opened), but it could have been improved and the sources available to improve the article were provided. Frinton100 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologise if I inadvertently deleted a comment when I reverted the re-merge of the page byWikimandia. I apologise for my inflammatory language re. using the word 'fascist'. I do not apologise for my severe disquiet at the way that a few very vocal editors have sought to stifle any serious discussion by simply stating and restating WP rules ad nauseam, however many references were cited in support of a separate page. If it is the decision of Wikipedia to remove this page then I see no part in its future development for myself, not because I think that this is a particularly important case in itself, but it represents a clear victory for bullying tactics by the editors in opposition, which I find totally ad odds with my opinion of what a collaborative online encyclopedia should be. There is no overhead in a separate page and, with over 5 million subject pages, there is plenty of room for this subject. The only reason anybody would continually oppose this page when they know it has support from several keen editors is to bolster their own feelings of superiority and power over others. They have yet to put one single good argument for this page not existing for at least a reasonable amount of time to see if it stands on its own merit. I've been an editor since 2006 and I have never come across such a blatant misuse of authority as in this case. Btljs (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Btljs, I don't understand why you apologize for inflammatory language and then say people (ie me) who "oppose" the page are being bullies and need "to bolster their own feelings of superiority and power over others." That's ridiculous. Many people know I am a frequent contributor to AfD and regularly search high and low to find articles that support keeping articles. I am not a deletionist. I was invited to continue the discussion on the talk page of the parent article after the AfD and I did, stating I was neutral and repeatedly informing you of the GNG requirements and even giving you an example of the kind of coverage needed.Frinton100 I do NOT have a grudge against the article subject and the reason why I did not continue discussing it on the talk page is that I'd already explained the guideline and was getting only WP:IDHT responses. It is also unfair to claim "I am getting my way" when again, I was not the one who nominated the article for AfD in the first place, nor the only one to recommend merging it. I don't see why I'm being singled out - anyone could have done the merge. Additionally, the Deletion Review trumps the discussion on the talk page; after I gave up it was only the page supporters discussing the page, so how can it be a true consensus? And finally I remind you again that nothing is being deleted, just moved to a different place on Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sigh indeed. If you read what I wrote - "one person who did clearly have a grudge (not anyone who has contributed to the discussion in the last few weeks I hasten to add) has got their way" - I made clear that the person who has a grudge had not contributed to the discussion this time around. You have contributed, so therefore I was not referring to you, Wikimandia. Frinton100 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see. As I stopped participating in the discussion on November 7, I assumed you were talking about me. Apologies Frinton100. I don't know how you can accuse anyone of having a grudge, however, without any evidence of such. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The evidence comes from the particular editor's history. It is not based on a simple disagreement. Frinton100 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In fact, one of the original editors proposing deletion was the leader of the Pirate Party in Wales who has attempted the creation of a Pirate Party Wales article at least once. He is a former member of the Wales Green Party, and certainly has a grudge. - Jackgovier (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's system is setup that one editor with a grudge cannot cause a page to be deleted. That is why AfD and Deletion Review both exist. Additionally, the article content was not even deleted, just merged! —МандичкаYO 😜 01:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither AfD or Deletion Review highlighted any valid reason the article should not exist in its own right. You don't have an argument either, it's just tragic. Jackgovier (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a brief comment here. Wikimandia`s (or Мандичка`s if you wish) definition of "consensus" appears to be a little odd. For most people it means a ``general`` agreement about something, not "agrees with with my view". Now take another look at the discussion on talk:Green Party of England and Wales and decide, objectively, whether a consensus had been reached and what that was. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The AfD and deletion review trump the conversation on the talk page. The discussion on the talk page was started to give further explanation of guidelines after the AfD outcome was challenged so we could try to drum up the appropriate coverage in reliable sources that would support the article's notability. SilkTork (who is an administrator and presumably has nothing to do with the Pirate Party or any rival political group) clearly explained what was missing. To which Btljs responded "You are merely restating the same old arguments which I believe we have already more than answered." These are not old arguments, but guidelines. No matter how many times you are told the type of coverage you need, you refuse to believe it, thus the WP:IDHT behavior. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You see, language like "X trumps Y", "No matter how many times you are told the type of coverage you need, you refuse to believe it" is at best somewhat arrogant and at worst divisive. You assume a position of greater wisdom than other editors about how WP should be compiled. I know there are guidelines and my point about repeating the same arguments is valid: this is not a case of lack of knowledge, but a case of a disagreement of application in this particular case. You say the coverage is inadequate, we disagree. At that point, the decision should be (despite what you say) based on consensus - and, yes, that is the number of people who support something (given that they are not breaking any hard and fast rules, but merely interpreting them in one possible way). If you refuse to back down at that point, at least for a period of time, then I can only assume that you are putting unwarranted pressure to achieve what you consider to be the correct outcome - I call that bullying.
If you want another argument, which isn't "more editors want this than that" or "the guidelines say this", then consider the end-user - which should be our primary goal anyway. Q: Is there any disadvantage to the end-user in one or other of the two outcomes (merged vs not merged)? A: Disadvantage might come from having to go through extra links to find what they were looking for or being confronted with too much surrounding information on a large page. As I stated earlier in the discussion on the talk page, there is a list of GPW election results and it is too long to go in the GPEW page (and the GPEW results aren't on the page so it's against WP:UNDUE to keep it there). So, either this needs its own page or it needs to be part of a GPW page. If it has its own page, it will need at least a summary about GPW in the lede, so it wouldn't be that different to a GPW page anyway, other than the page title. So you have to ask: would a user expect to look for election results on a page called "Wales Green Party election results" or as section on a "Wales Green Party" page? If they weren't specifically looking for election results, then wouldn't it be better for them to have all the GPW info in the same place?
As Wikimandia and I have clearly established our differing viewpoints in this and are unlikely ever to change each other's minds, if another experienced editor, who has not contributed to these discussions, makes a decision, I will accept it and move on. But I would prefer it to be made on the merits of the outcome not on a technical issue such as incorrect procedure in closing an AfD or whatever (this isn't a court of law). Btljs (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Many of the comments in the review were (correctly, I think) that that was the wrong forum for the discussion and that consensus should be worked out on the articles talk page. As it was. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid the only person in this discussion who seems "guilty" of IDHT is Wikimandia. Points were made - rightly - about lack of independent RS on the WGP article. Many editors have spent time finding suitable RS. These have been presented in the discussion, and some of the RS have been explained in depth, but still we keep getting the line that there is insufficient notability. I completely agree with Btljs's analysis just above, and am also slightly curious as to why Wikimandia seems to feel there was no consensus because "it was only the page supporters discussing the page, so how can it be a true consensus" - it basically sounds as though you are saying that in a hypothetical discussion involving, say, 6 editors where 5 are in agreement and one disagrees, the one who disagrees can simply withdraw from the debate and then claim that the agreement of the other 5 is invalid because no one was opposing them. Very odd. Frinton100 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, please provide any link where the Wales Green Party has received significant coverage (that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources outside Wales. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There are several in the discussion, from UK-wide media. You have not explained - nor has anyone else - why you believe we should ignore the fact that at the most recent national election in Wales (2011) and the most recent UK election (2015), the Welsh Greens were given equal billing with Labour, Conservatives, LibDems and PC. Surely if a party is treated in this way they are deserving of an article. I am aware of, and have read, WP:BRANCH so there's no need to quote that again - I want to know why a party that is considered in the "top flight" of Welsh parties by the national broadcaster should not be given their own article. I am also interested as to why you think re-creating a WGP article would not improve the encyclopaedia. Frinton100 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Surely if a party is treated in this way they are deserving of an article" Not to Wikipedia. Please provide any link where the Wales Green Party has received significant coverage (that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources outside Wales. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There are several in the previous discussion, from UK-wide media (i.e. not just Wales). I am also interested as to why you think re-creating a WGP article would not improve the encyclopaedia. Frinton100 (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion about about the WGP article's ability to improve Wikipedia is totally irrelevant. We have one standard for notability that I am obviously tired of explaining. I don't recall a single article that addresses the WGP directly and in detail per this one standard. I've asked you to post them twice now but nothing. The impetus to support notability is on you; if you can't produce the required information then please kindly accept the consensus at AfD and Deletion Review. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
These have all been provided before, but if you really want them again, here they are: , , , , . And another couple that were not in the previous discussion, not that strong since they address WGP candidates but still reasonable - , .
And opinions about whether restoring the WGP article will improve wikipedia are relevant, per WP:IAR. If a rule prevents us from improving the site it should be ignored. So how does not restoring the article improve wikipedia in your view? Frinton100 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The impetus to support notability is on you - yes, in the article; not to you at your request wherever you feel is most convenient. If you can't recall them, then either go and look or just stop your opposition. I suspect you are not tired of explaining at all; I suspect you take great pleasure in the argument, because if you really believe that there are no sources out there then you would let the page fail and then say "I told you so". You are being deliberately obstructive - and you know it. Btljs (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the right or wrongs of this matter this is not the proper forum for it. The article's talk page is where it belongs. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The talk page section which was again unilaterally closed by Wikimandia, because he said so? Jackgovier (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocking me
Blocked. -- zzuuzz(talk) 19:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please do not block me I am just being friendly I will write articles. --JohnnyWelcome (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
An obvious troll (and an experienced one, judging by their edits...), here only to have fun for as long as it lasts. Just check their contributions, which includes posting user warnings for adding "inappropriate external links" on the talk page of Media message delivery bot... Thomas.W talk 19:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
Stanley, Falkland Islands Can I get some rapid admin intervention to protect this article against a vandal please. Ongoing right now. WCMemail 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: Semi-protected for one week. Let me know if it continues afterwards. Please report to WP:RFPP in future (although I acknowledge that the response there is often woefully slow). Number57 10:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Konstantin Monastyrsky
Severe COI editor, who in his last edit has identified himself as Konstantin Monastyrsky, making big changes to his own article. I warned him of COI process on his talk page (Sorry, not sure how to link to a diff for creating a new page,) and when ignored raised an issue on the COI page here. Another editor agreed, and also reverted Kmonastyrsky's edits here which were reverted again by Kmonastyrsky here.
Users edit summaries show no intention of following COI process:
"Chaheel Riens, you revisions violates Wikipedia's policy against backlinking. If you revise this page again, please justify your edits."
"Chaheel Riens, you are in a violation of Wikipedia policy of making changes on behalf of interested party. I request that you recuse yourself from modifying this page."
"Your edits are inappropriate. I am not "Soviet" writer, but American. People who have made the negative comments about my work do not represent "scientific community" and use my page to promote themselves."
I'm not sure if this comes under COI, edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism, ididnthearthat, or a combination of all and more.
Editors informed on their talk pages. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The material Kmonastyrsky was objecting to was not properly sourced so that's been removed along with self-sourced puffery and Kmonastyrsky has been warned. I don't think any further admin action is needed at this point. --NeilNtalk to me 17:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This page should be deleted. There is only one 3rd party source on the subject, and it tells this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
*Comment: If the article really does not meet notability, please WP:AfD it. If that's not going to happen, and this is a COI case, please re-open the WP:COIN case, which should not be closed merely because there is an additional discussion here. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Update 2: If the article stays on Wikipedia, Chaheel Riens needs to stay off of it. He is posting inaccurate claims and citing them to non-RS obscure talk-radio shows. Might even rate a boomerang here. Thank you to NeilN for the cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we get someone to lockup San Jose, California for a bit ...blanking going on....or block those involved. -- Moxy (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice. We have San José acting as a redirect to San Jose, and San Jose acting as a redirect to San José. So one of those needs to be undone. Since San José seems to be the correct spelling per the official website that's what I'm setting it to. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Woops, sorry. Looks like I checked things smack dab in between repair edits and jumped the wrong way. I see Edgar181 set things right - thanks! Tabercil (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think everything is put back in the right place for now. It appears that the edits were made in good faith, but the widespread change from San Jose to San José would need consensus first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And this is the official city government website, and they don't put the accent on the "e" either. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually they use both. It's not in the logo but it's there on the front page at least four times. However, it is not widely used (ie San Jose Mercury News, San Jose Sharks etc) but appears to be a relatively new pretentious detail to go with the gentrification over the past 15 years. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the problem is/was solely confined to one editor: Salvaeditor (logged in and logged out). He's gotten a few warnings about it on his talk page, including a final warning. I think we just need for him to confirm here that he is not going to continue this disruption (and also that he won't make cut&paste moves of any article). Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC); edited 06:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho removing sourced content and not being civil
I am involved in a content dispute with User:Serialjoepsycho on the List of military occupations in several places.
One of the areas is that the lead of the article states that annexed territories are not to be included, and the second sentence and paragraph, then goes on to explain what that means. Based on that, I said that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should not be included.
He responded, that EJ and GH is occupied and should be included. I kept going on in circles, that I never said it's not occupied, but the lead is inconsistent with what the list is and either the list has to change or the lead has to change, I made a passing mention to Tibet as another territory that was also annexed but is not in the list.
I then made an edit to the page and added Tibet to the list. User:Serialjoepsycho then reverted claiming it to be a violation of wp:point.
I then reverted back, and added a comment to the reference part. I then edited again and added two references asserting notability to the claim that Tibet should be included in the list .
I then pointed out to him that I edited the page and included links to sources:
I then pointed out that I looked through the archives and found no consensus:
At the end of Archive 2, he even asks for a discussion on Tibet:
Here again, he claims I am including Tibet solely because of WP:POINT
Here he says anyone is free to challenge and take the appropriate action or process, but I am just interested in WP:POINT (This is after he reverted my edits, with the sources):
Here again, I asked him to show me where the consensus was and that his continuous use of WP:POINT violates WP:AGF. I asked him if I had to clear every edit with him first? I reminded him that I did indeed add sources to my edit. He then violated policy by failing to assume good faith and failing to talk about what he obviously knew was a contentious edit on the talk page.
He then claims I am violating WP:CANVASSING by my contacting one of the editors who was involved in a prior conversation with him a while back.
This is very excessive since it makes no actual case. WP:AGF has that become a suicide pact now? Contacting one editor that was involved in a conversation a year ago on the basis that you think they will support your position is canvassing. This is what happened.
When someone makes a change to an article to promote their point of view because an RFC is not going their way, only for the actually purpose of promoting their point of view, this is point making. Consensus is not a matter of Either I get my way this way or I get my way that way. This however is their case here. Either we remove East Jerusalem and Golan Heights or we place in Tibet. What is this really? A fallacy of false choice? A consensus for one thing does not imply a consensus for the other. They are trying promote that it is. This point here is the reason behind their edit .
I do have a consensus for the removal of Tibet. I took it to the talk page. I responded to those who had responded. No further response came and there was little discussion anyway. Since making the change it has been maintained with little discussion against it . As far as I can recall I've been the one to seek out these discussions on the talk page since my involvement.If I'm actually needed here for anything else please ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, no answer to why he removed my insertion of Tibet. Even if we say there was a consensus, I included references and consensus can change. His "evidence" in link 181 is funny considering 1. He specifically asked me to name a country not on the page and 2. The way he interacts in an uncivil manner. I am still waiting for a valid reason why I'm not allowed to edit the page. Sir Joseph(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
But if I include it, he will then revert, or report me. When I included it, it had references. Can you please add my diff of Tibet? I would even be OK with him adding a disputed tag to that, but it should still be added. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What you are missing is they are not entering the content dispute as you would like. They are saying a more in depth conversation than what has happened in the past can happen on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not how it was for years, and that's not WP:POINT. I included references on my edit. If you didn't like it, you could mention it in the talk page, add a tag to it on the article, but there is no reason to revert it. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not how what was for years? Maybe you could add complete thoughts? You added Tibet in the first place simply as an exercise in point making. WP:BRD Very common practice. You make a "bold edit", I revert, you take it to the talk page to discuss. I already had a consensus to remove Tibet. You need to go get a consensus to put it in. Adding two of the weakest possible sources you can find in 5 seconds is not the same as getting a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
1) You had no consensus on keeping Tibet off. 2) You keep failing to AGF in me putting Tibet on there. I didn't put Hawaii on there, did I? You don't own the page. Sir Joseph(talk) 16:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Some basic points, irrelevant of who's right or wrong. Zerothly, content is not to be adjudicated here, just conduct. Content is discussed insofar as it is relevant to the conduct issue. Firstly, nobody needs any consensus for keeping content off, consensus needs to be found by the person who wants to keep the content. See WP:ONUS. Secondly, just having references is not enough for inclusion of content. See WP:ONUS again. Thirdly, I don't really see anything too egregious here which can't be settled on the talk page. WP:AGF can get strained in heated talk page discussions. I know several editors who can't stand me and often think the worst of my motives, based on past experience. One learns to live with it. Kingsindian♝♚ 17:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, 1) You don't understand what a consensus is if you consider that I did not have a consensus. WP:Consensus Here's a whole policy explaining it. Regardless of that the WP:ONUS is on you to get a consensus. 2) AGF is not a suicide pact. Your position again is that if we don't endorse this one view then we must endorse this view. This is a False dichotomy to which you are trying to make this edit to promote. This is the purpose behind your edit. This is an exercise in point making. It's very simple matter. Go get a consensus. A consensus to keep East Jerusalem and Golan Heights in the article is not a consensus to place Tibet in the article. If you want to promote this false dichotomy go ahead, and again get a consensus. If you are curious at how to do it, Go to the talk page and try to get one there. If that doesn't work use some form of dispute resolution such as an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in looking on the talk page, there were at least three mentions of Tibet, Archive 1, Archive 2 , This is also in archive 2 , there doesn't appear to be any others, and in those three sections , there doesn't appear to be a consensus reached in any of them, so I don't think what Serialjoepsycho's saying is correct. It looks like no consensus is present for the inclusion or exclusion of Tibet. KoshVorlon 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Silence is consensus. But never the less the onus is on them as they seek to include content.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho Silence is never consensus, that's an old argument and it's been shot down everytime it's been brought to ANI. KoshVorlon 11:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
When I make a removal and take it to the talk page and there's little or no discussion, I have a consensus for the removal. When a long time later someone readds it and I once again take it to the talk page and the only comment is in support, I have again done my due diligence. When a significantly long time later a user adds it back, the wp:onus is on them. The overriding factor here for this addition by this user to add Tibet is that they want to remove something else. Either we remove what they want or we add Tibet. Just point making and wikilawyering.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you actually prepared to talk about it with anyone or will you keep repeating that you have consensus even if it's just a consensus of you? Other editors do have a right to argue that consensus has changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
There's already a discussion underway, which I started. Other editors have the right to argue the consensus has changed. If necessary there's also a central location to determine the consensus WP:ANRFC. Those editors are not free to give inappropriate notification in seeking a consensus . This is not a matter of actually getting a consensus for the inclusion of Tibet. This is a matter of promoting their false dichotomy, that they started promoting first in the active RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, I posted Tibet, with a reference. You keep saying there is a consensus. Just because you say it doesn't make it so, a consensus of one is not a consensus. And this is indeed bordering on WP:OWN, if I may say so. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
To add material to the article the onus is on you to achieve a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No, to remove something sourced, it is up to you to achieve a consensus. There was no consensus to exclude Tibet, so my addition did not need a consensus, just being bold and having sources, your removal needs a consensus. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
As it's already been pointed out to you in this discussion, "just having references is not enough for inclusion of content. See WP:ONUS again." Convenient placed blue link there for you to click and everything.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, based on your logic, I had a consensus to include it. Sir Joseph(talk) 20:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Then go ahead and apply the logic. Where have you commented on the talk page and received little or no comment in against your change? Where have you placed it in the article and maintained it's inclusion with little or no talk on the talk page? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
* block Sir Joseph for disruption. SerialJoe is right, he posted a post in 2014 and only one person objected. He has consensus on that page, no one has any right to be disruptive. 166.170.45.253 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)— 166.170.45.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
huh? how is this bordering on disruptive? Sir Joseph(talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Ignore the IP. It's a sock of an indefinitely blocked user who only comes back to troll. Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of formatting the OP's text so I can actually read this thread. Sir Joseph, you really need to learn wiki markup. Don't use HTML; there's no need for spacing between bullet points; for line breaks either double space or use bullets; and please collapse future WP:DIFFS with brackets as I have done. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Here he goes again, I put a disputed tag on the page and not only did he remove it, even though we were discussing it on the talk page, he removed it and made a comment it being pointy. He continuously thinks the page is his. If you look at the latest talk section, he ignores that there are other opinions other than his own. If you look at the beginning of the page, you will see he already chased away several editors, and that is the MO of how it works on Wikipedia and how to achieve your POV, or so it seems, as it was pointed out by Koshvorlon and Ricky81682, and now I can't put the disputed tag back because it's 1RR and I'd be reported to AE again. Sir Joseph(talk) 03:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I put in the disputed tag because of Gaza ,East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and he reverted and only mentions Gaza. On top of that, he doesn't even mention it on the talk page, he just reverts. Yet, other editors have claimed that Gaza should not be listed, so according to him there is no clear consensus so it must be discussed. How can someone just own a page and get away with it consistently? Won't anyone do anything about it? Sir Joseph(talk) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My two cents provided at Talk:List_of_military_occupations#Disputed_.282.29 as to the disputed tag. As to the issue, I suggest Sir Joseph let the RFC run its course rather than try to "adjust" the article to reflect the concerns. The RFC provides a distinction within it about military occupations. If Sir Joseph can find sources that differentiate these issues, that could help resolve things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I own the article because they are not allowed to own the article is really what I'm getting here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh and since AGF is now a suicide pact, perhaps you can explain the good faith reason for opening a discussion towards the top of the talk page instead of the bottom beneath the other active discussions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This rises to the level of harassment and should not be tolerated by the community. The OP is violating numerous guidelines regarding civility and is behaving in an unspeakable manner. At the very least, we should consider an interaction ban or a community ban. MForteKL (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Whom ever this Sockpuppet is give it a rest. You supported me and I'm the one that marked your ip a SPA above. You aren't going to secretly slip one by anyone. There's no point in these dishonest tactics.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user Calton
I'm hoping an administrator can evaluate the Talk page conversations between me and user Calton. I believe the user is engaging in continuous personal attacks against me.
After the first series of personal attacks, I wrote a note on his Talk page asking him to refrain from continuing.
I wrote a detailed list (including links) of each personal attack he made against me on his Talk page.
As a response to my note on his Talk page, he wrote a note on my talk page that I find to be abusive, including continuation of his past behavior of using curse words and writing to me "You are dishonest."
Because this user continues to write personal attacks, despite my effort to stop them, I am requesting an administrator to intervene. Fact Checkmater (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. However, your response did not address my post here on this noticeboard. Respectfully, this note on this noticeboard was about the conduct of a user and my feeling that I was/am being personally attacked. Would you mind please addressing this? To address what you did write: I understand what you are saying about the sources and subject matter, and I will work to improve the neutrality of my editing. Thank you. Fact Checkmater (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, one more question. In your response you wrote "I've removed the claim and the source in question." I'd like to view that so that I can improve. I'm wondering which article you are referring to. I glanced at your contribution history and don't see any activity from your account (after I posted this notice here) on any Wikipedia article that I've edited. Thanks, Fact Checkmater (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Right here. Another user has since added back similar information, this time supported by a suitable reliable source. If you have questions about which sources are usable, the best place for that is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm...It looks like you made a false and spurious accusation that Calton had a conflict of interest with respect to a number of articles. If you fabricate a COI claim against another editor based on no evidence whatsoever, it shouldn't be entirely surprising if that editor responds with less-than-endless patience. Be aware that baseless accusations of unethical editorial conduct are themselves seen as personal attacks. I would strongly recommend, Fact Checkmater, that you drop the stick and back away from the horse, lest you face a boomerang. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Calton only seems to be contributing sporadically of late, but did leave this on the NPOVN. There could be something bigger that a boomerang flying in Fact Checkmater's direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed indefinite ban of Calton The community's patience has been exhausted.MForteKL (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: this account is about two hours old. ReykYO! 12:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why I am here — I think I looked at the history of one of the participants. In any case I see that those doing the complaining are being accused of being newbies, I think (I apologize did not read this carefully). So since I recognized the name User:Calton I thought would mention an interaction I had with the same editor when I was a newbie a long time ago. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Mess of bad mafia editors (one sock case or two sock cases?)
Not sure if these two apparent sock cases are related. They share the same focus area, they're active at the same time, and they have a tendency to use real-sounding names as their usernames. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sent notices to the two most recent accounts used Paola Rosoff for the first case, Justin Badagliacca for the second. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your reverting of those statements, but this sounds more like an issue for WP:BLPN. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 00:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that and sockpuppetry. And spamming. And now this. There's so much wrong here I'm not sure where to go. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The user who made that ridiculous statement has since been indeffed by NeilN. But if you think that user and the user you originally reported are related, it seems that WP:SPI would now be a better venue to go to. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
User:MarnetteD
This has gone on long enough. Hopehoppy can ponder this and file an unblock request if they like. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MarnetteD is WP:STALKING me and I feel I cannot do anything anywhere without him stepping in and removing my contributions just because my first edits as an editor were nonconstructive. It is not a coincidence that he found these by himself, he clearly followed my contributions.
. He claims this is unsourced despite 18 reliable sources on the linking article he removed.
. Ok well he didn't revert me here but he mysteriously "found" the article a short time after I edited it.
. Hello again, he is just making a WP:POINT here, the claim of WP:OVERLINK is opinionated for one, unrealistic for another as the article doesn't particularly have that many blue links. Either way one more in the infobox doesn't hurt.
I am trying my utmost best to be a constructive editor and place the past behind me (homophobic comments and so on), but this at the moment is extremely creepy and I feel I cannot do anything without this editor following me onto each article. Can someone please order him to back off, keep his distance and NOT touch one of my contributions unless it is absolutely necessary (ie. NOT Peter Ueberroth). Hopehoppy (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
After examining your editing history, I can safely say that someone should be carefully looking at your edits as you're still adding nonsense like this. --NeilNtalk to me 22:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine then, abuse your admin privileges and allow a "favoured" editor to hound me even when I make constructive edits. I mean only veterans here get prvileges, newbies get treated like dirt. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No "admin privilege" was abused. NeilN did not have to use his admin powers to comment on the quality of your edits, he was simply acting as a good editor who knows garbage when he sees it. BMK (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, who invited you again? I came here looking for admin action against MarnetteD, not sympahtizers of the accused coming along to gloat. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
He doesn't have to be "invited" to talk here. You decided to bring your issue here; that means you accept to be yourself under scrutiny. That's how it works. LjL (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
LjL is correct. The behavior of all the editors involved is examined when an AN/I report is opened. Only in this way can we find out if the reporting editor is using the process as an offensive weapon, when they themselves are actually the disruptive element, as I believe we've determined here. That leads to a number of conclusions: (1) Don't open an AN/I report unless you're certain that you are not a contributor to the problem; (2) AN/I reports are not the first stop, one should never file a report without having attempted to resolve the problem directly with the other editor; and (3) Don't use AN/I to "get back" at an editor you're pissed off at, because the majority of the time it's going to bounce right back on you. BMK (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Judging from the report about you above in this very page, I think you are not new to treating others like dirt yourself. How does it feel? LjL (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have a question to ask me concerning my edits, go ahead. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
When someone's former edits were consistently "nonconstructive", reaching the point of homophobic comments and so on, I don't personally see an issue with keeping an eye on their contributions to make sure they don't disrupt Wikipedia any further. Note that WP:HOUNDING does itself make such an exception. As to your specific points:
I don't see a relevant statement in the article linked as source (though it's not easy to search within it); if it's not there, then the actually relevant sources should be made explicit
Found an article? Oh bother.
WP:OVERLINK is quite tenable there, since American a very well-known nationality. I'm personally in favor of linking such things when they are in a relevant infobox field, but, that's a perfectly legitimate content issue.
I think it's unreasonable to ask any editor to stay away from any of your edits unless "it is absolutely necessary". If your initial edits were nonconstructive, then I opine that it's up to you to show that you can improve, and put through the additional scrutiny that will inevitably result from your prior contributions. LjL (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
"STALKING" as a Wikipedia term of art has been retired. Please provide specific evidence of how MarnetteD has violated WP:HARASSMENT#Wikihounding, but note that reverting your bad edits is not evidence of anything but his desire to improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The complainant appears to be a somewhat overzealous newbie. He can't "own" pages, and he should fill out the two singers' articles before linking to them. If the only thing to say about them is that they are members of this group, then they should not have articles. "American" was already linked once, it doesn't need to be linked repeatedly. Also, the term "shoplifting" has been around for over 300 years, and anyone who speaks English knows that it doesn't mean hoisting the building. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The "Best known for" edit did not come with a source and is a WP:POV violation as well
Has nothing to do with the OPs edit
WP:OVERLINK specifically states that "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" and "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions" should not be linked. The link added was both of these.
Directly above the editing field is the statement "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." and that is what I was doing. The OP would do well to read the policies linked to instead of opening an ANI thread each time one of their edits is changed. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The OP continues to edit war over their OR that the band No Mercy is translated into french as "no thank you". They should consider themselves lucky they haven't been handed a block yet. Blackmane (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the French for "no mercy" is sans pitié. If the band's name is a play on non, merci, then a source is needed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I left a note on their talk page saying that "No, thank you" in French would be "Non, merci", but they simply deleted it.Looking at the three AN/I reports about this editor (this one plus this and the one above us at this (after a little over a month and only 71 edits), I see suggestions of Hopehoppy trolling and being WP:NOTHERE, and at this point I'm inclined to agree. BMK (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If the right honourable gentelamn sees that this violates policy, may he freely explain where this is so, otherwise may he move along and mind his own business. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's see: I never said removing a message from your talk page was against policy, I simply cited it as an example of your continuing to ignore the information which has been provided to you. Second, it is the business of every Wikipedian to correct errors, clean up articles, undo damage and report disruption, so, no, I will not "move along and mind my own business" -- or, rather, I will not move along, and I will mind my business, Wikipedia's business, especially when you accuse good editors of being in violation of policy. BMK (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't get to decide who moves along and when. Anyway, that edit on your talk page (where you removed a comment instead of interacting; that is of course your prerogative) does not violate policy. Point? LjL (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through about half of the OP's article edits and have found nothing there to substantiate the charges against MarnetteD, although I have found a lot of trivial edits, mistaken edits, and edit warring. The OP should look to their own house and not blame other editors for their own faults. BMK (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you notify SageRad that you said that about him? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, nor did I (or do I) have any intention of doing so -- but I see that you just did. You should puruse our policies occasionally so you know what you're talking about: there is no requirement to notify every editor mentioned in an AN/I report, only the editor(s) who is the subject of the report. For instance, I could mention here the many fine qualities of Newyorkbrad, the many controversies surrounding Eric Corbett, the copyright expertise of Moonriddengirl, and your own propensity toward continuing to complain about a 24-hour ArbCom block that happened a month ago, and I would not be required to notify any of them. Do you plan to ping them all now? BMK (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me that I do not know what I am talking about. My point was that, in this particular instance, you did not merely mention him, but rather, you spoke derisively of him. Yes, I pinged him, and you are welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually I spoke derisively of his campaign, I said nothing about him whatsoever. Again, you might like to read WP:NPA so you don't make this mistake in the future. BMK (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
More information Another bit of trolling from the 166 range. BMK (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ...
Another bit of trolling from the 166 range. BMK (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Support block of Marnout himetteD. WP:BITE is important and bullying shouldn't be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.58 (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Close
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed site ban for representatives of OMICS Publishing Group
The proposal by Nomoskedasticity to site ban representatives of OMICS Publishing Group has been carried by clear consensus of the community.
An article ban for Nomoskedasticity suggested by Tiptoethrutheminefield did not gain traction.
The claim in the single oppose by Tiptoethrutheminefield that a blanket ban is impossible to enforce may be accurate but physical blocking of identifiable users can be carried out under the aegis of the consensus carried by this discussion and adequately summed up succinctly by DGG: The simplest way to handle this is to think of them as meatpuppets. People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably; The continual advocacy that has marked their contributions is unacceptable.
Therefore future blocks can be enacted citing this ANI case as the rationale.
THe actual OMICS Publishing Group article which has been kept is tangential to the ban discussion and appears to have had no effect on the community's decision here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: a site ban for Joinopenaccess(talk·contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, which shows long-term and on-going attempts to use sockpuppets for promotional purposes and to remove well-sourced negative content. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Nomoskedasticity is making a fair request. A sympathetic perspective of the other side is that seemingly, a series of staff have been hired by this company to promote it. The company seems to be in India. Perhaps they employ 1000 people - they say this. I expect that they are hiring educated academics. At the level of the individual, I have sympathy for the scholars who work for this academic publisher with good intentions. At the level of the company, OMICS actions seem to have little regard for Wikipedia volunteer time, and seems to not support the paid contributors who are being directed to make heartfelt pleas to Wikipedia.
Companies can change over time, but OMICS does not seem like they are here to make an encyclopedia. I have not seen evidence that staff of this organization wish to learn or consider Wikipedia community guidelines. They have an agenda. I cannot summarize all conversation because there are years of exchanges, but in brief - OMICS has not ever offered to give what Wikipedia requires in Wikipedia:Competence is required. I wish that OMICS could repeat back what has been told to them to demonstrate that they care about what they are being told. Maybe they have had 10+ staff engage Wikipedia - who knows. It is rough for volunteers to give this organization the time it requests, and they request a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support (to be clear I did suggest this in the first place). They've been given many opportunities to contribute constructively but have repeatedly tried to deceptively manipulate the article and we have to draw a line somewhere and ban them from contributing here any further. Most recently, several editors have been arguing that they are listed in pubmed when as User:Randykitty has pointed out, only very few of their papers are included there due to the work being published by NIH funded authors rather than the whole journal being indexed. User:Goattender started advocating changes, but as I explained here and here it became obvious that they were also being paid to represent OMICS, despite not being related to the Scholarscentral group of socks (not that they edited again after I confronted them). It's gotten to the point where they cannot be trusted to even suggest changes and a ban would stop us wasting even more time. (Just in case anyone is wondering this source is the most recent RS, published in August, and confirms that the current article is still accurate). SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support This is an unsavory company publishing very-low-quality academic journals and organizing equally low-quality conferences. Given the sources, our article is treating them lightly... The OMICS editors keep insisting that we include information about handwritten notes, make claims (like their journals being included in PubMed) that are demonstrably incorrect, etc. Just as in real life they don't seem to be interested in delivering quality products, they don't seem to be here to produce a good encyclopedia either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support, after having seen the sockpuppet investigation of Scholarscentral, the continuous unjustified de-defamatory edit(request)s on OMICS Publishing Group, and a quick verification in the NLM catalogue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support as there is only so much good faith you can give before you've run out of patience. Seeing the sockpuppet case, this is a no-brainier at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support re assume good faith. If this is areputable company acting in good faith then they are incompetent. If they are not then we don't want them any way. Op47 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support If the behaviour of Joinopenaccess is indicative of the behaviour of representatives of OMIC group, then a site ban is definitely due. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. The master account User:Scholarscentral is already de facto banned with a long history of spamming/whitewashing OMICS articles, sockpuppetry and copyright violations, but a ban on any editing on behalf of this company is needed to prevent proxying as was threatened here by a recent sock. January(talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose It is an unacceptable move, i never edited the main article OMICS Publishing Group, I Only kept comments and asking permission to do editing at talk page. My question is why few editors are interested in this article from last three years. Any way I respect the decision of editors and administrators. Joinopenaccess (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: After looking at some the relevant talk discussions and that massive sequences of SPIs, I have nothing but sympathy for the editors who have had to wrestle with this company over the years. That being said, I have serious misgivings about the solution being suggested here and question whether a handful of editors on ANI are empowered to employ a sanction of this scope against an ambiguously-defined and potential large class of contributors. It's possible I am unaware of a relevant instance, but to the best of my knowledge, a siteban has never been instituted against all editors, present or future, associated with a given organization. That's a huge leap from the normal processes accepted under community consensus and any such move would require extensive and broad discussion in the community at large, especially when there are other more conventional oversight/administrative procedures which have not even been discussed as yet; for example, why was this exceptional action been deemed the best approach before the notion of taking the matter to ArbCom, which is ideally situated to deal with this manner of issue?
As a matter of longstanding and overwhelming consensus, editors are generally treated as individuals and their actions accordingly judged on an independent basis rather than by the company they keep or the associations they have, on or off the project. What would happen if, for example, the company hired a non-SPA, experienced editor to try to rehabilitate their image here within the framework of policy? This sanction would have such a user mechanistically site-banned, regardless of whether they knew about this ruling going in. For that matter, its not outside the realm of possibility that the company might send some of its employees here as SPAs and that one or more of them might make an honest study of WP's protocols and work within them. Regardless of whether or not that is likely, this proposed ban would judge and ban those individuals before their first contribution to the project, an action that is manifestly against some of Wikipedia's most deeply-held and critical open-collaboration principles. For the present time, paid editing is not cause for censure. Nor is the conduct of editors judged solely on the basis of the the span of topics they edit upon or their reasons for choosing them, even be they closely related to said topics. I understand the frustration of the above editors and others who have had to reign in what seems unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends--believe me, I've been there with regard to such editors. But I just don't see how a solution such as that proposed above is within the purview of a handful of editors on a noticeboard to institute, in seeming defiance of some of this community's most extensive and important consensus, especially prior to pursuing all available conventional administrative channels. Snowlet's rap 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Note. English3023523 not belongs to OMICS or its spa as per .
The post from Snow-Rise is unfortunate. No one is proposing to be unreasonable here. If someone from OMICS decides to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, then we can discuss rescinding the ban. To object to a ban because such a thing is possible is entirely beside the point -- because years of experience have shown that this is not what we should expect. The behaviour we have seen is the behaviour we should expect. It's thoroughly disruptive, and we should use the tools we have to deal with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound contrarian here, but I think it's indicative of a profound confusion about how consensus building proceeds on this project that you would describe another editor raising their concerns as "unfortunate", especially when we are talking about the possibility of making a huge departure from pre-exisiting policy and process regarding community sanctions. Either those concerns are superfluous, in which case they can be easily addressed or else they are well-founded in policy and community consensus, in which case it is manifestly a good thing that I have raised them. But it is in no event "unfortunate" that an editor chooses to provide their perspective, except for those instances in which comments are made with intention of offense or otherwise in bad faith.
So let's review those concerns, none of which you substanaitvely responded to, and consider your own assertions, and see which is consistent with our community standards and practically beneficial in this context. You say that "we should use the tools we have to deal with [the disruption]". But if you review my comments, you'll see that one of my principal points is that we (meaning the handful of editors who happen to be engaged on this one thread on ANI) do not "have" such "tools", in that this would be an entirely novel sanction, without precedent and extending well beyond existing community consensus on the scope of sanctions and the conditions under which they are to be applied. And all of this before actual existing tools and processes have been substantially explored, not the least of which is ArbCom; and frankly I can't remember the last time I saw a case that was better suited for ArbCom, which is the one collection of users who actually are empowered by the community to extend sanctions in the manner being proposed. Implementing such a decision independent of existing conflict resolution guidelines would require much broader community discussion if we ever expected the administrative corps to enforce it. Frankly, I think it's highly unlikely that any experienced admin would effect the action being proposed here, no matter the proportion of "support" votes, exactly because of how obvious it is that this "solution" would only complicate matters further. But let's presume for a moment that one would; I can almost guarantee that the first time a user is blocked for suspected association with OMICS, even though they have not violated an existing policy, there will be at least one admin (indeed, almost assuredly a great many) who will unblock them on the basis that they actually haven't done anything wrong under existing policy and community consensus. So if you were to prevail here, all you would accomplish is to drag more admins and more users into the contention surrounding this topic, amping up the disruption to the n-th degree.
But let's even put all of that aside for a moment. Let's consider if this solution you are proposing is even in any sense workable in practice, because I can't see how it could be. For our actual and existing policies on community sanctions we have methods for establishing when a user has engaged in disruptive behaviour. If a user has violated one of our behavioural or content policies, we provide diffs to show where this misconduct took place. If a user is suspected of socking, we have checkuser and other technical tools to investigate the matter. And note that the standard for evidence in imposing sanctions in these cases is, by design fairly high. If the "misconduct" you suspect is that a given editor is associated with OMICS, how are you going to prove that? Will you just move to have every relatively new user who edits the article to reflect a positive view of the topic banned as a presumed agent of the company? You don't see it as problematic to have "the suspicion of involved editors" be the standard of proof for this new class of misconduct you would have us create here, on an ad-hoc basis applicable only this namespace? And again, you expect this to decrease disruption on the target page, even though it would certainly lead to a constant block/unblock cycle with accompanying AN/ANI discussions and who knows what other kind of voluminous community discussion on the appropriateness of these actions within the framework of our existing policies? And if this company is really determined on side-stepping policy, making a statement by banning their overt involvement isn't going to stop them; it's just going to stop them from ever having their employees reveal their association with the company when operating here, making it more difficult to track their efforts with regard to the article and leading to yet more argument on trying to determine whose actions constitute evidence for a block. How is that an improvement on the current situation? I just don't think you've thought this approach through.
And all of the above can be weighed without considering the broader questions of whether the proposed action is consistent with our principles of open collaboration and never judging them on the basis of who they are but rather solely on the nature of their contributions to the project. Those issues are of massive importance, and entire discussion and of themselves. Snowlet's rap 02:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Snow Rise You are raising fair points that need to be acknowledged.
One thing that OMICS does in compliance with Wikipedia community guidelines is use paid staff to request support from the Wikipedia volunteer community and engage in discussion. At a glance, it seems likely to me that this group has requested and received not less than 100 hours of volunteer time. While it is allowed to request volunteer support, it is extraordinary to request so much over so many years and all to seemingly come to no resolution or even progress.
An expectation of contributors to Wikipedia is that when they engage in Wikipedia, they find a way to productively contribute in accord with community norms and guidelines. Considering the amount of volunteer time donations this organization has been willing to accept, I think that it would be fair to do accounting of what OMICS has given back. May I ask you to please make a short list of the positive contributions that OMICS has given in exchange for the volunteer resources which it has continuously consumed for these past few years?
A normal exchange on Wikipedia is that someone needs about 15 minutes of an experienced Wikipedians time to be able to contribute several hours of their own time productively. This balance seems far disrupted in this case. The coverage of OMICS in this article has a lot of community review and consensus behind it. The article may not be perfect, but Wikipedia community process has settled on this version and I am comfortable saying the article is a product of Wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and not anomalous as unreviewed fringe content. Still, after all that OMICS has been given, they have the same requests without acknowledgement of the huge investment of attention which they have already received. Staff and consultants who over the past few years have demanded volunteer time have demonstrated no interest in supporting Wikipedia. I feel for OMICS, but protecting volunteers here is the priority. If you have seen positive contributions from OMICS then please share. It would be extremely helpful to have a list of the good things which have come from this organization, and you seem to be one who might have seen these things if anyone has. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, I had no experience with this article until I saw this ANI discussion, so I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case. Indeed, I made a point of introducing my comments here by noting that I am sympathetic to the editors who have had to wrestle with the company in many instances. I think you may have profoundly misunderstood my comments here and if that's the case, all I can suggest is that you go back and read them in detail, because I've already been, if anything, excessive in detailing them here. But in brief, I'm not making an argument for the cost-benefit value of OMICS-backed editors relating to the article or the project at large. By concerns are solely related to the solution being proposed here, which A) is well outside the scope of community consensus and policy on sanctions, B) would require broad community discussion well beyond a handful of editors on ANI, C) is being considered well before normal dispute resolution and oversight procedures have been exhausted and before the case has been proposed to ArbCom, D) is probably unenforcable as a practical matter, and E) attempts to address a problem that is already better resolved through our existing procedures for socking and disruptive activity.
I happen to agree that OMICS seems to be obviously intent on getting its way and, from the evidence I've seen so far (the SPI records in particular), seems to have often tried to brute force its preferred vision of the article into existence. Their socks can and should be banned on discovery. However, Wikipedia has never banned an entire organization nor a class of editor defined as being associated with an organization. That is a radical move that would need to be discussed broadly and, frankly, I can't fathom (per my comments above) how that would work on a practical/technical level. I'm sympathetic to the non-SPA volunteers who have dealt with this family of articles and that's why I've been volunteering some time the last few days on the OMICS Publishing Group talk page to try to iron out some matters.
But the solution being proposed here is, if I am to just be perfectly blunt, a hysterical and irrational one which not serve to stabilize the article but rather just introduce more battleground mentality. Contrary to your proposed ratios, there is no community rule (firm or rough) about how many hours or how much vaguely-defined benefit an inexperienced editor has contribute in order to validate their being taken for "legitimate" users by "more experienced" editors. Everyone is volunteering their time here and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, they can choose when to disengage with the project in whole or with a particular topic, at will. But the flip side to that is that when and where they do opt contribute they don't have the right to leverage those lost hours as an argument against the value of others they voluntarily engage with, UNLESS it can be proven that the party in question is behaving in a manner that is defined as WP:Disruptive under our policies. To the extent that OMICS continues to send people here as sock or meat puppets or otherwise flaunt our rules, I have no objection to those accounts being blocked. If ArbCom wants to take up the case, they might even consider the extreme action of range-blocking OMICS' offices for a time--and for those who are really concerned about the influence of this company on WP, I really suggest you consider an ArbCom filing. But as for blacklisting an entire organization, that seems to me to be completely incompatible with WP's ideals and mission statement and, in any event, it would require broad community discussion.
One last point that is not directly connected to the above but which I think is worth stating here since I have had to go on at length anyway. While I think the OMICS-backed editors deserve "credit" for the lion's share of the adversarial atmosphere that now gripes that article and its talk page, it's clear that they are not the only ones who have adopted intractable positions as a result of the prolonged contest of wills. It looks to me from observing that TP the last week that at least some of the editors who have had to keep the company in check for years on end may now be over-correcting in how they look at the content and consensus building in that namespace. With respect, your absolutist back-and-forth with Tiptoethrutheminefield below is pretty indicative of how little either side is willing to budge; one camp says that the article is ideal and perfectly (or at least "acceptably") neutral, while the other insists that is a POV-ridden mess of an attack page. Having come to this debate as fresh set of eyes in the last few days, I feel fairly comfortable saying that I don't think most experienced and previously uninvolved editors would classify it as either. The article is not an attack page and does attempt to distill the essence of reliable sources which are generally quite critical of the company. However, there are also not-insignificant problems with consistency with policy in the way those views are written in the article which undermine its encyclopedic tone and neutrality. And there is huge resistance amongst the non-SPA editors there in making even small changes in these areas, even where policy is unambiguous (see the current discussions on SYNTH and PIPE issues for example), simply (I believe) because they are used to dealing with SPAs and have become overly defensive of maintaining the status qou there.
But no article is perfectly formed and there is always room for improvement. As there are now more eyes on the article and hopefully the socks will be caught out quite rapidly (and while we are on the subject, a thanks to bbb23 for his attention and alacrity in this regard), I hope that users will begin to let down their guard and begin to actually work on improving the article, rather than feeling they are defending it from the barbarian hordes and accordingly demanding the maintenance of its exact current wording, because ti certainly can stand from some adjustments. In any event, as I feel I have exhausted just about every last thing I can say on this topic, I hope you will not be offended if I do not respond further in this thread. I do, however, hope that you will join me on the talk page in trying to diffuse the situation there and iron out the kinks in the content! Snowlet's rap 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Snow Rise I think that I understand you, and I feel comfortable in addressing you directly to disagree. I will respond to your lettered point -
A) The community is free to protect Wikipedia. In this instance it is doing so in the least disruptive way that anyone has imagined. All alternative courses of action that anyone proposes would be considered. Alternatives have been tested over years for many hours and everyone has had time to speak up. Even after this action there is time for people to propose alternatives.
B) There are enough community members here to make a decision. The case can be escalated, perhaps to WP:ArbCom, and you are correct to say that an organizational ban is an extraordinary measure. I hope you also would agree that the organization being discussed has extraordinary bad behavior, and has with dozens of accounts continually for several years.
C) I disagree that obvious alternatives remain. They have been used.
D) OMICS is interested in articles related to OMICS. Right now there is only one of those on Wikipedia. Routine oversight of that article combined with dismissal of staff engagement with is is a plausible remedy to the problem.
E) A huge amount of volunteer time has already been consumed on this matter and continues to be requested. There is no routine option left to try.
A) "The community" ≠ eight random editors (none of whom are an arb, a bureaucrat, or an admin) on a random ANI/talk page discussion which has been advertised in exactly zero additional community spaces in which a radical, highly problematic and demanding sanction are being propsed.
B) Yes the company seems to have acted in extreme ignorance of basic policy and often outright bad-faith. It's nowhere near the worst group we've had to deal with, and the project survives. And again, and maybe more importantly, our existing policies already do a better job of handling this manner of disruption without creating more disruption.
C) WP:DRN, WP:MEDIATION, WP:ARBCOM.... I'm looking at the archives right now and there's not even a single instance of an RfC.
D) It's not plausible because there are no such things as "OMICS-detecting" tools. We have checkuser to look for the socks of those who have previously been banned for disruptive behaviour (and our intuitions to know when to employ them), and we'll use them as necessary. But on an article where hostility to any change between two extremes has taken hold, how can you think it's a good idea to allow people to ban for "suspicion of being in league with the devil"? That's going to achieve the exact opposite of stabilizing discussion there. Look at the recent talk history on that page. You don't think that's problematic? Anyway, we do not blacklist organizations on this project; if you want that to change, you are going to need a huge community effort to make it happen.
E) WP:ARBCOM...WP:ARBCOM? WP:ARBCOM, WP:ARBCOM, WP:ARBCOM? I mean, I don't mean to be rude friend, but I'm beginning to feel like I am typing into a void. You (and others) keep making this assertion that all conventional alternatives have been pursued, and yet you never respond to the references to the actual conventional procedures that have not been availed of that prove that assertion to be patently false. Even if you argue that mediation and DRN would be a waste of time because the company operates in bad faith and always will (and that's a leap in itself), you still have ArbCom, which exists to handle exactly these problems. It is composed of highly experienced and skilled individuals elected by broad community vote and thereby empowered to do exhaustive investigations and consider the possibility of exceptional sanctions. We, a random of collection of editors who happened to be around to see a given ANI discussion, do not have such a community mandate to allow us to consider actions which go deeply against community standards on the scope of sanctions. Especially when the proposed solution is potentially so ill-conceived that is unlikely alleviate any disruption but rather likely to create more. Snowlet's rap 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Snow Rise Probably the reason that you feel that you are "typing into a void" when talking to me is that we are starting from different premises. You seem to believe that OMICS is a rational actor and would be responsive to mediation. I believe that most mediation options are unavailable in this case, because mediation can only be used in contexts without overt maliciousness. OMICS presents only malicious behavior. It is not possible to accidentally get 50+ blocked accounts in the context a good faith effort to learn to use Wikipedia. To clear the void and make it easier for us to communicate, could you please give your opinion about the likehood of OMICS staff intentions being anything other than achieving their self-promotional goals without regard for the wellbeing of Wikipedia or its volunteer contributors?
A) January is an admin and DGG is an arbitrator, so you are mistaken in saying no admin or arbitrator is here. I think you are further mistaken to call the people commenting here a random sample of editors because highly experienced Wikipedians (judged by edit count and contribution quality) are commenting here and this is the noticeboard for discussing issues like this one.
B) Do you agree that this organization has many years of history of sending many paid staff to subvert Wikipedia without regard for Wikipedia or its volunteer community? That is the problem I would like to address, and I think the remedy being discussed here is fair for that problem. How would you frame the problem? If you would frame it as I do, then how would you address it?
C) DRN and mediation are for content disputes. This is a behavioral dispute, and should not be brought to those places. Arbcom rules on disputes when there are two perspectives in the Wikipedia community. In this case, OMICS' position is that they should be able to break Wikipedia community guidelines. Since that is not a defensible position, there is no need for Arbcom, and this can be resolved without them. Arbcom is not the place for all serious disputes - it is only the place for resolving difficult ones.
D) Yes, anyone who edits OMICS in a promotional way should be presumed to be "in league with the devil", as you say. This is a small Indian company with very little Wikipedia traffic and yet it gets more attention than other major Indian companies, and far out of proportion to the attention that low-traffic Wikipedia articles should get. Anyone fanatically passionate about this article and who makes a WP:SPA to edit this Wikipedia article in an inappropriate way can safely be presumed to be a paid affiliate of the organization. Previously editors have WP:AGF, but this discussion is about ending that assumption for this article.
E)I asked you in the beginning what good things OMICS staff have done on Wikipedia, and you said "I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case." Yes, you are the person making the case for the value of OMICS' contributions, and now is the time to do your accounting if you have any. I will help you file a case at Arbcom if you draft out the worthy things OMICS has done and excuses for their bad behavior. There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue. Arbcom is only a judge, but the power to execute is left to the community.
You have the power to execute here too. There is no assertion anywhere than there is more left to say, and I am not seeing any proposed arguments or remedies which have not bee considered. What is your perspective on OMICS' behavior? What more do you think there is to learn about it, and what information are you lacking that is a barrier to your making a decision on what to do in response? Based on what you know, what remedy would you propose to protect Wikipedia? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"You seem to believe that OMICS is a rational actor...To clear the void and make it easier for us to communicate, could you please give your opinion about the likehood of OMICS staff intentions being anything other than achieving their self-promotional goals without regard for the wellbeing of Wikipedia or its volunteer contributors?"
Again, it seems as if you are not really reading (or at least not digesting) my comments before you respond. I think I've made it overwhelingly clear what I think of OMICS' behavior on the project. I prefaced my very first post here by noting my sympathy for those who have to deal with. I've referenced unacceptable behavior on the part of the editors working for them in I think every post I've made in this discussion (in any, I've done so in every comment I've made in response to you). I've used terms like "bad faith", "disruptive", and statements like "unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends". I just cannot fathom how, using human language, I could more clear as to this point.
I've run out of variations on the very simple statement that I can think this company's agents are not acting appropriately and still thinking the solution you are proposing does not make sense! I really think you could benefit from reading our article on the logical fallacy called the false dilemma, because you seem to think the only choices available to us here are the two myopic ones you've constrained your vision to. I can think the company is WP:NOTHERE and not operating in an above board fashion and still think the solution you propose is ill-conceived, unworkable in any practical sense, contrary to Wikipedia's core tenants, in conflict with all explicit policy and community consensus on how sanctions work, liable to be exploited by editors on that page who have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, certain to cause more disruption rather than alleviate it, and just an all around awful, impractical, nonsensical notion that does not jive with Wikipedia process! I can and do believe all of the above without any of it being logically inconsistent with the rest. So can we please, please, please move past you trying to tell me that I have to defend OMICS' conduct in order to find fault with the action being purposed here? Because those are not the choices here and never were....
"Do you agree that this organization has many years of history of sending many paid staff to subvert Wikipedia without regard for Wikipedia or its volunteer community? That is the problem I would like to address, and I think the remedy being discussed here is fair for that problem. How would you frame the problem? If you would frame it as I do, then how would you address it?"
Please read my posts above. I can't be any more clear as to how I believe those activities should be dealt with and contained than I already have been, at great length.
"Arbcom rules on disputes when there are two perspectives in the Wikipedia community. In this case, OMICS' position is that they should be able to break Wikipedia community guidelines. Since that is not a defensible position, there is no need for Arbcom, and this can be resolved without them. Arbcom is not the place for all serious disputes - it is only the place for resolving difficult ones...There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue."
No, ArbCom does not require exactly two perspectives in order to take up a case. I think you need to review WP:ArbCom and observe some cases. ArbCom frequently deals with disruptive issues that are immensely one-sided. Besides, as an outside party who has come to OMICS article/talk page through this discussion, it doesn't look to me as if OMICS editors are the only ones who have adopted battleground behaviours there. And the entire basis upon which you are arguing for this extreme action is that it is a very difficult one.
"Anyone fanatically passionate about this article and who makes a WP:SPA to edit this Wikipedia article in an inappropriate way can safely be presumed to be a paid affiliate of the organization. Previously editors have WP:AGF, but this discussion is about ending that assumption for this article."
First, the fact that you have framed this issue in terms of doing away with WP:AGF reflects exactly what I think is problematic with the solution being proposed here, no matter how narrow the context. Second, WP:SPA's are not against policy, nor is paid editing. WP:SOCKING certainly is, and that's the tool we'll use to get these guys again and again, just as every one of their accounts has been banned so far. And we can do that without compromising our principles, policy, or creating witchhunts on the the talk page, violating community consensus on sanction and the burden of proof for disruptive behaviour. You also seem to be missing the obvious fact that solution being proposed here: "[ban] any editor representing OMICS Publishing Group" is very vaguely worded and would apply to more than just SPA's....
"I asked you in the beginning what good things OMICS staff have done on Wikipedia, and you said "I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case." Yes, you are the person making the case for the value of OMICS' contributions, and now is the time to do your accounting if you have any. I will help you file a case at Arbcom if you draft out the worthy things OMICS has done and excuses for their bad behavior. There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue. Arbcom is only a judge, but the power to execute is left to the community.
Uh, no, that's not how process on Wikipedia works, by even a mile. You are the one seeking action against OMICS here. You have three options on how to utilize the community process here: 1) you can be satisfied with the steps that have been taken under our existing policy (and let's note that blocking the socks has so far sufficed to contain literally every editor OMICS has sent her so far), 2) you can take the behavioural matter to ArbCom (you're patently wrong that they cannot consider this case because there are two "adversarial litigants" involved) if you want a more comprehensive sanction, or 3) you can go to the talk pages for WP:BAN or WP:BLOCK, start a discussion on making a new principle for blacklisting organizations, promote it widely in the community, and try your luck. You wouldn't stand a chance on either of the last two, in my opinion, but those are your options. Neither I, nor any other editor here, is required to be your foil and to make the case for OMICS' value in order to point out that what you are proposing does not sync with policy and long standing community consensus. Again, please see false dilemma, and then review WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:BAN, WP:BLOCK, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Because, again, I genuinely do not want to be rude here, but you have some huge gaps in your understanding of how sanctions and the consensus process work on this project.
"Based on what you know, what remedy would you propose to protect Wikipedia?
I propose that we do exactly what we always do in cases like this. We use our blocking and socking policies to contain the SPA's. The action being proposed here wouldn't change the need for an admin to be involved anyway, so how do you think it would be more efficient? All it would do is embolden people with a battleground mentality to call for a block on there mere suspicion instead of going through the very simply process of testing that presumption. That and it could very possibly lead to non-SPAs being caught up under its wording if they voiced "pro-OMICS" perspectives. Look, the article clearly does not say what OMICS wants it to say, so this hand-wringing about protecting the project is alarmist to say the least; this group is not nearly the most entrenched, disruptive, or problematic collective of editors that Wikipedia has had to deal with, and we've never before found the need to compromise our community standards to the point of blacklisting entire organizations. Every SPA is being caught. Relax, we've got this, under normal protocols. The sky is not falling; we do not need to rewrite our policies on blocking to deal with this. But even if we did, you would actually need to be making these arguments on TALK:BAN, not here.
Support A ban should make it easier to avoid the need to repeat obvious stuff on the talk page, and easier to block editors who mention words like "defamatory". According to the article, OMICS are seeking $1 billion in damages from a critic, so it is unlikely they will ever understand Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I find a lot of troubling editing and troubling content on OMICS Publishing Group. However, some of it has been done by the proposer of this site ban, Nomoskedasticity. The wording in the lede that he has been supporting has discarded all semblance of reasonableness and the type of content that a lede would normally contain. A lede should summarise the article's content. "The United States government have questioned the validity..." we are told boldly in the lede. Yet nothing in the content backs up such a claim. What we actually have is a trademark violation complaint by the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the National Institutes of Health . That is not the "United States government"! Yet not only is Nomoskedasticity insisting this wording is correct, he is claiming here that an objection to this obviously faulty wording amounts to an "implied legal threat". A lede would normally state what the article is about, then some undisputed facts, then what the subject of the article says it is about, and then third party opinions about that subject. But the current lede mixes everything up, mixing facts with opinions. The article is full of vague "it has been suggested" and "some observers" wording, and appears to be solely intent on piling up as much criticism of OMICS as it can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Any site ban for representatives of OMICS should be accompanied by an article ban for Nomoskedasticity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you are suggesting misbehaviour on my part, I think you'll need to provide diffs for the assertions you make about the editing of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Here [] is a revert that restored the "United States government" wording, and that went back to a version created by you. The edit which was cited by you at the start to be an "implied legal threat" specifically complains about that wording. Here you inserted an opinion into the lede, and presented it as if it were a fact: []. You have done this many times - here is an identical revert done some months earlier . You did not originate that content, but by reverting you are taking ownership of the content you restore. This was the edit that did originate it . Despite this content being added by an anonymous editor, and its content going completely against Wikipedia norms, multiple editors allowed that unsatisfactory wording to remain for almost a year and some repeatedly restored it when it was removed (including Randykitty , and Joel B. Lewis ). This, to me, raises questions regarding their ability to edit this article impartially. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm perfectly content to have others assess whether that edit constitutes misconduct on my part. Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Then extend the same courtesy to others. You are wanting editors site blocked for misconduct they have not done but MIGHT do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And who is to decide who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group", and how are they to decide it? What does "representing" mean? Why propose something that is impossible to enforce correctly? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose It is impossible to enforce such a blanket ban since it is impossible to know who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group" other than by using evidence from an editor's actual edits. If such edits are at fault, there are already plenty of Wikipedia procedures in existence to deal with such problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Would some of the supporters of this proposal answer my points made above. How exactly do they envisage this site ban being enforced? Can they cite any past examples of such a ban proposal being accepted as an appropriate solution? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: By their very nature bans are to some extent unenforcebale because a banned user can create a new account. It's a matter of whether the community is happy to continue the cycle of socks and paid editors complaining about the article or draw a line in the sand and say that we've had enough. There have been at least 3 unrelated groups representing OMICS in the last few months. It's not exactly the same, but there is a precedent in the banning of scientology back in 2009. As with that case the decision to block would be reliant on behaviour - it's not hard to spot them. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's just the point though--if someone is socking, then they can (and should) be blocked for that. It's an action which the community broadly recognizes as inherently disruptive and, in contrast to most other kinds of disruptive behaviour, we generally don't even give warnings before banning in cases of socks. However, paid editing is not a blockable offense; this is a clear and unambiguous matter of consensus arrived at after considerable debate amongst the community and the WMF. So users cannot just be automatically banned for their association with a company. They can face sanctions, as individuals, if they operate in a disruptive fashion because of the fact that they are paid to contribute here, but that cannot be blocked for that reason alone.
Notice that this distinction is completely consistent with the ArbCom scientology case you referenced; the Arbs in that case blocked specific accounts for specific disruptive activities. They did not suggest that all people associated with the church of scientology had become persona non grata on Wikipedia and would be blocked upon discovery, which is what is being considered here, so that case clearly does not present precedent in the sense of validating the overreaching solution that some editors have asked for here. There is the possibility of range-blocking the offices of OMICS as was done in the scientology case. Perhaps that's an intermediate solution that those who are most vexed with OMICS would consider beneficial. However, that action is in itself extraordinary and would need to be validated by ArbCom rather than us, the random collection of editors who happen to be presently contributing thoughts to an ANI thread. Still, it's a notion. Snowlet's rap 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Have you had a read about Wiki-PR and the Orangemoody case? That is far more insidious than what those affiliated with OMICS are trying to do, but nonetheless a ban was levied on the company. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
More information Blocked as a sock ...
Blocked as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note. Wikipedia should publish the truth from reliable prominent sources, not the opinions by competitors/representative from companies engaged in similar business.Yes OMICS Employees about 1000+ employees, there are all educated academics mostly from India, please don't highlight the nationality and criticize. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained, US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement. After receipt of letter from DHHS/National Institute of Health OMICS rectified the error and later OMICS Published 2000+ articles from last three years funded by DHHS/National Institute of Health , it is a clear evidence that there is no ban of OMICS Publications.
We request the redrafting of first paragraph OMICS Publishing Group as there is a clear evidence that few Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory
The word predatory should be kept at controversies section only, as wiki editors following for other Academic publishing companies like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Wikimedia should publish the truth then only people respect if it is becoming a platform for defamatory content for competitors then no one is going believe wikimedia content. Please don't spread lies through wikipedia, Please respect the truth. Refer the links for proof Joinopenaccess (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Close
Related note: an AfD has been created about the OMICS Publishing Group, apparently in response to an OTRS by the subject. LjL (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's clear the article will be kept. So this is still a live issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Part support a topic ban, normal COI applies. A workable prevention of the disruption would help - SNOW keep further AfDs etc, and if continues a measure like this. Widefox; talk 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support I am shocked to see that even in this discussion the organization uses socks. I can only trust the checkuser process that socks were used. If socks were used, there seems to be no end to the demands on volunteer time. Wikipedia volunteers need protection from never ending demands to bypass Wikipedia community guidelines. This organization seems to have money to hire staff to indefinitely and continually seek to circumvent Wikipedia's community review process. Banning the organization and keeping protection on the page seems like a fair option to protect volunteers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
For those suffering from the heat of demands on volunteer time, better to get out of the kitchen for a while rather than knock holes in its walls. I think that a securely written article would be the best defense against those seeking to influence its content using illegitimate means. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield Thanks. The OMICS article is fine as it is and would not be easy to criticize with comparison to any other published source. It has been through a lot of community editing and been thoroughly reviewed especially for an article which gets such low traffic. I think anyone would have trouble finding a less read article which has received this much attention from experienced Wikipedia editors. This is a securely written article that has been stable for a long time and I expect that it can remain as it is, which is good enough. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The article is NOT fine - it is a pov-riddled mess of an attack article, a status supported by longterm editors of the article (for which it has got personal), that gives to it an open-door for OMICS representatives to edit war. This seems to have gone on for years. Rather than propose an extreme one-off sanction that is unworkable, the article should be fixed. Then there would be no openings for those reps to exploit, no extremes for them to protest about, and when they offend they could be easily dealt with using existing sanctions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield The article is "fine" in the sense that it is the kind of content which Wikipedia tries to produce. When you say the article is "not fine", my thought is that you must not like Wikipedia's usual editing process, which is to summarize the existing published sources giving fair weight to sources according to their prominence.
Do you feel that Wikipedia is not summarizing the available sources? Do you see some better review of this topic other than this Wikipedia article? If there is something better, then Wikipedia can summarize and mirror the better source. Is Wikipedia citing sources that do not meet WP:RS? What problem do you see here? I think the article is rather good and wonder what you are seeing that I am not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support the site ban. The simplest way to handle this is to think of them as meatpuppets. People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably; The continual advocacy that has marked their contributions is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Note I just blocked Peak2015(talk·contribs·count) for mass canvassing relating to this. Do what you will with the posts. —SpacemanSpiff 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted all the canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. Detrimental to the Project, since WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Note -- the article has in fact been kept at AfD, so again this is a live issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This case is now 18 days old and as there has been no movement for 4 days I'm closing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Widefox
(non-admin closure) Although my name is mentioned here, I am not actually involved in the dispute between Widefox and Mj. I am closing this because it is going nowhere, and seems unlikely to end up in admin action. Anyone who wishes to re-open, other than those who are involved, please feel free to do so. BMK (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above-mentioned user criticized my conflict on Irvington, New York, and then began hounding me on issues of my conflicts of interest (see his talk and COIN). His recent tricks include editing Wikipedia's policies, directly, with very little discussion, and then telling me I'm not following those policies he just created. He's also making up his own interpretation of the Terms of Use to mean that every single edit I make to any talk page, main page, or sandbox should include that I'm an editor with a COI and that I should link my disclosure. That's ridiculous, something no COI editor has ever done or should ever have to do. They should only need to disclose it on their userpage, once on the COI article's talk page and whenever editing the COI article directly (discouraged). He's also been changing the rules to ban putting your disclosure on a subpage of your userspace, something I saw no problem with, as long as it's well linked. Please help me out here. Please address his hounding as well, I feel he should be penalized for that as the policy suggests, his harassment of me over all my work is overbearing and simply awful. Thank you.
My work isn't perfect, if you want to bring that up here, go ahead. It's impossible to cross every 't' and thus Widefox has pointed out a few places where I could do better in being a COI editor. Please note that I'm still very new to this, as bound to make mistakes as a first-year prep cook. However note that I've been involved on Wikipedia for a relatively long time. I've gotten to know most rules, except maybe not as many as others of similar age; I try to stick with content creation. I like writing Good Articles, and I'm honestly very proud to have written two FAs. That's where my enjoyment in Wikipedia stems from, not these tendentious discussions or editing under conflicts of interest. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in any article or dispute, and initially just warned both edit warring parties.
The accusation of hounding was made here User_talk:Widefox#Your recent edits and was challenged to provide evidence three times, even pointing out that it can't be hounding per my "concerns over your editing" in WP:DWH. Just now another editor said to remove that warning from Ɱ as unfounded .
Latest summary is at WP:COIN#Ɱ (where yes I even state that as I've emergency edited the policy to make it comply with the ToU, I'm quoting other editors about Ɱ's compliance level, not mine - which is characterised by other editors - as outrageous to hide it.)
There's agreement from others (will ping them only if needed) to ensure WP:PAID complies with ToU with no dissent, and scrutiny of several creators/admins/other editors (see those talk pages).
In summary, yes the policy is more explicit, but summarises what others say about Ɱ's old (and current) collapsed (hidden) disclosure. Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate a more cohesive answer; it's very hard for me to follow. The evidence that you are hounding me is simple. Look at the edit history for my talk page. Look through all of it; I removed most due to your illegal harassment over my work. You first criticized my handling of the Irvington issues, and then went on to criticize my handling of my COI articles. That is hounding. Read the definition, especially at the bottom where it says it could lead to blocks. The editor who called it 'unfounded' had no involvement in any of these issues, was not directed to where the discussions were taking place, and simply was stating my warning to not include details backing it up. Also don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. Cease and desist.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. It would be appreciated if there was a bit more clarity about the problem. The COI issue was raised at WP:COIN with regard to edits by User:Ɱ to Interactive Brokers, an article which read too much like a brochure. I removed some promotional material (a list of features) from that article, added some material about some litigation, and considered the problem solved. That was four days ago, no one has objected to those edits, and that does not seem to be the issue. Over at Irvington, New York, there's been some edit warring there over bold text vs. headings between Ɱ and BeyondMyKen(talk·contribs). Widefox has only one recent edit to that article, and it's trivial.. Ɱ is drafting a paid article about some musician in a sandbox, but that only becomes a COI problem if they try to publish it. There's lots of argument on various talk and noticeboard pages, but few diffs. I've been reading notice boards and talk page histories for ten minutes and still can't figure out the underlying issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nagle: I can clarify. The original list of features was in the article long before I started editing the draft. I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable. You're incorrect, I had objected to those edits similar to how I am now. I'd like to reiterate that the Irvington conflict was not 'edit warring'; I explained this in great depth to Widefox on my talk page. Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth. I honestly won't be surprised if he starts to criticize some of my volunteer article writing here too. I haven't been providing diffs because most of this is talk page discussion, most of which is still live on the talk pages; therefore it should all be follow-able. Also most discussion has involved several edits making up one reply, so it's much easier to direct you to the relevant pages (here, COIN, my talk, Widefox's talk, and WP:PAID (Widefox, am I missing some?)). ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I think some of my comment got lost here; I'm going to restore the comments on my talk page for everyone's ease of access for assessment. I removed them (within user rights) previously due to harassment; they consisted of Widefox's repeated criticism of several different works of mine. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Ɱ, I repeat John Nagle's comment - what's the actual hounding. Do you have any evidence at all - diffs? I've asked that 3 or 4 times on my talk and I'm still waiting an answer, days went past and another editor said to remove your unfounded hounding accusation. Ɱ, further you still haven't answered that as this is just my "concerns over your editing" per WP:DWH, so it is not hounding. (John Nagle - just to inform you, the ToU state that "all paid contributions" must be disclosed, not just articles.)
Nobody has edited the ToU, hardly "tricks". But, a paid editing disclosure that isn't visible (hidden in a collapsed at User:Ɱ) is exactly that - WP:LAWYERING. Other editors agree that disclosure is unacceptable. So far, I've resisted a call to take Ɱ to ANI over this .
"illegal harassment" really should not be used above per WP:LEGAL. I'm increasingly concerned that User:Ɱ has attempted to contact me offwiki - I've asked what for and don't have an answer. What for Ɱ? Now there's legal accusations. I'm just a volunteer, and Ɱ should not hide their paid editing disclosure on their user page. It's that simple. My concern over Ɱ's editing is not a LEGAL issue per WP:LEGAL#Conflict_of_interest. Attempts to get me "banned" are just that - all heat and no light.
Do I have to put up with this ? That is specifically WP:LEGAL combined with unspecified offwiki communication . Please can this be addressed as it now sits uncomfortably with me. Widefox; talk 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "contact me offwiki"? Is there a specific comment that makes you believe Ɱ attempted something offwiki? If so, please link to the section and quote some text to allow it to be found. Re Ɱ's "illegal harassment" remark above: that is probably just clumsy English. The claim appears to be that Widefox harassed Ɱ, and harassment is not permitted = against the rules = illegal (incorrect terminology). I don't see any evidence to support the claim of harassment other than the sweeping claim that inspecting the history of User talk:Ɱ will reveal all. That history shows Widefox posted 15 times on the page in just under 24 hours, starting on 6 November 2015, and with no other edits in the last year. It is hard to see how that isolated burst of activity could be regarded as harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Johnuniq Ɱ did attempt offwiki communication - email. I don't know what for - I asked "You tried to contact me offwiki - why?" , Ɱ refers to the offwiki attempt here "how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed?..." . Widefox; talk 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Again I repeat: "Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth." These aren't normal concerns over my editing. Right after getting into a confrontation with me, you specifically looked through my work, found I was a COI editor, and proceeded to attempt to have me conform to your wishes, with you going so far as to write policies to accuse me of not following. "Illegal" is a word that means "not legal" or "not following legislation"; "not following the rules". Therefore harassment is illegal here on Wikipedia. I did give you an answer about trying to contact you off-wiki. I'd like to sort things out, and better methods of communication usually help. There is nothing against me doing that, so stop pretending there is. You've made an issue of that as if I'm breaking some terrible law a few times now. As for "hiding my paid editing disclosure"; for so long, any user could so easily find it on my talk page, so prominently linked. Nobody's ever had a problem with that. Now I've got it on my signature and main userpage. When is enough enough? Would you like me to bold, italicize, and highlight it in red in font size 80 at the very top of my userpage? Johnuniq - as I said, read my (now restored) talk page. After he criticized me for Irvington, he's now WP:HOUNDING me over the COI pages and my disclosure. I feel harrassed. There's no written textual or other evidence to that, unless you'd like to read my thoughts of "I really want to quit this whole project, I try really hard to do good solid work and this user keeps 'assaulting' me with different policies, guidelines, essays, and even the ToU that I'm apparently breaking. I'm sick of this". Please read the details of hounding. Such pursual of criticizing me and my work is a bannable offense. It's written right there, why can't anybody follow Wikipedia's rules and at least look into Widefox's widespread accusations? ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Harrias(talk·contribs) stated "As you have accepted, you [Widefox] have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them." "until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it [the COI disclosure] must be visible". Please read through these statements. Don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 09:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please note I am very busy right now in real life. I'll have limited replies here over the next day or two.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Nobody has edited the ToU. Why all this heat, when you can just fix your hidden disclosure on your userpage? I'm waiting for an answer from Harrias(talk·contribs) "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?! . As you bring it up here, that's waiting for a reply from Harrias. Widefox; talk 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
(←) What's waiting for a reply. Never stated you edited it. Don't want to, and I should have the right not to. And yes, having a drop-down (in your words, "invisible" (huh?)) should be just fine! ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
We go by consensus here - what have other editors said about your hidden disclosure? This is WP:BOOMERANG as nobody agrees with you that this is harassment, and everyone who's commented agrees your hidden disclosure is not acceptable and should be fixed. You were unwise to bring here, rather than the slower pace of COIN. Widefox; talk 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, I count zero uninvolved editors here who are telling me to remove the drop-down. I count zero uninvolved editors who have even looked into this hounding issue in depth, as you keep steering away from it. What all of this shows me is this conversation still needs an abundance of third parties before we go around declaring who should change what. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Case in point, this is an administrator's noticeboard and yet not one administrator has commented yet. Hold your horses.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Indignant walls of text are very hard to follow. To show harassment, just post a couple of diffs. I don't know where the comment by Harrias occurred so I can't see the context, but taking a wild guess, the comment appears to miss the fact that the Terms of Use are not something written on a page at enwiki, and certainly were not written by Widefox, nor were they written a day or two ago. As a rule of thumb, someone with a COI who has complied with the letter and spirit of the ToU would post a very short note saying the information is clearly on their user page, so there is no problem. Did that occur? Was there any (claimed) harassment after that? Or, is the situation that compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step, where each step required significant comment by others? Please stop talking about "illegal"—one of the very few places that term arises in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at WP:NLT which says that editors who hint they may pursue legal action against another editor are indefinitely blocked (people take legal action because they believe something "illegal" has happened).
Re the comment by Widefox at 09:50, 12 November 2015 above: Ɱ is obviously correct that the "email this user" function may be used (if each party has enabled email); if "contact me offwiki" means you received an email sent by that function, I fail to see the problem because responding to it is entirely voluntary. Please don't use code words suggesting some nefarious activity if what you are talking about is "email this user". Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
What the terms of use actually say is:
"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."
I have statements on the talk pages accompanying. That appeases (for lack of a better word this late) the Terms of Use. So my user page statement (and signature link) is a bonus, a goodwill effort on my part to tell users of my affiliations. I could blank all of my userspace right now and still be okay under the Terms of Use. I don't think Widefox or Johnuniq got this earlier, so I hope this explanation helps. Wikipedia's policies should not have been adjusted any stricter than the above statement. Widefox is out of line.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I second what Johnuniq said. Please provide diffs that show Widefox has committed "illegal harassment." —МандичкаYO 😜 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Diff 1 (of Widefox warning me for "edit warring"). Diff 2 (him starting a discussion on my "edit warring"). Diff 3 (me informing him I wasn't edit warring). Diff 4 (him further reprimanding my "wrongdoing"). Diff 5 (him completely changing topics, after seeing my COI disclosure wasn't on my main userpage). Diff 6 (me telling him this unprovoked and unrelated criticism is unnacceptable per WP:HOUNDING). Then the conversations went on, on that talk page. And spread to the above-mentioned pages, to here.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, he added tags to thesethreepages that I believe constitutes hounding. It's also a completely inappropriate use of the tag, as he put them all on the articles immediately as a notice that I'm involved (even though I already 'tagged' the article talk pages) and never even critiqued their content once. He was simply putting a marker on the articles I contributed to, which reminds me of the barbaric historical marking to indicate a lesser entity, as was done to several groups in the 1930s and 40s.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Johnuniq yes technically, but just because I had left my email on accidentally (to get library permissions) doesn't mean I'm inviting COIs to email me. I choose not to interact offwiki - e.g. would you want this COI in your email? I'm still waiting for Ɱ to say what they wanted to say offwiki. And yes, it is "compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step" - moving the disclosure to the userpage - but it was still collapsed (I see only after ANI it had been unhidden), initially stating drafts weren't covered and then in protest disclosing them on the draft talk (while still stating it wasn't needed). ToU is clear "all paid contributions". I double checked with others and they agreed it covers drafts. Ɱ has consistently tried to close down discussion of their disclosure. Part of that is reasonable, certainly the timeframe is, and our wording was a mess which needed emergency repair as it was weaker than the ToU (which we are not allowed to do). I fixed that in passing. Ɱ was following an outdated essay. I MfDd that. At all places I've pinged the authors etc. This can all be handled at COIN, rather than here. I've consistently said I consider Ɱ good faith. In fact, I felt for Ɱ in the initial edit warring, but treated both parties equally. I welcome scrutiny as I am proud of fixing these things, but have only done them in passing as they fell short of the ToU. The ToU is clear. Is an hidden (collapsed) disclosure allowed by the ToU? There's agreement that it must be visible, and that should be explicit in our guidance. Ɱ brought this here, before doing that, and didn't reply to my request to provide harassment evidence until ANI.
Note that Ɱ's disclosure can't be seen in the history of User:Ɱ as the disclosure is still not on the user page, it is in User:Ɱ/u (and conditionally displayed at the user page depending on date or something from looking at the code). I hadn't even realised this until now - technically it isn't "a statement on your user page," more like "a statement that may (or may not) be displayed on the user page Ɱ". (or Widefox; talk 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with Widefox leaving you the edit warring warning, and then trying to explain it to you. Reverting someone twice indicates you are in an edit war. Some people do not know of the 3RR rule and a template warning is perfectly appropriate. I fail to see any hounding or harassment. Often if you see suspected problematic behavior from an editor, further problematic behavior is discovered when you take a look at the account. If Widefox looked at your account and saw something he felt violated guidelines, that does not qualify as wikihounding. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup, and I used the correct edit war template rather than 3RR template (and explain that difference Diff 4 adding "the incivility on the other edit war party is unacceptable but that's not for your page"). Checking a COI while seeing problematic editing is due diligence in my book. Ɱ - did you even read how none of this is harassment per WP:DWH "civil and appropriate" like I've told you several times? Widefox; talk 13:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The COI tags on 3 articles are easily explained - I was concerned about them, but the amount of volunteer time it's taken to get Ɱ disclose meant that I didn't get back to those articles! The COI tags were removed within minutes and I wasn't going to edit war over them...the next edit User:Nagle added advert tag, so hardly controvercial. Scrutiny was good. COI editing here was promotional, and I'm finding reaction to that normal message agressive. Fix the issues, not complain about the messenger! COIs are allowed to remove the tag, but they really should refrain from directly editing articles when uninvolved editors object. Nagle's cleanup was objected to, so this borders WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
(←) Respectfully, I'll wait for an administrator to tell me you were within rights at such investigation and inquisition. It's too unreasonable; I still haven't even fully resolved the Irvington issue, nonetheless all of this! Widefox, if you're still waiting for me to tell you what I wanted to say off-wiki, then it's pretty clear you're ignoring my comments. I stated it twice already, I'm sick of explaining myself over and over. The Terms of Use describing contributions only pertains to the mainspace, the live area that readers will see. Anything else would be ridiculous and unnecessary. However you disagree and already enacted on that, but seriously, a formal discussion and vote must be made. You cannot serve as sole arbitrator here. Stop calling my work promotional, I didn't even add the products section. I hardly touched it. Some neutral editor probably thought it was a good idea and I'm not a deletionist, I'll respect that editor's decision. Look at the article's history, it's existed in some form since 2006, long before I even started editing. People were okay with it for almost 10 years. Also, the idea of my COI disclosure not being on my userpage is garbage, sorry. I use a mirror so vandals don't edit my userpage. Common practice. The text always is the same, "a mirror never lies". The content may not be in the edit window, but it's on the userpage for all to see. I'm so sick of you trying all these loopholes and workarounds on me. Though your language is civil enough that everyone else has overlooked it, your bugging me over every issue, your twisting of policies and manipulation of a few select editors to seeing your vantage point; it's all far too overbearing. Even if an administrator thinks it wasn't hounding before, they really should know it is now. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the edit warring at Irvington, New York is over a formatting issue of bolding vs. a subhead.. This is petty. Please drop the stick. Someone else will clean it up if necessary. As for Interactive Brokers, Ɱ writes above "I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable". So after the admitted paid editor consults with the people who pay him, he can put an edit request on the talk page. Is there anything else? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes John, I'd like to see this action:
1. consensus (and wording) is ToU covers "all paid contributions". Ɱ's claim above "only pertains to the mainspace" is against consensus. This issue will not go away as it is a legal requirement to edit on WP. (excuse bold, but this is bold if ever there is a use of bold!) Ɱ's statement above attempts to diminish the scope of the ToU (which we are not legally allowed to do), and indicates that Ɱ doesn't feel bound by the ToU or consensus. As such a normal escalation process should start when going against consensus or refusing to abide by the ToU until agreeing to comply with both. (we are seeing this WP:IDHT with several paid editors, and warning templates are currently being written). Per WP:PAYTALK this is disruption, so:
1.1 suggest L3 or L4 warning to be given to Ɱ for disruption (not including wasting everyone's time here over a bogus ANI) and refusal to be bound by full terms of ToU. If not agreeing to fully comply with ToU within a reasonable time, suggest next stage would be 24 hr block etc. I do not rule out an initial 24 hr block due to simply stating they don't feel bound by the legal terms of ToU (which must at some point be enforced by volunteers, then WMF).
2. The userpage User:Ɱ does not have a disclosure on it. Fact. Userpage was last editing 8 March 2015. There is a disclosure on User:Ɱ/u which is sometimes (but not necessarily always) programmatically displayed when viewing that userpage (no popups, no history, no indexing, with the right browser, and other limitations and dependencies such as the right date/other files?!). Ɱ has no disclosure on their user page
2.1 The ToU states one on any of three places so as long as there's disclosure on "all paid contribution" talk pages, that isn't a problem per the ToU. However, best practice (policy/guideline) states to additionally put a disclosure "on" the "main user page". Suggest holding Ɱ to best practice, in a reasonable timeframe (not urgent).
3. Agree with John Nagle suggestion, Ɱ abides by COI best practice - does not directly edit articles with a COI, and uses (paid) COI edit requests. Widefox; talk 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
None of these three (five) points requires administrator action. I think this can be closed at ANI now: Widefox is pursuing a COI issue, and there is a relevant thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Widefox's actions, while dedicated, don't cross the line. Ɱ has made clear efforts to adhere to COI requirements, though there are some areas in which things have not been as clear as they should, but I don't believe a block is warranted. Harriastalk 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Harrias, WP:PAYTALK does require admin action IMHO. This is a hundreds of lines of PAYTALK (multiple venues), and we are specifically not meant to do this, and I'd like to see a warning for disruption be given before thread is closed, else due to the legal implications above, I will feel obliged to start a new ANI thread, and I'd really like to get off ANI. Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Warnings do not have to be given by administrators. Nevertheless, can you provide diffs for the PAYTALK issues; I would suggest doing so under a subheading of this thread for clarity, and ease of reading! Harriastalk 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, will do. (Also, the ToU enforcement, unless I'm mistaken is a new responsibility for volunteers (admins, non-admins). WMF is not policing unless escalated to. My logic is - if someone is explicitly stating at ANI that they are not bound by the letter and spirit of the ToU despite consensus at multiple locations, then what is the suggested escalation path? A procedural issue due to it already being here at ANI (rather than being at the right place of COIN) Widefox; talk 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
(←) I could argue so many points here. Harrias and Widefox are wrong in so many ways. I'm tired of addressing them. If another editor or administrator wants to address faults in the above statements, feel free. Apparently I'm not violating any guidelines or policies, so I'd like Widefox and Harrias to stop any accusations. I would like an administrator to step in. Regardless of the wording at WP:HOUNDING that editors like Widefox can always weasel their way around, as Louis CK was known to say: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." I would also like recent edits to WP:PAID reverted as they lack widespread consensus, which is essential. See WP:PGBOLD. Not a single COI editor was involved in these decisions, making the discussion rather one-sided (not consensus). ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 08:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is WP:IDHT / WP:PAYTALK with the ToU scope, and not having any disclosure on your userpage (it is on a subpage) is not best practice. Consensus about this was over a week ago. When requesting changes to WP:PAID be aware that per WP:COI (and now WP:PAID) you should disclose your COI / paid COI respectively. This WP:PAYTALK just goes on. As for providing diffs, the discussions are linked above and at COIN. I will post the many diffs... Widefox; talk 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Your insertion of links everywhere in the above message is muddling your meaning. Regardless "best practice" sounds like an opinion-based statement. I will follow policies and guidelines, I will not follow what a random collective of editors wants to impose upon me without clear consensus and without establishing a formal, written rule. Written rules were historically established so people would be able to know when they are and are not following them, and what the punishment is for not following them. An unwritten rule like a "best practice" does not have that given. Thus, if you want to change things, request edits to policies and guidelines through the proper channels. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:PAID has been editted by the paid COI editor User:Ɱ without disclosure in the edit or talk . It was undone by another editor. This is against WP:COI and WP:PAID (and possibly WP:TOU). Widefox; talk 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect. As I disclose in my disclosure I am only paid to write the article on Shiner and improve the IB articles and Thomas Peterffy's. My edits anywhere else are as a volunteer, and thus have absolutely no relevance to WP:COI or WP:PAID, and do not need a COI disclosure!--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
People who have a financial interest in a policy or guideline should not be editing that guideline ever. To do so without noting they have a financial interest is inexcusable. In this case the edit was to make a change in the disclosure requirements for discussing changes in that very policy. Based on what I read about Ɱ's issues with disclosure at WP:COIN I can not AGF here and presume they are here to advance their own and/or others' financial interests. JbhTalk 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That is an opinion that may be valid and agreeable, however it is an opinion. Please cite a policy. It highly disturbs me that you "presume [I] am here to advance [my] own and other's interests". I have been editing as a volunteer longer than you. I have created Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists. I have a TFA. I have many DYKs. I have researched endlessly about topics I've later created articles on. I've written templates. I've removed so many cases of vandalism. I've taken hundreds of photos and uploaded them to Commons. I've scanned archives into Commons. I've served as an active Wikipedian in Residence. I've been to and even organized and hosted Wikipedia events. Most of that information should be evident if you do enough digging. So for you to plainly state I'm here to support some company I worked for two summers ago or one artist I wrote a page about, both of whom paid me, is pure ignorance. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That is all quite wonderful, you should fully understand why volunteers want to know if someone has a financial interest in policy discussions or in edits being made to either articles or contributions to discussions. Even if all of your edits are perfect in all ways we are writing policy and enforcing guidelines for those who are not all sweetness and light. From the behavior I have seen from you here I do not see a Wikipedian who has spent years building the project I see one which is trying to do the absolute minimum to comply with the disclosure requirements when we are just getting a handle on how to keep people from exploiting this project for financial gain. That behavior from any editor is something I will condemn. JbhTalk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ɱ Removed their paid editing disclosure completly from being visible on User:Ɱ (by removing it in User:Ɱ/u), then an hour later
Ɱ Edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor, undone per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing!This is a COI editor reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI policy. It's past bold and reckless, past AGF, it is subverting policy. Widefox; talk 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ɱ has removed all paid editing disclosures from their user page User:Ɱ with this edit (the one that was actually never put on their user page but on a subpage User:Ɱ/u, but was sometimes visible from the user page). This is against best practice per WP:PAIDWP:COI and (although if technically meeting ToU) is WP:POINT disruption.
Hundreds of lines of ANI, COIN, PAID talk pages this is not best practice<-->outrageous = consensus. Per WP:PAYTALK."Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. ..."
"...WP:Disruptive editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID, attempt at minimising review of drafts , ad nauseam claiming ToU doesn't apply to XYZ, COI doesn't apply to XYZ, not abiding by best practice and consensus about disclosure at PAID, COI x2
"...WP:WikiBullying...": Unsubstantiated hounding claim i.e. this ANI, attempt at offwiki communication (my email now off)
"...WP:OWN...": Weak (per above / COIN)
"...WP:Civility...": no
Editor has disclosed they are still in contact with the subject of paid editing articles to justify content that was deemed promo (per above). Widefox; talk 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Widefox, you are way out of line.
Bullet point one: PAYTALK is not relevant. I have not been paid to argue with anyone. As my disclosure clearly states, I'm only paid to edit four mainspace articles. I can provide evidence from Shiner that he's paying me for the article, and evidence from IB that I was only paid the summer before last, long before any of these "arguments". Ergo, PAYTALK has no relevance here. This point is moot.
I am allowed to remove my disclosure from my userpage. That's completely within my rights. This point is moot.
You cannot accuse me of not following a policy you instituted, without consensus, yesterday. This point is moot.
(the double bullet points) Again, I am allowed to remove COI disclosures. Policies only require COI disclosure on the article talk pages, which I have. This point is moot. The WP:POINT argument is also moot, my edits are WP:NOTPOINTy as they are not disrupting Wikipedia.
You need to make a more clear and concise argument for your last bullet point with the five sub-bullets.
As for your last point, I see no reason why you brought it up again. That's not against the rules...
Can we please wait for administrators to sort out this mess? I'm tired of all of these accusations getting thrown back and forth. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
What remedy should be applied? It is outrageous that Ɱ can wikilawyer (18:47, 15 November 2015 above) that they are only paid to write certain articles so it is fine if they edit WP:PAID. They could make a case for their edit on its talk, but aggressively forcing their "rights" on volunteers needs to be stopped. Volunteers are motivated to defend the encyclopedia and it is important that the community prevent such volunteers from being overwhelmed with nonsense from paid advocates. A suitable remedy might start with an indefinite block for Ɱ until they agree to restore a plain disclosure on User:Ɱ (not a subpage) with no obfuscations. We're talking about ToU violations and disruption, not violation of a policy Widefox may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is so out of line! They make written rules so people can know what to do and what not to do! I have been following all rules, before Widefox began changing the rules! You cannot block or ban me for me trying to argue my own case! And you can't block or ban me for not putting a COI disclosure on my userpage! Nowhere, at all, in any policy or guideline must a user place a COI disclosure on their userpage! (So long as they have it on the article talk pages, which I do)! This is simply outrageous! ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I would support that. I have no tolerance for paid editors trying to do the minimum. If they are not disclosing in all places they are not being up front. The user page is needed so when people see suspicions edits they can quickly see if the editor has been paid. The article talk page disclosures are necessary to know who has a paid COI, if fact all COI editors must disclose on the talk page not their user page so paid editors do not get a pass there. Disclosure of paid edits are needed if they are not made on the article because others should not have to go searching beyond the discussion at hand to see if an editor has a paid-COI. The purpose of disclosing paid-COI is so other editors know there is a COI so they can take it into account. Anything that makes it harder to do so is fundamentally deceptive and after paid editor has been told this it is willful deception and we just can not have that here. JbhTalk 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
PER the ToU and WP:PAID, I am not required to put a COI disclosure on my userpage. No policy requires it. Therefore I can choose not to, and I do. If you want me to, there will be no convincing unless you change WP:PAID. Keep in mind that per the ToU that requires approved by the [English Wikipedia] community and [listing] in the alternative disclosure policy page. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The question here at ANI, is when and at what point is an admin going to step in and stop this disruption. Ɱ's edit of PAID is a bright-line for me. I have no faith in Ɱ now, and per Johnuniqsecond third an indef block, topic ban on COI / PAID. I'm sure there's an essay, the fallacy that Ɱ seems to now be holding on to is a right to edit here while WIKILAWYERing, disrupting, following just the letter of the ToU, ignoring consensus and other policies/guidelines such as COI, and subverting policy. This fallacy can be quickly demonstrated as incorrect. Widefox; talk 02:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per WP:PAID which is a English Wikipedia's policy implementing the ToU. "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries."}}(emp mine) Seems pretty clear to me. JbhTalk 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we've had to be explicit with that wording due to this WIKILAWYERing example, but in fairness to Ɱ, because of that fact we can't really hold Ɱ to those words. We can hold Ɱ to ToU, COI, consensus, (plus that new wording once assessed/bedded down), PAYTALK etc. Just to be clear - that's about the only thing I agree with them on. Widefox; talk 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: user page has finally been edited, but still no disclosure . Widefox; talk 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment No user should ever edit a policy or guideline particularly where they would benefit from such a change. It's akin to changing legislation to make legal what was previously illegal. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "particularly"? Surely, it must be possible to edit them in other cases when you do not benefit: it's a wiki, although of course (and as the hatnotes say), policy and guideline pages are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and consensus standards than other pages. LjL (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the text was changed from "shall" to "should" which backs up Ɱ's stance. This is highly inappropriate. Personally, I feel that no policy or guideline is to be edited without substantial discussion and consensus on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the arguments made by Widefox, JBH and Blackmane. removing COI notice from Ɱ 's main page does not help transparency and looks deceptive, editing a policy whose change would benefit them from such a change is COI par excellence.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment For what it's worth, Ɱ's user page now says "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak." I suggest closing out this issue for now. If Ɱ comes back and does something annoying, there will be little argument about what to do. WP:DENY and WP:ROPE apply here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree that by the editor taking a break they would normally weasel out of avoid sanctions for PAYTALK disruption (per preventative not punitive). However, they have not taken a break User:Ɱ care to explain? And, even if while away we are still missing the disclosure per policy/guideline (and spirit of ToU). We also know they are paid to edit what's currently a draft article, so they will be back as soon as the coast is clear due to profit motive. In the unlikely event they aren't coming back (just seen they're back), when/who's going to add the disclosures to their page and delete the drafts? (6 months for the latter.) I understand admins being reluctant to sanction for disruption, but if we allow paid editors to violate WP:PAYTALK to the extent of subverting paid editor policy then we may as well remove as toothless. Patience has run out for this hounding drain on volunteer time (a plug for my thoughts on where this is going is WP:BOGOF), and we have the bigger picture of legal disclosure where things will only firm up. I, for instance will not put up with this level of abuse and gaming as a volunteer, and suggest either admins take over paid COI (and then they are better covered by WP:INVOLVED) or enforce policy preventing gaming abuse of their fellow volunteers. Widefox; talk 11:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ɱ editing now without logging in . Uw-login given . Widefox; talk 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
per LOGOUT "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors..." . But here editor states "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" after three editors suggested indef block (above). Blocks apply to the person not just account, so this is attempting to evade any imminent block while continuing to edit, deceptively.
Edit warring , undone adding inline EXT on a COI article, warning . Ping User:Nagle. Widefox; talk 07:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Damn you. How can I possibly be deceiving others when I plainly state my association with a now-closed account. I resumed editing as part of my job, I hereby cease editing once-more. Your nastiness and harassment have pushed me away from Wikipedia, and I'll probably only ever be back here to resume work on articles I was paid for. Remember that you ought to be permanently banned from Wikipedia, your behavior is vicious and atrocious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:1:FF00:8044:ACC7:FFB0:5155 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
(unfounded accusations ignored) With 3 or 4 indef block !votes above, consensus is editor should be blocked, and at that point they deceptively state "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" then make 1 more account edit, then continuing to IP edit, thus attempting to go under the radar of scrutiny here. That trick of avoiding sanctions only works if they actually go away, they haven't. Widefox; talk 08:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You should be banned. Ever since I complained to you about your conduct, you have been on a relentless mission to get me banned from Wikipedia. Your attacks are ridiculous. There's no consensus here. Not a single other COI editor commented here. Also, here, on the Administrator's Noticeboard, not a single administrator has even commented. Congratulations for finding three one other (only you and Johnuniq wanted a block) anti-COI editors, there are thousands more biased against what should be considered decent work. Your 'consensus' here is a farce any clearheaded person should see.--2601:643:1:FF00:799F:A536:C6D4:2096 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Now just wait a cotton-pickin' moment there, Widefox. I have already commented at the SPI on the meritlessness of your claim there (short version: an IP editor admitting they are a former registered account that does not wish to edit again from that account may be problematic on some levels, but sockpuppetry it ain't). But as for your clarion call above ... this is AFAIK the first time that I've heard someone call for an SPI on the grounds that someone is planning to evade a block (a block I have not seen any admin agree should be undertaken). My understanding is that policy is purely reactive ... there is no justification for using blocks, certainly not checkuser-based blocks, as preemptive strikes. And what is your evidence that this user is planning to evade a block, even if it were likely that one were forthcoming? Are you reading his mind or something? It has been claimed that you're making up rules here as you go along; certainly this would lend that claim credence. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Daniel Case this is a disclosure issue and wikilawyering with some deception rather than socking per se. The editor removed all disclosure on their user page, an hour later edited the policy PAID to reduce the need for paid editors to disclose when editing PAID, then there was limited consensus above for block, then falsely claimed the editor - not the account aren't editing anymore "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" (emphasis own) then continue with one more edit after (fair enough), then willfully log out and edit war on their paid COI article (while providing only edit summary disclosure), later claiming "There has been no crossover on articles or topics between the IP address and my former account" . That is willful deception. They are the same editor so either they are deceiving about not editing the same paid article (whilst at the same time deceiving about not editing), or they are deceptively trying to claim they aren't the same editor. One or both seem to me a claim of actual socking by them. Several of these claims can't be (and aren't) true.
It may fall between the cracks here but I've not brought this to ANI despite it being suggested to me. Repeating unfounded allegations doesn't make them true. Nobody's asked for checkuser, so that's a straw man. My first two edits of SPI are clear: "Editor has disclosed this IP is the same person as the account" "The main thread is at ANI, this is just to document it, not to forum shop." . Documenting isn't "fishing", despite how useless the SPI seems. Whilst the TOU and PAID / COI say different things, it's wikilawyering season, rather than fishing or cotton-pickin. Widefox; talk 10:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
A request at SPI is generally taken as a request that checkuser be used unless it's decided that the case can be proven without resort to it or it is impossible to use in the particular case. Just because you didn't explicitly ask for it doesn't mean it wasn't understood that way. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not new to SPI / COI, having User:BiH (relationship with User:Orangemoody) under my belt etc, but I know nothing about the those internals of SPI, just what I see at WP:SPI "Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a CheckUser.." (emph own), "CheckUsers will only conduct..." , "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances." so at no point did I consider checkuser a consideration. WP:LOGOUT "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors.." which by the claims of Ɱ at the SPI is proved to be true. Widefox; talk 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Widefox, you've been wikilawyering as much if not more than me. You've been incredibly deceptive. As I said, there's no rule against removing the disclosure. As I said, there's no rule against editing PAID, and it was only to revert part of your bad-faith edit. There was no 'limited consensus' at all. You and one other suggested a block, and you're both out of line. My continuation in editing was really only due to maintaining the Shiner article, and if I didn't have to, I wouldn't have. I only continue commenting now to ensure your accusations don't lead to any blocks, and it's clear you're determined more than anything for that to happen. I never edit warred on the Shiner article, I reverted once. Jesus. And there really wasn't any physical crossover. My user account never edited any of the same pages that my IPs did, except ANI here recently. I was stating that to prove I wasn't being deceptive, and after all, how can I deceive when I'm not even on the same pages with the two different 'accounts'? Your SPI request is so obviously forum shopping, it's disturbing. 2601:643:1:FF00:B4BC:C790:4A99:EE3C (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Any evidence/diffs for deception? If not all these places where you've made these allegations then please strike through. The SPI details how this is deception. Widefox; talk 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to admins - no diffs / evidence for these unsubstantiated claims.
User:Daniel Case as you can see from the SPI, Ɱ is claiming no overlap of articles between IP and account and as such the SPI is actually relevant to establish that trivial fact (as it is denied by the editor). Widefox; talk 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ɱ's other statements have suggested he no longer intends to use that account. I think it would only count as an attempt to deceive if he had not made such statements (and even if he should change his mind, if he were to agree not to edit any articles he had edited as an IP I would be satisfied). It is not the best way to continue editing, but I don't think he's doing it to be deceptive. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Problem is, he/she did make that statement (and remains unfixed), and it started to sway consensus above. I actually believe they consider that they're not being deceptive (I've mentioned WP:COIBIAS). They've mentioned their rights a lot. They can edit as IP. It's up to them if they want to edit as an IP or account, no problem. If IP editing, then don't falsely claim "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" as it actually is deception. Anyhow, they still need to follow consensus and policy WP:PAID and disclose on that account userpage, and at each IP userpage & article (draft/moved or not). The problem is editing at all with this statement which is not true, misleading and its placement removed the (sub-PAID level of) paid COI disclosure, together with claiming at the SPI of no overlap (just because the article has been moved). That's not right per LOGOUT (misleading), or WP:CLEANSTART (overlap). The editor has made many statements, including they are in communication with paying clients for a content question and that they are continuing to edit because it is their job. Wikilawyering is the best faith I can call all that. Paid editors do not have a right to edit here unless they follow TOU, consensus, PAID, COI. The difficulty is only not wanting to, and ignoring consensus to hundreds of lines of talk. It is a way of editing that subverts the discussion above, and (not quite) following the letter of TOU (not quite = claiming no need to disclose on drafts or disclosing on all relevant discussions etc), while ignoring the letter and spirit of consensus, PAID, and COI. This is really about disclosure (not SPI), but has progressed to removing disclosure and providing less in the face of consensus - that's WP:POINT disruption. I've consistently said I consider this a good faith editor, but now this is POINT and we're not meant to get drawn into wikilawyering per PAYTALK. Widefox; talk 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Shiner - turns out it is not notable, this is paid promotion WP:NOTHERE. For the record, the above unfounded wikilawyering has served to suppress me from taking this to AfD due to my uncertainty about meeting "national charts" WP:NMUSIC. I've put the COI tag back on. The SPI is to keep track of the IPs - which details "how difficult" it seems to be to disclose as an IP meeting ToU (edit summary disclosure at AfD haven't always met the letter of ToU, and without disclosure in the text of the AfD editors may be unaware and also not realise the different IPs are the same editor and the creator). I suggest others review edits and press for full COI (paid and unpaid) disclosure from this editor for all their edits considering.
The (supposedly abandoned) account User:Ɱ has accountcreator right, which per my understanding of WP:ACCRIGHT should be removed "users who are no longer involved in the ACC process" and seems highly inappropriate considering. Widefox; talk 10:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hopehoppy (again)
(non-admin closure) Hopehoppy indef blocked (see below). BMK (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmed homophobic. First this "edit", then this comment. A dangerous precedent if he be allowed to continue editing. By the way, look at the first edit he is concealing here, seems that being heterosexual is something of "pride". --Para Forts (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have offered some advice and removed the category, as it's intended for article space only. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a problem in article space? The political opinions of the editor are only an issue if they adversely affect the content of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED. John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
He's not likely to be around long unless he gets some enlightenment. It occurs to me that being "proud" of whatever one's orientation happens to be is akin to being "proud" to have been born with a normal set of arms and legs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Block review
As the person on whose behalf this review was filed (for which many thanks), I'm taking the liberty of closing the discussion and putting this to bed. I hope that Mike V has learned something, and indeed that we've all learned a little more about reading well, about what BLP is for and what it's not for, and about more effective dispute resolution. For those who wish to continue the discussion, WT:BLP is thataway.
But I'm sure that neither I nor the Lady Catherine (if indeed that is her real name) want to dally much more with this, when there are so many more important things to do. As (the revolting, or not) Comrade Corbyn himself would say, ¡la lucha continúa! ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!:) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How dare these ruffians deny my existence! They're worse than that suspiciously grubby peasant Ritchie333 who can't even get my peerage right. Despicable!
Mike V has blocked Jbmurray for an alleged BLP violation on the satirical Lady Catherine's arbitration candidates guide. Lady Catherine is a harmless sock account of another user and is a polar opposite joke account for her (take a close look at the image on Lady Catherine's page...for instance). Mike V removed the edit first himself, here, Jbmurray restored it noting that the entire guide is a satirical joke . Mike V agin removed it claiming Jbmurray may be blocked if it was restored . Irondome reverted Mike V calling the matter "absurd" followed by another revert by Mike V with summary "BLP" , right after Mike V warned Irondome about the alleged BLP issues . Jbmurray again restored it asking for discussion ...and Mike V blocked Jbmurray for the alleged BLP issue, then Mike V once again removed the alleged violation , with edit summary "WP:BLP is quite clear on the matter". No it isn't quite clear at all. This is a satirical joke ACE guide and represents the likely opposite views of the author in most cases. No previous interaction with Mike V, but this is a big misunderstanding. Does Mike V not see that the guide in question is satire? Is this administrative abuse, perhaps even blocking someone they are in a content dispute with? Jbmurray seems to have summed up the issue well at their talkpage, but Mike V appears to have gone offline though this block still needs to be reviewed.--MONGO 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Satire folks...its satire...--MONGO 07:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm just MONGO...was not sure where exactly.--MONGO 08:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Since this has ended up here anyway, I will add my voice to the pile-on about a bad block. So obvious that one need not belabour the point. Kingsindian♝♚ 09:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Absurdly bad block. Is this the first such instance by this user? Holy cow... Carrite (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mike V: - please undo this block promptly, so someone else doesn't have to. Obvious satire is not a blp issue on a satirical guide, and blocking JB for disagreeing with you that fact still doesn't make it anything but a bad block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a good block. Shows a dismal failure of sense of humor. (or an unfamiliarity with the Lady). DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please unblock asap per DGG and Kevin Gorman. AndreasJN466 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Completely bad block - Anyone reading that guide would realize it's satire so how BLP comes in to this I'll never know!, Someone should probably undo it.... –Davey2010Talk 08:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Most laughably incorrect and tone-deaf block of one admin on another since this one, and worse, in my opinion, for not even having an inkling it might be wrong. Unblock and apologise immediately. Begoontalk 09:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Revoltingly bad block.pablo 09:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Spat my coffee when I saw this. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have unblocked per the consensus above (yes, it wasn't open for long, but consensus was quite clear and coming from experienced editors, not some early rabble of wikifriends). Discussion, if needed, can continue of course, and if consensus would magically change or new circumstances come to light, feel free to reblock or take whatever is necessary without consulting me. Fram (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
... Just a reminder, BLP applies everywhere, even on satire. The block was good. KoshVorlon 12:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The description of someone as "revolting" is not a BLP violation as it clearly is a subjective opinion. MikeV (presumably also a living person) has had his action described as "Deplorably wrong-headed" and "absurd" and it has been suggested that this action was abuse. By your logic these are BLP violations too, in which case everyone commenting on this matter should be blocked.pablo 14:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the block was silly. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that it is possibly a BLP violation, I think a block is going a bit overboard, giving the nature of it being userspace satire. All that was needed was a revert and an explanation for the revert. A block was overkill IMO, and to have it overturned was the best remedy.--Jules(Mrjulesd) 12:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
@Ritchie333:, an edit summary like "which part of "this discussion is closed" do you not get?" is really uncalled for. A block review doesn't necessarily end when the block is overturned, certainly not when this was done relatively soon after the start of the discussion. Clsoing down this discussion was probably premature but acceptable, but patronising editors who don't agree with that close and the block isn't. Fram (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I would hardly call that block wrong. We love humour here, but that humour should not go into the territory of insulting our article subjects. Consensus seems to think this is okay, I disagree and think BLP of course applies. HighInBC 15:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We thank Thee, O Lord, for another day without whining from someone who doesn't get the joke. (EEng)
BLP is about Biographies... That's the B. Several months ago I referred to one of the leading American Presidential candidates as a "Centrist opportunist" or some such on Jimbotalk. That is not a BLP violation. If I had put the same line in her Wikipedia biography, THAT would be a BLP violation. See the difference? BLP is meant to keep mainspace clean of defamation, not to crush free speech. Of course, that's not how it is used by some people. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not correct. If a given statement is a BLP violation in the subject's article, then it's a BLP violation anywhere else it might appear in Wikipedia. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
As I see Lady Catherine's arbcom guide right now, I can pick out insults towards Kim Jong-un as "that man with the funny haircut" (an opinion that I am sure would cause a North Korean to get into serious trouble) and having a swing at the Gender Gap Task Force, claiming that Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher were no more suitable to be major heads of state beyond "selling contraceptives" and speculating that AKS.9955 may not be suitable as an arb because his name sounds like a brand of a Russian assault rifle. If you have read all that and genuinely feel hurt and upset because you believe the subject mentioned have been insulted, then that's your opinion, but I really would hope people can see that things that are so blatantly exaggerated are never designed to genuinely offend. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Having rather needlessly contributed to such drama, I pledge to write somecontent today as penance. I have but a couple closing observations: 1) it perhaps bears repeating that the Lady's guide was not "insulting our article subjects." As I explain at some length, any halfway-competent reader would realize immediately that the guide's author (hint: this was not the Lady Catherine de Burgh) if anything meant quite the opposite. 2) Even if it were insulting (and again, it most definitely wasn't), it wouldn't have been defamatory. Some people need to re-read the BLP policy, and the reasons for it, a little more carefully. Of course, it would still have been totally inappropriate in article space; but not for reasons of BLP. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I feel compelled to prolong this thread. It's troubling enough that someone so tone-deaf is an admin, much less a CU/oversighter, but when someone who's apparently part of the trusted apparatus of the election itself feels free to tinker with the community's comments (whether facially serious or lighthearted) about the candidates, it's extremely troubling. There was no urgent need for immediate action, and he should have had the sense to leave any such action to others. EEng (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's troubling. A minor BLP infraction was dealt in an over enthusiastic fashion, which was quickly reverted. Everything solved. --Jules(Mrjulesd) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
My concern is that Mike V is trusted with carrying out actions well beyond those even a normal admin can perform -- actions which by their very nature are immune to the usual self-correcting mechanisms of the project e.g. oversighting of edits and supervision of election mechanics. It does trouble me that a person in that position is so willing to smash a nut with a sledgehammer, and to do it again and again even after multiple editors and even admins indicated they thought its was inappropriate. EEng (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the redactions and block were silly. Now that you've got your two cents in, can we re-close the topic? --NeilNtalk to me 17:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know -- has everyone who wants to comment commented? Why the hurry? EEng (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
All right, what admin action are you proposing? --NeilNtalk to me 17:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the appropriate remedy is. It might be as little as acknowledgement that election officials should take care to remain scrupulously nonpartisan, both in fact and in appearance. One way of seeing that might be say that election officials should consider themselves WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of anything related to the election other than the specific duties entrusted to them. If they see something like this in the future, they should refer it to some other admin, or bring it here, or whatever else INOLVED admins do.
And it just occurred to me -- Mike V hasn't even bothered to comment here himself.
Opinion: I think that most of WP:BLP is heinous restrictions imposed on the community, mostly without community consensus, and it's sometimes applied in ways that go even beyond its letter, by people who either really like taking policies to their extremes, or who like to stick to the WMF line very much. There are policies, like WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, which supposedly only apply to article space, and yet WP:BLP purportedly makes them suddenly apply everywhere, including on talk pages, whenever something is vaguely about a living person. In this way, WP:BLP is a blatant way to trump pre-existing consensus, and somehow it came to prevail on other (saner) policies due to "political" and legal issues (which have nothing to do with the goals of this project). LjL (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, I disagree. I fully understand why BLP is necessary. I just think common sense wasn't used in applying it here, and lack of common sense in someone in such a position isn't a good thing. But maybe it's just me. EEng (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
BLP might be "necessary", but some parts of it easily lend themselves to be taken to extremes. Aside from this incident, I have previously had to deal with someone basically claiming that another editor couldn't put into question the reliability of a source because doing so amounted to "bad-mouthing" the living person who constituted the source. Completely contrary to what this project is about. LjL (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could somebody pls have a look at the recent page history of this user, User:62.157.122.132, whom I recently blocked, revert it (pls consider revdel), and semi-protect the page to stop harassment. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk page access got revoked ... is good enough, IMO. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
All previous IP socks--like this one--are from Natchitoches, Louisiana. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
We've talked about a rangeblock for this guy in the not too distant past. Do you have a comprehensive list of IP addresses for him? Katietalk 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Calculating from the above three IPs, we can block 104.243.160.0/20 (covers 4096 IP addresses). I will go ahead and do that, and will post at the SPI case page as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Consistent, long term harassment and insults by Malaylampur on talk pages
I am bringing up this conduct dispute here per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. For weeks, User:Malaylampur has been harassing myself and another user (and a bot) across a few talk pages. His editing has improved markedly since he created his account; the problem is that he can't resist insulting other users like a 12 year old child at the slightest hint of disagreement, and attempts to moderate his conduct have failed.
Starting in late October, the user disagreed with some edits of myself and User:MusenInvincible, responding to a content dispute with variouswinners such as telling other users to flip burgers and "BRING FACTS" in addition to flaming a bot. When I responded and disagreed with some of the edits, I was called a snake-eating ignoramus, told that my wife left me and took the kids and that my account would be "folded".
When User:HyperGaruda noticed and intervened (I was on a small hiatus from editing after the initial conflict), MalayLumpur removed the talk page notice and threatened HyperGarude with their account being reported over a content dispute. He even threatened to open a COI against HyperGarude and myself during my hiatus. It wouldn't have gone anywhere, but when taken together, the repeated patterns of childish and petulant behavior (which consist of about half of all the users contribs) make for a tense editing environment.
After my hiatus, I logged in to see that HyperGaruda and another user had mediated the content dispute while weathering more abuse by Malaylampur, but once the content dispute was handled, the issue seemed to fizzle out. When I logged in and saw all of this, I left a comment on HyperGaruda's talk page thanking them for handling the dispute that I didn't even know had escalated and expressing my disappointment that the content/editing issues had been resolved but not the conduct issues, and informed HyperGaruda - since they had been involved - that I intended to reopen the issue if the conduct issues flared up again since the user had been reasoned with by multiple peers. Well, MalayLumpur apparently was watching and responded to my comment (which wasn't directed at them) by calling me a troll and a clown, accused me of ignoring them, and then opened a taunting message on my talk page harassing me about my personal beliefs.
This amounts more to an annoyance than anything since, to be fair, Malaylampur's editing and content issues improved quickly. But he doesn't seem willing to quit on all the insults, which is a really unpleasant thing to be faced with as soon as one logs in. Since he's rejected all attempts by others to mediate the conduct dispute, I'm not sure what else to do; arbitration and 3rd opinion don't seem in order because this isn't about a specific article, and for me to message an individual admin would feel like canvassing or tattle-telling. I hope that the community can instead provide suggestions or even solutions for some sort of mentoring or other way to express to Malaylampur that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Time for the almighty boomerang118.21.114.100 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
More information Sock has been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC) ...
user:Malaylampur's behavior is intolerable. They have created havoc across several pages and have used inexcusable language against MezzoMezzo. MForteKL (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
And who is user:Samtar but a sockpuppet of MalayLampur.MForteKL (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Somehow doubt that MForteKL, seeing as my account is seven years old and all.. -- samtarwhisper 12:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
MForteKL is an obvious and malicious sock puppet, and with this edit they've added simple vandalism and harassment. I've blocked MForteKL indef. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Close
@MezzoMezzo: your the one acting like a toddler. You pissed me off and continue to do so with these posts. Once content issue was settled you proceeded to call me a troll on hyper's talk or should i say insinuated that i had been. Stop pissing me off and monitoring my edits. Lets take a closer look at the peronal belief harassment you claim exists. Now looking at your edits you said that Barelvis claims of being Sunnis is disputed. So I asked you what sect do you believe are authentic sunni. That is not harassment. But this is. calling others a troll when their not and that I should be banned calling my edits disruptive even when their cited & Last but not least. A very provocative headline on another users page 'Previous trolling" Malaylampur (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Malaylampur: I'm not entirely sure how you can think that comments like the one just above might help your case... LjL (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I accidentally noticed that Malaylampur was already discussed here this month. I am lazy to check how it ended, but seeing him writing texts like "Stay off wikipedia if you continue to act like a clown." afterwards, I don't think he was given or got the lesson. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the previous ANI discussion turned stale (probably due to some communication issues). Nevertheless, we were able to work out the content dispute that started said discussion; whatever is going on now, is beyond the scope of the Encyclopedia. If you don't mind, I'd like to put to rest this - as the Dutch say - "storm in een glas water". - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Negeryi: subtle vandalism?
I'm not reporting this to WP:AIV because it's not entirely obvious, but I'm reporting it here without first giving too many warnings and nice messages because I do think it's obvious enough when you look at the user's whole edit history.
I came across this user on 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown where I quickly realized almost everything they had been doing was reverting edits that were reasonably justified, with no explanation or with dubious edit summaries (for example, this edit summary just seems like a partial verbatim copy of someone else's earlier unrelated edit summary). Another example is this summary, where it is claimed that WP:EL spam was removed, which is an entirely bogus claim (sourced content from BBC was removed instead).
Then I went on to check for further bogus edits / violations of policy, and for instance, here I find unexplained removal of a whole section and messing up of section headers; I revert the mess, and I promply get this undo with its edit summary.
The user has edited many articles, but has only been around on Wikipedia since a few days. I think aside from a small number of edits, it should be considered a vandalism-only account, even though it's not immediately obvious.
you should be considered avandalism-only account--Negeryi (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by CU-blocked sock struck
this is indeed unnecessary no notable because it describe what was in the video--Negeryi (talk) Comment by CU-blocked sock struck —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
IP on my radar again. Geolocates to Island of Jersey in English Channel. I'm seeing a very clear pattern of pro-ISIL edits. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Yeah, it's got a whiff of that, sure, but I'm not very knowledgeable in that area. I did, however, make an edit to one of the articles they wuz busy on, and left a note on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for three months. The person behind the IP has been in the news (and the courts) and has no business editing Wikipedia, for their own good as much as anything else. Acroterion(talk) 01:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor who initially created Draft:Kresten Bjerg decided to skip listening to advice and having a reviewer to approve the article and jumped right into creating mainspace Kresten Bjerg with content likely lifted from the draft. The draft was then deleted as being something that already exists in mainspace. However, I think the draft page is necessary for proper attribution of the content in Kresten Bjerg and a history merge might be necessary. (or maybe the draft moved to be a subpage of the main page and attribution made in the main article's history?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll merge them. Just Chilling (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nevermind, I'm an idiot. You stated that this is working now. I'm going to resolve and close this. ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 13:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin please have a look at the contributions of Yeasin Ali Mithun? The user is vandalizing main pages like WP:Visual Editor (see history), possibly trying to translate the page in Bengali. Of couse the page is then useless for all non-Bengali speakers... Other edits (drafts?) contain only Bengali text (according to Google translate). Talkpage messages to stop and to communicate in English have been ignored and removed. The last addition at User talk:Yeasin Ali Mithun seems to be a list of addresses together with phone numbers. The additions to User talk:180.211.197.133 are actually worse - ranting about terrorism, Muslims and various dictators' mass killings (although Google translate may have mistranslated something). Anyway, this looks like a serious case of WP:NOTHERE without a very good reason for this weird editing. GermanJoe (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reported this at the vandalism page WP:AIV—МандичкаYO 😜 07:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please do something about this individual? (Vormeph)
Blocked 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Don't think I need to say much more. Semi-protecting won't be the good approach here (as it's been done before due to him edit warring). Hes on bad terms with like everyone due to his editorial behavior, and is continuing with this. Received plenty of warnings too. Though numerous people have told him not to remove those links, he's still continuing to do so, ignoring the talk page consensus and that the majority does not want them to be deleted like that, as well as ignoring several WP's. Just as of seconds ago, he officially made a threat to continue edit warring (which he's already doing and has done priorly too), reverted it once again, without edit summary, though we explicitly told him not to do so,, says the voice of the majority "must be screwed". Could you do anything about this? Honestly, we've shown enough resilience, and there's no simply no place for edit warriors that make statements such as "screw the voice of the majority". Clearly does not grasp multiple WP's as well as what is being a valuable addition to this place. - 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit-warring by User_talk:107.10.236.42
Boomerang. Socks of User:Moetzes blocked by various people. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The account of This IP has been engaged in edit warring and imposing his POV in a
number of articles including Yeshivat_Chovevei_Torah and Avi Weiss. A couple of weeks ago an IP tried to get my account blocked based on my account name, and an administrator responded here that there is nothing wrong with my account name "Council2".
Since this is a generic English term it does not imply any connection to any existing organisation.
Since then the IP was able to get another administrator to block my account. The IP made various accusations including edit-warring, POV pushing, and sockpuppeting, none of which have any basis. However, the accusations seem to have been accepted by the administrator without checking the facts.
In fact, it is the IP that has been acting against a consensus of other editors. There are at least two editors who have been adding material consonant to changes I made.
Also, my edits have been consonant with the the WP:BRD process. In most cases, when the IP in question reverted my changes, I took the material to the talk page and challenged the IP to a discussion, as for example in this edit, without re-adding them to the page in question.
If there was a AN discussion of alleged violations on my part, I was certainly not informed of it and cannot find it now.
The administrator who blocked my account also proceeded to revert some changes I made as in this edit. He claimed that material he reverted is contributed by me but in fact most of this material was contributed not by me but rather by a different editor at a related page in this edit. I simply copied this material to the Yeshivat_Chovevei_Torah where it is also relevant.
The administrator who blocked me claimed that I was engaged in edit warring but provided no evidence to this effect, making it quite impossible to respond to his request to "Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked" in
this edit.
I already responded earlier that I represent no organisation at all, including any that may contain the common English word "council" in their title. In particular, I represent neither the moetzes of Agudat Israel of America, nor the Council of American Rabbis, nor yet the European Rabbinical Council. It is not even clear what organisation I was accused of representing.
I could just as well continue using my new account "Counsel2" but I am concerned about a possible reaction by the IP hostile to my edits and the administrator who took the IP's word for it without checking the facts. Counsel2 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
So, Counsel2, you are a block-evading sockpuppet of Council2. Do you realize that you probably just punched your own ticket to having your block extended? Have you e-mailed the blocking admin, asking them to discuss your block on your talk page? Did you even notify the blocking admin of this discussion (which you are told to do in big letters when you edit here)? Did you post your complaint on your talk page and ask another editor to transclude it onto this page? BMK (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am none of the sort. I have certainly left a message at the talkpage of "Council2" explaining that the allegations have no basis. I don't see anywhere that I need to notify the blocking administrator directly. Since you seem to think this is required I will certainly do so now. Counsel2 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
These words appear in big letters at the top of the page when you began this report:
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
Your report was not just about the IP, it was also about your being blocked, which means it was about the actions of the blocking editor which means you were required to notify them. BMK (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have notified JamesBWatson on this thread, as you were supposed to do -- except, of course, that you weren't supposed to be editing here in the first place, being blocked and all. BMK (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am confused. You are "none of the sort"? User:Council2 is blocked. You said that User:Council2 is your account, even though you're currently editing as User:Counsel2. That, by definition, means that User:Counsel2 is a sockpuppet of User:Council2, and given the latter is blocked, the former shouldn't be editing here. LjL (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I just blocked Counsel2 because of the WP:block evasion. You have been advised by the blocking admin and myself (vie e-mail) that you should post unblock request at your ORIGINAL account's talk page (that is User talk:Moetzes). I would easily unblocked you if you did that, but you didn't even try. You say that you "could just as well continue using new account", but that is highly disruptive per WP:EVADE. By creating yet another account, you are reducing your chances to be unblocked. Please, stop arguing and do what you was told to do. Vanjagenije(talk) 16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not true that I "took the IP's word for it without checking the facts". I checked them very carefully, and I never block anyone on the basis of another editor's say-so, without checking.
The editor Moetzes/Council2/Counsel2 has persistently edited to promote a point of view. That point of view happens to agree with that of a council which calls itself by the Hebrew name "Moetzes". It is reasonable to think, therefore, that the editor is editing on behalf of that council. If he or she is not doing so, then he or she has used misleading usernames, and nobody else can be blamed for believing what he or she appeared to be saying by using those usernames, in conjunction with editing in ways which, as I said, promote views agreeing with those of that council. An administrator who decline an unblock request for the first account said "your username in combination with your contributions gives the impression, whether correct or incorrect, that you are representing the council you are citing. That's contrary to our policy". If, having read that, the editor then proceeds to create another account with a username based on the word "council", then he/she must have known full well that he or she was again in breach of the same policy again.
I still think the balance of evidence suggests that the editor was either editing on behalf of a council or else trying to give the impression of doing so, perhaps in the belief that doing so would give the edits more authority, but even if that is not so, it makes little difference, as the main reason for the block was editing to promote a point of view, with the username issue being, in my opinion, a secondary matter. There are also other reasons why the unblocking might be unhelpful, such as edit-warring, a battleground approach to other editors, and sockpuppetry.
It is a total misrepresentation to say "an administrator responded here that there is nothing wrong with my account name 'Council2'". In the edit which Counsel2 linked to with that statement, the administrator in question said "There is nothing disruptive in him registering new account", and did not make any statement about the username.
I see the remarkable statement that I "provided no evidence" that the editor was edit-warring. I took a considerable amount of time posting a detailed explanation for the block, rather than a templated message or at the most a one-sentence message, wither of which I could easily have done. In that message I carefully explained what "edit-warring" meant. Of course I didn't provide "evidence"< because of course the editor knew that he/she had repeatedly made the same, or substantially the same, change, so no "evidence" was required. However, since the editor has now expressed a wish to see evidence, I will provide some. There are these edits , in which the editor adds essentially similar content, on two occasions repeating word for word identical content as before, on other times expressing it differently, but always essentially promoting the same point, and also on two occasions removing the same categories, and there are these edits in which the editor removes the same content each time.
The editor says "He claimed that material he reverted is contributed by me but in fact most of this material was contributed not by me but rather by a different editor at a related page in this edit. I simply copied this material to the Yeshivat_Chovevei_Torah where it is also relevant." I am not at all sure why the editor thinks that the fact of someone else having posted the promotional content elsewhere somehow makes it all right for him/her to do so.
The editor has used his/her latest sockpuppet account, Counsel2, to post some of the same point-of-view-promoting content to talk pages. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikistalking by User:DaeafcMnnC
Blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After I !voted "weak keep" in an afd (s)he nominated, DaeafcMnnC(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) has been wikistalking me. Look at their contributions from 15:11 to 15:21 today and you will see they sequentially reverted several of my edits including removing my comments from talk pages, blanking sourced material, removing an afd template, and undoing my vandalism reverts (thereby re-instating the vandalism). On their user page they say they've been editing since 2009, but the account is only 5 days old. (S)he has violated 3RR on this page. Their entire contribution history shows they're most likely not here to constructively build an encyclopedia.--William ThweattTalkContribs 16:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hate to be assuming bad faith here. But something seems off about this user. Connormah (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This editor's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nels J. Smith and the associated article has been reprehensible. NeilN has imposed an entirely justified 48 hour block. I encourage other administrators to take a look and be prepared. The risk of more disruption in two days is high, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it 18:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe I am being harassed by Martin451
Imho, my record speaks for itself - I came to Wikipedia a few months ago with a solid book source and a desire to improve Avro Vulcan XH558. Over multiple edits over the summer I believe I have improved it greatly, hopefully educating more people about it during this time of increased public interest (it's last ever flight was a month ago). In more recent edits, as well as further updating XH558, I have also improved Vulcan related material on various other articles, not least by creating Vulcan Display Flight (details of which I only realised were completely missing from Wikipedia while researching XH558), and making a start on List of surviving Avro Vulcans, which also looked like an obvious omission when looking at other similarly notable aircraft types, by splitting out what was a tiny unsectioned list in the main article. I hope to expand on it in future, time permitting.
I have been here long enough not to really expect any thanks for any of this, and I appreciate that on the whole, people here only seem to interact in a negative/obstructive way, but I draw the line at people attempting to impugn my motives, with the apparent goal of stopping me editting Wikipedia completely. The harassment all started when I came back recently - during my past work on XH558 I had shifted a list of displays out into a separate list, List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances. At the time I was ambivalent about its merits, noting this exact issue had previously been debated on the talk page between a couple of users, without resolution it seems. I just wanted it out of the way so I could work on the main article. But I did also greatly expand and improve it too - applying the tabular format consistently across all years, and filling in lots of missing entries.
Having come back for a second stint, with no more displays planned, I thought I might next work on getting that list of appearances finished, citing every entry and filling out all remaining gaps (I estimate around 20 appearances per year, or 160 in total). In my absence, someone else had proposed it be deleted, so mindful of the earlier dispute, I took the perhaps unusual step to propose it for deletion myself - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances, in order to establish a positive consensus that it should exist. Without that, I'm not really interested in spending the time it would take to finish, and I'm glad I did, as the debate is currently trending delete. The final part of the story is the fact I also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avro Vulcan XM655 the same day, for more straightforward reasons, as explained there, in the process copying the usable parts to the list of survivors.
Although some have complained I have ignored attribution (I am now careful to state where I am splitting content to/from), and I supposed the reason for the first deletion can be seen as unconventional, I think my actions are defensible from the standpoint of wanting to improve Wikipedia. However, it seems user Andy Dingly , and now Martin451 (creator of Avro Vulcan XM655) disagree. But rather than just disagree, they have seen fit to make all sorts of nefarious allegations against me, suggesting I'm here to disrupt Wikipedia and/or rid it of Vulcan related content by stealth. Their allegations don't stack up, but they seem to be deliberately ignoring facts which counter their narrative and they have persisted despite objections. Well, Andy has at least stopped. But I logged in today to see fresh allegations from Martin451 , and I really have had enough. I ask that they be asked to stop and restrict their comments to things I have actually said or done, and reasonable analysis of such, rather than trying to conduct what I can only really describe as some kind of smear campaign aimed at getting me to just go away and find something else to do with my spare time. Since Wikipedia isn't all that much of a rewarding place to be anyway, it won't take much more of this to persuade me to do just that. Natural Ratio (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The only major interactions I have had directly with you is in two AfDs. I don't think I have had any other interactions as I have hardly been editing of late.
Could you please supply a diff where you asked where I restrict my comments to things you have said and done.
In the AfD List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances, you nominated the article for deletion, then immediately posted a keep !vote. You then pretty much disagreed with all !votes whether they where/are !keep or !delete. I posted one !vote where I !voted for merge, and suggested you were being disruptive due to just wasting time.
After reading the above AfD, I found the second linked by Andy Dingly where I made one keep !vote, followed by comment of Natural Ratio's language to Andy, I then made a second comment over twenty hours later. That is the total of my postings two these AfD. (A total of four edits on both AfDs).
Natural Ratio made what I believe a personal attack on Andy , and his complaint seems to be that I am in the wrong for questioning his personal attacks. He does not believe that language he used is a personal attack, and that questioning his behaviour is an affront to himself.
After this personal attack on Andy I replied with this. They replied with this .I then replied here , he then brought this matter to ANI.
I don't believe my behaviour constitutes harassment. I think WP:Boomerang applies here. Natural ratio has done some excellent work with the Vulcan articles, but he displays a bit of WP:OWNership. They are happy to hand out insults, but not to be told about them, and regard being told about insulting behaviour as an affront to themself. I suggest Natural ratio avoid AfD, and major policy until they have come to understand it. Martin451 00:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I will most certainly not avoid Afd because I think I do understand it. This is harassment - it doesn't need to be a long or sustained campaign, it just has to be a pattern of continued behaviour like this, over objections. And I most certainly consider it an affront to be told I'm disrupting Wikipedia with my supposed anti-Vulcan article agenda by someone who has now suddenly changed their tune and acknowledged my good work. I am not attempting ownership of anything, my edits have almost universally been ignored in fact, and I have actually compromised on the one issue someone actually disputed with me on XH558 - having a Background section. This is what I'm talking about, you're clearly trying to smear me with accusations that are baseless in fact, and I think it's because of your own ownership issue, being upset that I nominated an article you created for deletion. I don't believe I attacked Andy, I think it's fair comment to say he was being paranoid in his attempts to cast me as some kind of Dr Evil, which did indeed result in a raving comment, which made no sense whatsoever. I note he has not continued these allegations and has not come here to defend or add to them, so I can only assume he has seen his error, so I've no wish to focus on him if he has indeed moved on. You however, appear to be digging in. Natural Ratio (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Quote: I don't believe I attacked Andy, I think it's fair comment to say he was being paranoid in his attempts to cast me as some kind of Dr Evil, which did indeed result in a raving comment, which made no sense whatsoever I don't think I need to add anything. Martin451 01:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I've just got better and busier things to do than waste time at ANI, where it now seems that comments made at an AfD are to be discarded unless they're submitted in duplicate and countersigned at AfD.
You have split a section off from one article, then AfDed the split section. You have simply AfDed another article. That's a funny way to go about "supporting" or "extending" Vulcan coverage.
Now if you'll excuse me, this volcano won't hollow out itself and I've got a Villiers Vindicator to rob. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Evidently I gave you too much credit. It would be funny if that's all I had done, but as I explained above, it's not. And 'split and delete' is not what I did to the display list either. It's this sort of behaviour I am here about - the repetition of blatant lies and misrepresentations despite my objections. It is either a deliberate attempt to smear me, or you still haven't yet properly studied my edits and explanations. There is a very clear line between fair criticism, and whatever this is, whether it's intentional harassment or just plain negligence. So no, you are no excused. I have better things to do as well, but you two have imho crossed the line. Natural Ratio (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
User Mannyqee keeps posting references to a blog full of unreliable information
Within the racing sim community that blog is known to be full of conjectures. I don't know a single person who takes it seriously.
Such references should stay out of wikipedia.
Thanks. --Theaghan (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Theaghan, you may disagree with the source (I haven't overly looked into it) but creating obvious sock accounts (such as Garyjpatersonwiki) is against the username policy. I've opened a SPI -- samtarwhisper 09:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed some days ago that IPs were removing information from the article in question. I didn't think any more of it until I saw it here. Anyway, I've just had a nose around and there is a thread on a forum related to the subject. It's not public but I suspect it's being used to organize a meatpuppet campaign here. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should User:SwisterTwister be notifying User:DGG to come to multiple deletion discussions on User:DGG's talk page? I thought we had a strict rule about trying to recruit people to a deletion discussion. You aren't supposed to notify individual people unless they were involved in writing the article, or if they were involved in a previous attempt to delete the article. See User_talk:DGG#AfDsUser_talk:DGG#AfDs again and other postings of large lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To begin, I hate ANI so that's enough to say. But second, the guidelines for that specifically mention users who request to be notified especially if they're familiar with the fields and subjects. Either way they vote, I couldn't care and always simply want a consensus of something (as to not have another no consensus) I have settled and explained this throughly to anyone who has asked so mentioning this without notifying and consulting is obvious what it signifies. SwisterTwistertalk 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
User SwisterTwister frequently notifies people active in AfD based on interest areas and possible ability to find more sources/offer more input. For example, SwisterTwister notifies me regularly for articles related to Eastern Europe/Russia and in about 2/3 cases I support keeping. This is not the same thing as WP:CANVASS and in fact is extremely helpful. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I also get the occasional ping from SisterTwister about an AfD on an article I've been involved with. Most recently they voted "delete" in an AfD (not one they put up) and pinged me; I found that Michig had dug up some decent sources and I'm leaning "keep". In other words, I don't think SisterTwister could have expected what my vote would have been. As for DGG, he's a straight shooter and as neutral as they come--DGG probably leans a bit towards inclusionism. If this really is an accusation of canvassing where admin intervention is asked for (and it has to be, or RAN would have been courteous enough to ask SisterTwister on their talk page), then the answer is no: no canvassing, no intervention required. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest Drmies RAN never even attempted to talk to me about it and I certainly wish he had because as mentioned I simply hate ANI and make my best to stay away. FWIW and I'm sure DGG will come around soon, he has explicitly said (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta) that he is interested to be notified of subjects he has expertise and familiarity with therefore I'm not particularly leading him anywhere (as mentioned before, I will also ask him to help close a much needed AfD long overdue so that's not certainly not malicious either). Cheers, SwisterTwistertalk 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's canvassing. SwisterTwister is only trying to find consensus, frequently in poorly-discussed AfDs. I got pinged in a few AfD discussions that I didn't see. I think it's helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Asking editors to help in improving articles is not canvassing. The work can be considered part of the efforts of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. IMO SwisterTwister should be commended for this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
At one time I tried to comment of all afds where I knew enough to say something useful. I cannot now do so, so I started trying to spot those that either were in subject fields I particularly care about, or that had multiple relistings about which I could try to get some consensus--or close. I no longer can scan them all myself even for this, and I ask some people) to notify me about a selection. That editor is not canvassing me, but helping me at my request--I really must thank SwisterTwister, and all those who notify me of interesting things, so I can work as widely as I do. Ever since I realized I couldn't do everything, I have deliberately decided to work first on problems people presented to me. By now they know that I will often not give the response they might be hoping for, or might be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I, too, sometimes get AfD pings from SwisterTwister. They're always with regard to India articles and I'm absolutely sure they have no idea what opinion I might offer. Canvassing would necessitate that they did know, so I see no problem. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Since consensus is that it is not canvassing - hook me up! I, too, would appreciate notification from User:SwisterTwister and User:DGG about the same AfD's. Thanks! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't make a lot of difference when they ping me as I look through the list of music-related AfDs each day anyway, and it's those that SwisterTwister pings me in. I often disagree with ST's view in thse discussions (more often than not because ST doesn't find any coverage and I do) so they're obviously not pinging me just to go along and agree with them. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Day6 reversions by User:Dr.K. and User:Drmies
Original poster has been blocked as a sock, and the master two weeks, by the illustrious Bbb23, no further action required. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This matter revolves around edits to the Day6 article about a Korean boy-band.
I reverted Dr.K.'s edit creating the misspelled names (as discussed in the article talk page linked above) added links to the sources, and added the trivial data also included in that source (band member's height & weight) as that's the type of trivia which I suspect boy-band fan users will generally tend to enjoy.
Minutes later, User:Drmies then reverted my reversion of Dr.K. with the edit summary "Undid revision 693042895 by Wikierroneous height and weight? Why not blood type and favorite color? Rv: trivia".
Since this reversion obviously not only removed the trivial height & weight (which who cares if it exists or not), but also removed the added links to references and restored the non-trivial misspellings of names contrary to the RS, I reverted DrMies with the edit summary "Undid revision 693043712 by Drmies (talk) If you want to remove the height & weight then go ahead and remove it, but don't restore misspellings of people's names as you did with your revision".
Five minutes later Dr.K. reverted both my reversions of DrMies(again reestablishing the misspellings that fail to match the sources, which he also deleted in the process) with the edit summary "Reverted 2 edits by Wikierroneous (talk): No consensus for tables. Please stop your edit-warring. (TW★TW)" and posted an edit-warring warning on my talk page. I note that it really seems that Dr.K./DrMies don't like tables and so now it's up to others to get a bunch of people together to satisfy K & Mies before adding any tables.
Dr.K. & DrMies seem to have established (an otherwise undocumented that I know of) policy regarding article formatting, specifically the use of tables where they don't like them in WP. Really I could care less, particularly regarding a foreign boy-band.
I note that Dr.K. & DrMies both seem to revert each other's "opponents"(for lack of a better term) surprisingly quickly, and both seem to have similar user pages.
I'm taking a break from WP for a while, because who needs this kind of hassle, so someone else can worry about reverting vandals on that Day6 article and can concern themselves with what information should or shouldn't be included in the article, whether it should be sourced, whether it should match those sources, what format it should be in, and whether formatting is apparently determined by the whim of any group of 2.
Cheers — Wikierroneous 03:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikierroneous: If there's a disagreement on the inclusion of trending info for the event, or for a table, and they were only reverted once, that's WP:BRD at work, and it's time for discussion for the talk page. As for the other trivia bits, was there something preventing you from correcting the misspellings without adding the problematic trivia back into the article? Also, I'm just going to go ahead and not take seriously that you're suggesting Dr. K and Drmies of being one in the same or working together because you've provided no credible basis for it. While we're here, it's not appropriate to omit a talk page link from your signature. If you're going to contribute to the project, it's important that other editors be able to get in touch with you in a one-on-one context. Please add a link back in. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Wikierroneous: First, and I'm putting this in bold to make it very clear: You are edit-warring over a boy band!!
OK, with that out of the way, Drmies is an admin, Dr.K. is a respected editor, both of them have been here for a looooong time and know the rules quite well. If they say something shouldn't be there, it probably shouldn't be there. Listen to what they have to say, work with them, and discuss this on their talk pages first. Big notice at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." There is no evidence you tried this route first.
I see no reason this needs to go any further than right here. Wikierroneous seems to be OWN'ing the page, dislikes Dr.K. and Drmies "messing" with their perfered version. I recommend closing this ANI thread and throwing it back to the Talk:Day6 page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikierroneous:and added the trivial data also included in that source (band member's height & weight) as that's the type of trivia which I suspect boy-band fan users will generally tend to enjoy. Is this an admission that you are not seriously trying to build an encyclopaedic article?
I note that Dr.K. & DrMies both seem to revert each other's "opponents"(for lack of a better term) surprisingly quickly, and both seem to have similar user pages. I hadn't noticed. Thanks for the compliment. And your point is?
Really I could care less, particularly regarding a foreign boy-band. But cared enough to open this frivolous report at ANI although discussion is ongoing at the article talkpage. But I forgot: You didn't like that I moved the discussion to the article talk and you called my move "childish" while disregarding my valuable advice to you. Dr.K. 04:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Dr. K. and I do have very similar user pages, I suppose. K's got a cat, I got an ostrich. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just admiring that picture. You obviously have a more upscale sense for pets than I do. I will show your pet's picture to my cat and see his reaction. If all goes well I will add it to my userpage just below his picture. Dr.K. 05:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I wasn't aware of any misspellings--as far as I could tell there were alternate spellings. Either way, it's minor, and could easily be solved by doing that individually. I'm also not sure where the vandalism is that Wikierroneous signaled. A bigger problem here is the refusal to have a simple link to the editor's talk page, and wishing that we could do without talk pages runs counter to the whole idea of collaborative editing. I was on my phone earlier and the editor's talk page produced nothing but a black screen (similar to what Windows 10 gives me), which was all my phone showed me--also not indicative of a collaborative spirit. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The irony is s/he doesn't like any messages and reverts them but feels quite free to dump messages on other users' talkpages and expects them to have conversations there instead of the article talkpage. Really contradictory attitude. Dr.K. 05:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That seems correct, Dr. K. As for you, Drmies, it is good to see that you are editing with a smart phone, like the real hardcore editors do. Yeah, you need to scroll past a whole lot of blackness on that "talk" page. Very strange. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that both User:Dr.K. and Drmies should be site banned at once because they have committed the ultimate sacrilege of reverting a fan's edit on a boyband page. Furthermore they should both be escorted to the the sixth circle of hell for this heresy. Clearly they have formed a cabal against all boybands and their fans. signed by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) in order to make BBB23 happy.
I've blocked Wikierroneous as a Confirmed sock of WhoRyou?(talk·contribs·count). I've blocked the master for two weeks. I've removed the image, cute, but interferes, and please sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat, you have totally found us out. Damn you! But the question, as Dante well knows, is of intention: do Dr.K. and I hate boy bands because we are...homophobic? man haters? racists? jazz tyrants? (I suppose that me saying that I didn't know it was a boy band is useless--boyband, girlband in K-pop, they present the same problems...) Also, thank you Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Disruption by trivia is an equal opportunity phenomenon in K-pop articles. It is not gender-specific. So we are indeed politically-correct in reverting it wherever it occurs. Dr.K. 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:188.222.58.239
User has been warned about WP:ENGVAR edit-warring. User will be blocked if ENGVAR stuff persists. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:188.222.58.239 edited Binocularsdiff American English ----> British English and fixed other "typos". I reverted it back trying to preserve the users good faith typo fixes diff noting WP:ENGVAR, leaving notice at users talk and getting reply on my talk which the user may have misunderstood diff? The user has continued to revert the entire article back American English ----> British English noting a minor typo each time . Don't know if this is American English ----> British English edit warring or just a lack of understanding of editing (doubt that, editor seems well versed in other edits ). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Point him at WP:ENGVAR. If he argues it doesn't apply to him - it does, as it's part of the Manual of Style - seek a block. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Except for disavantage, I've never heard of that one. Sir Joseph(talk) 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The knee-jerk reverting is unfortunate, because some actual errors were being corrected as well as the AmE to BrE stuff. So the article currently has errors. For example, "unordinary" is a fucking stupid word, why was the change to "unusual" reverted? 82.132.214.101 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is my first-ever post on this particular noticeboard, so if this is the wrong place to bring this issue up, please kindly direct me to the correct one. I also confess to hardly ever editing articles on politics, so please bear with me as I try to explain the situation currently taking place on that article.
I stumbled upon the article on the British National Party yesterday, and found the lead quite non-neutral. After posting a message on the talk page, I proceeded to make a good-faith edit to bring the lead closer to the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. All of my three edits to the page were however very quickly reverted by three different users who appear to have taken control of the contents of the article: @Snowded, @The Four Deuces and @Emeraude, including an edit which actually removed my improvement to a citation template.
To me the situation looks quite simple, really: rather than remaining neutral, those users' views on the article are obscured by their personal feelings towards the BNP—which isn't actually a surprise given the BNP's controversial policies. However, it is quite clear that the version currently forced by them does not follow the recommendations from MOS:LEAD, particularly Provide an accessible overview, Relative emphasis and Opening paragraph. It is also worth mentioning that articles on other political parties in the United Kingdom, such as the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Green Party of England and Wales roughly do follow those guidelines (although the Con and Lab articles provide a summary of the history of those parties while the Greens' article lead summarises their policies).
I have made two reverts to the article today trying to make the lead more complaint with LEAD guidelines, which is accordance with WP:3RR is the maximum permitted number within a 24-hour period, so I think I am in no position but to request outside help with what I consider edits contrary to MOS suggestions. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, odder (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the wrong place. You'll want to work through the article talk page. Start by searching the archives for prior discussions. If you can't reach consensus there, you could try WP:DRN or WP:RFC. NE Ent 00:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So bury me with bureaucracy? That's helpful. odder (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
improper talk page discussion closures
(non-admin closure) Discussion was properly closed since you disruptively added another section about the same topic that was also closed properly. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 02:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
But you ignored what I wrote. Previous section was closed in the same way, without discussion and request.. Abruptly. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not "ignore". I read the closures. They were right. Plus, you had the nerve to open another section citing the above section which was closed. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
First, let me point out that, like stated above, the IP editor has been warned that their edits were not appropriate by two administrators, Acroterion and Jehochman. Their discussion was closed by a third editor, they immediatly opened a new section stating "Statement and reference provided in above section." I closed this attempt to get around the fact that they were ignoring a clear directive to move on from a closed discussion, and ended up having to revert their edits multiple times. They have been notified of sanctions regarding this article, and have been warned numerous times that this sort of willful ignorance of the rules will not be tolerated. I've exhausted every civil option I can, and feel the only recourse left is a block. This IP editor is obviously not new to Wikipedia, nor do they seem interested in engaging in anything but soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, also, the IP editor has engaged in personal attacks. Are we done here? --Tarage (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
My concern about article statement not being supported by the citation was completely ignored, and rules of wikipedia were violated by the abrupt closure. You are blaming me for the WP rules which you yourself are violating. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disagree with the closer It's been common practice that any issue, rfc or other , be closed by a non-involved user. The closer was involved in the discussion. They also re-wrote the statement in violation of WP:TPO. I'd say the user was wrong to close and that re-writing the close was also wrong. KoshVorlon 16:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Callmemirela acting as ADMINISTRATOR on this board, while she is NOT one
As an uninvolved administrator I am telling you that non-admins can close discussions here. HighInBC 02:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please, I ask an uninvolved administrator to participate here. See the section above. Her behavior is very abusive. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stop Him, please.....--TheAvengers 14:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
– Should be fixed --slakr\talk/ 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Please forgive me in advance if I somehow missed something and I jump the gun too soon here. But there is vandalism being made by here, here, here, and (what looks like) many others. The talk page states that "All edits attributed to this IP (besides those resulting from a server misconfiguration in 2013) have been made by one of Wikimedia's system administrators". It looks like this guideline may need to be followed. As most of you probably know, I'm quite familiar with WP:AIV, and I'll understand if I'm told that this ANI was stupid and to just follow normal protocol - I just saw this IP and the template and thought this should be brought here. The vandalism is low impact/danger, but the IP just threw me completely off. Thanks in advance for tolerating my tomfooleries:-)
Also, I assume I still need to notify the IP about this ANI? I'm just going to do it in order to follow proper procedure. Something tells me that I'm going to get laughed out of this thread... haha ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: IP has been blocked. I'm going to resolve and close, as the matter has been taken care of. Thanks:-) ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IBAN review
See . If this constitutes a blockable violation of an IBAN, then block me, but I may not notice as I am ridiculously busy right now and this makes me more impatient than is consistent with fair exercise of admin (or indeed editing) privileges, so I'm taking a Wikibreak. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No one should block you for that. Good to see you on-wiki again Guy--take care. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the statement made by the blocking admin.DrChrissy(talk) 00:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering Guy is not "continuing this behaviour", this would be a moment for an application of IAR and just let it be. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
By any reasonable and common sense reasoning, not only was this not a violation of anything, but it was the kind of commendable behavior that we should see more of on Wikipedia. Bravo! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
(1) Not a violation in any respect of the terms of the IBAN. (2) If it was a technical violation, which it wasn't, given its nature it should not have provoked any sanction on Guy. Common sense. BMK (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Admin oversight required - WP:PA, WP:VAN and WP:SOCK suspected in Talk:Racial segregation
What is weird, the IPs and one named account(s) use similar phraseology. Apart from WP:PA, I suspect WP:SOCK and maybe even WP:WIKIHOUND. It is too difficult for me to disentangle who does what to whom, as numerous accounts and even languages are involved, so please investigate. Zezen (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously an IP-hopper, so blocking won't fix it. The best solution would be to semi-protect the talk page for a few days so the disrupters can find something else to play with. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've had to do with this (starting yesterday, after noticing an edit war, see above report about Trinacrialucente), and I do echo the sentiment that semi-protection would now be beneficial. LjL (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I leave it to you what to do here.
Is it possible to semi-protect both pages against IPv4 and IPv6 contributors only? Zezen (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It's very easy to make an account "on the fly", so that's why semi-protection is (always?) applied to IP addresses and new accounts. (Besides, to be honest, y'all edit warring.) LjL (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to semi-protect pages against both IPv4 and IPv6 only? Semi-protection does protect against both types of IP addresses, and against accounts that have not been autoconfirmed. There isn't a form of semi-protection that permits new accounts to edit while blocking IPs, because, as LjL says, it is easy to create new accounts "on the fly" as a form of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected for 3 days to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the page. GABHello! 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the article itself, aside from the talk page, might benefit from semi-protection. See the latest IPV6 edit summary for instance... LjL (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
1. I concur that the article itself should also be semi-protected.
2. Also, please note that the same two IPs who messed up this talk pagestarted to use the epithets "moron", "shit" when commenting on bona-fide article scope proposals in this Talk page, probably WP:HOUNDINGing me thereto with their aggressive edits. They openly admit to be the same "editor" in the comment itself.
-> Can you look into the pattern there and react?
Zezen (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Zezen, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I wrote that you're not competent to edit en.wiki, and your actions since then have only confirmed my diagnosis. Your understanding of English seems to be lacking, you can't read and understand policies and guidelines -- let alone the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia articles. I think WP:CIR applies.
Also, your complaints indicate a complete ignorance of how it works when one edits as an IP. As I wrote at User talk:NeilN, every time I start editing I am assigned a new number -- that's not socking, it's not evading scrutiny, it's not against policy. It's just the way things work when you take Wikipedia at its word that it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit.
So please drop the stupid remarks about "I don't reply to a number". I've been here longer than you have, I understand the policies and guidelines better than you do, and if I correct your mistakes and leave you a message on your Talk page, it's not too much to expect a response. Read WP:IPHUMAN. Thank you. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Blood libel and Aryan Nations have seen activity by IPs that geolocate to the same area and share the same dismissive tone, and are probably avoiding Drmies's block of the above IP. They've switched to another network that uses IPV4. Some eyes there would be useful, I'm going to be away. Acroterion(talk) 04:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
As for my grasp of the English language, see my contributions hereinabove.
Zezen (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no opinion on precociousness. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Rangeblocked 2601:14C:0:F6E9:0:0:0:0/64 for 72 hours and semi-protected this page for 12 hours due to this IP editor's disruption continued as these IPs:
I'm having a disagreement with User:Ralpherns about whether to include a large paragraph in the article Consumption function, based on Ralpherns' book. He argues that it is "based upon a Cum Laude PHD Thesis," but I think it is not regarded a reliable source by WP:SELFPUBLISH since it was published via CreateSpace. I don't want to start an edit war, so please someone else decide who's right here. --bender235 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and make it quick, 'cause in a moment some people will show up to say you asked in the wrong place. Harken! They approach! Let us make ourselves scarceth! EEng (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Boo EEng, boo! Drmies (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Self-published sources can be reliable if the author is considered an expert in his or her field, and theses can be reliable if they have been peer reviewed. Neither appears to be the case here. In addition, the editor kept adding an Amazon link to purchase the book which (in addition to adding the reference itself) represents a significant conflict of interest. I have reverted the edit and also warned the editor. Woodroar (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Self published sources can be used but there are caveats to that. I don't really feel like looking at those caveats in this case due to the glaringly obvious COI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Issue solved, I guess. --bender235 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the above, in that self-published sources can be reliable per WP:RS, but WP:COI (as well as other pitfalls) can and usually do negatively factor into doing so. I'm going to mark this thread as resolved and let someone else close this (in case more needs to be discussed). ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 13:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an absolute lie. I was not "edit warring"; I was providing NEW sources and citations for the topic while two other users were reverting/undoing mid-edit. I welcome any/all editors to analyze the topic of Racial Segregation/Israel and review the conversation on the talk page. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll address these point by point for Trinacrialucente
Commenting on an editor's mental state is an attack, accusations of racism are attacks.
Outside of blatant vandalism or personal attacks, you should not be editing or removing another editor's comments.
The repeated reversions as evidenced in the article history are edit warring.
Racial segregation has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict..specifically my topic of segregation against Felasha...who are not Arab.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll go find the ARBPIA3 warning template and drop one on Trinacrialucente's talk page. I'm pretty sure discretionary sanctions were authorised but admins won't act on them without a DS notice being issued. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The behaviors around removing other editors' comments, aggressive language in the quoted comments, and edit warring (, , ) are unacceptable. I have evaluated Trinacrialucente's request to review the relevant part of the talk page for evidence that this was not edit warring, and what I find is reasonable disagreement with the structure of their edits. So yes, it's edit warring. That some of these issues around personalizing disputes and aggressive language have arisen before, and their denial that there is any actual problem suggests that a block is needed. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 03:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the user routinely removes warnings, notices, and a recent indefinite block from his talk page. While that is his right, the deletions hide a long-standing pattern of the behavior outlined by LJL above. Roscelese detailed this pattern at length in the previous ANI report linked above. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: an edit warring report has now also been filed by another editor. LjL (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an underlying content dispute, which can be discussed on the talk page. What Trinacrialucente should realize is that everyone in this area has a POV, and complex matters should not be discussed through edit summaries. Make your case on the article talk page, and don't hurry to edit in the main space. This is a very contentious area, and making personal attacks like calling a user "unbalanced" can lead to easy blocking, no matter how right or wrong you are about the underlying content dispute. WP:FOC is applicable. Kingsindian♝♚ 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about the underlying content dispute: you will note that I basically only took part in it to point out (by reverting) that the editor in question had already been asked to contribute to the talk page debate instead of edit warring. I don't post on ANI to resolve content disputes, and in fact, this specific dispute has now been frozen for at least some times by means of full protection. LjL (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Problematic behavior
User Spybuteo first began editing on November 14. They have deleted reliable sources including the Encyclopedia Britanica and Brill. On Talk:Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib they misrepresented my position and accused me of gaming the system for no apparent reason, Another editor reminded SpyButeo to AGF, but a few days later on Talk:Aisha SpyButeo accused me of meatpuppetry for agreeing with another editor, then 2 minutes later welcomed an account that only has 1 edit before November 15 who Spybuteo agrees with on that talk page. Spybuteo has also specifically invited comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muawiya II from only two accounts, neither of which appears to have ever edited the Muawiya II article or its talk page. Edward321 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I closed the AfD as speedy keep, and the user seems to me an example of WP:NOTTHERE. Other opinions are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Clearly Spy is WP:NOTTHERE, although I am not sure if he is just a POV editor who won't listen or a troll. Otherwise clear case of disruptive editing by him at multiple article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a policy against deliberate muddying of the waters? The making sure that there is no consensus. "It's the lifeblood of our product" Jack Tatem sort of thing. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard to deal with incidents. What's the incident? BMK (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The COI is not in question, and plausible evidence is provided for the involved editor having played by the rules by initiating talk page discussion before making edits. A COI itself is not a reason to block or ban; moreover, as Jayen466 points out, the editor declared their COI early enough. As far as I can tell, this discussion provides no consensus to block or ban the editor, and the editor's defenders present very strong evidence that the system worked, so to speak, pace a news article. It is really time to close this. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user in question was directly involved in production of the highly controversial film The Hunting Ground, which, by many accounts, was proven to have used a patently false narrative. Evidently, as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months, and arguably has violated NPOV and Verifiability by changing articles to match the accusations of the film, rather than own up to the film's factual inaccuracies. Now, rather than apply hard protection to a wide array of articles, I feel that at the very least, for the sake of the encyclopedia's integrity, the issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted. Of course, the decision rests solely with you guys. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue, and though it might go on the BLP noticeboard, the two matters are closely related. Our BLP provisions apply to all articles involving living humans, not just to biographies, so they apply to the article on the film also. Further analysis is needed, and I think we should be prepared to block if there are further related mainspace edits. I don't want this issue to get lost in a jurisdictional dispute between noticeboards DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We can focus on the different issues. I don't know what should be done though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the COI issue turns out to have press coverage.. Not in connection with the film article, though, in connection with Jameis Winston, who is a subject of the documentary. There. Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation. That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. That article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon.. I suggest that the Winston article be referred to the BLP noticeboard for attention. The film article had a little too much PR language, and I toned it down a bit. There's current press coverage and criticism not yet mentioned; that's a subject for the article talk page. In any case, Edwardpatrickalva shouldn't be editing either article. John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I am glad to see more editors paying attention to these articles, though I am a little skeptical of the reasons. From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion. Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy (though I don’t think any particular Wikipedia editor had done that intentionally, I think it was an organic outcome of how Wikipedia articles sometimes come together). Nearly every story about Winston in the many months before the NFL draft -- in mainstream media, in sports media, in entertainment media -- centered on whether his off-the-field issues would impact his draft performance. But that point appeared nowhere in the lead section, and could only be found in a “controversy” section below everything about his sports career. I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests.
Finally, could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's best that you step away from editing in this subject area entirely. There are plenty of other editors who can work on these articles from a neutral point of view. Kellyhi! 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Edwardpatrickalva acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them. That's exactly what we want people with a COI to do, no? Clearly this is an issue that demands scrutiny, and of course using the talk page first doesn't mean there aren't problems with his edits, but I'm worried this COI angle is a ticket to fomenting wikirage to justify edits contrary to his. It should be a red flag that the source leading the charge here is one we don't typically take as reliable for contentious social/political issues. There are plenty of sources criticizing the film and plenty of reason to take the claims seriously, but let's not get sidetracked by COI. @Edwardpatrickalva: will you agree to takes Kelly's advice above and refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize? COI editing is a touchy thing, and it would be better to focus on content, I think. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd want to do a bit more investigating here, and I don't really have the time. But as I now see it, this situation could be dealt with very quickly and justly with a permanent ban of Edwardpatrickalva. There is clear evidence of disruption, violation of the policy WP:BLP, and of the guideline WP:COI. Even leaving out WP:BLP, blatently violating WP:COI and causing disruption is enough for a ban. It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. Flying in the face of WP:COI and causing disruption in and of itself is cause to ban, and I believe that any admin can do it. As I said, I don't have enough time to do a thorough investigation, but those should be the principles applied. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, shameless self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative. KirkCliff2 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the user has been highly disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology on this very discussion, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. Again, you, the Administrators have the final say in what happens to him and virtually everything else within the realm of this encyclopedia; I'm just laying out the facts before you. KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kelly and Rhododendrites: I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself.
To the other editors who repeat accusations, I would request that you do take the time to look at the issues closely; there is a great deal of nuance in the topic, which I have sought to address openly and responsibly. It’s possible I made some judgment calls that were less than ideal, and I am happy to learn; but the repeated accusation that I’ve been “disruptive” overall is simply not accurate.
One specific criticism I want to address: yes, one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion.
There are strong opinions on all sides in this issue, which is pretty obvious from the varied takes in media. I do not think I am the only editor working on these articles who has strong opinions; but I have tried to reveal my own bias and to keep it from driving my edits, and to check in with other editors when there might be a question. I am open to feedback if I have made mistakes, but please understand, my intent the whole time has been to improve Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia’s standards. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page. Etamni|✉|✓ 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably,[citation needed] and I was confident I was not breaking any rules.[citation needed]
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? You continue trying to justify your actions whichever way possible, when the reality is, the aforementioned policies exist for reasons such as this; and to that very end, declaring your conflict of interest would seemingly imply you knew better. Either way, regardless of how your edits were received (I, for one, am incredulous to your claim), and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. If you can't plausibly grasp these concepts, you have no business editing on Wikipedia. Am I wrong to think so? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Plain and simple, Edward: No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). Simple as that. You are trying to justify breaking a golden rule of Wikipedia that even Jimbo Wales himself has indicated needs to be upheld more stridently. Are you going to tell me you know better than Jimmy himself, Edward? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. Nothing personal, Edward, but it's human nature the rules were designed to safeguard against, and it's human nature to want to make something you have a vested interest in look good, consciously or otherwise. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to be factual, not as propaganda. Arcane21 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Commentary: I find it rather shocking that Mr. Alva has the audacity to lie about his intentions, stating that everything he did, he did to help articles comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines, when his edit history tells an extremely different story; and if his intentions were really so pure, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with, nor would Ms. Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner have called him out, exposing the hypocrisy and prompting me to bring this case before ANI, which is where we now stand. Edward, although I'm not an Administrator, I've been around a long time, and I've seen the case files on users banned for life. You are going to end up just like them, if you continue manipulating Wikipedia and its users alike (two different kinds of manipulation, to be sure, but that is hardly relevant or germane) as you downplay the seriousness of your actions, henceforth exposed for what they are. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel like enough discussion has been made of the subject here and at Jimbo's talk page on this user and his policy violations. Can a consensus be reached on a course of action that would ensure Wikipedia remains relatively neutral and free of potential scandals such as this? If necessary, that can be decided upon elsewhere. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Enough discussion has been made..."? Most of it is yours. You seem to be pushing this with a vengeance. We're not a lynch mob and can afford to move slowly. No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. I don't know about other articles. Maybe we should let other editors speak. It's too bad that some of the editors who have worked quite well with him aren't here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. As for Jameis Winston's article, even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. There is never any excuse for agenda-driven editing. Do you not remember when members of United States Congress got caught red-handed on here? The same sort of principle ought to apply here, no? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
KirkCliff2, Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. Some of his statements are useful, others less so. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter and disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. --NeilNtalk to me 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
NeilN is right. Back off a bit and drop the lynch mob attitude. A cautionary approach is called for here. I'm going to repost below what I wrote on Jimbo's talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Some logical thoughts to consider so we don't look like a kangaroo court or lynch mob:
He did declare his COI. Good.
He did use the talk page. Good.
If his edits were questioned, did he edit war over them? If so, a short block might be in order if he persisted. Did any of that happen?
If his editing was questioned, was he willing to stick to using the talk page and cease editing the article(s) in question? If so, good.
Questions about his editing will naturally tend to call out the worst assumptions made by human nature (such failure to AGF can be a blockable offense): "He has a COI, so hang him immediately, no matter what types of edits he made, and by all means immediately revert all of them, regardless if they improved the article!" We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
Lynching is the wrong approach because a COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies (not referring to COI here), then judge based on those infractions. While it's wise for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus.
A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.
So go through those steps and don't jump immediately to blocks and topic bans unless necessary. We do need topic experts, and even a topic ban should be limited to the article itself, not the talk page, unless dealing with a really hardcore a##hole. Then just indef them. So carry on and good luck with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm an ancient wikimedian who shirks admin duties (I do not envy you guys, thanks for doing what bums like me won't), and I gotta say this ANI discussion addles my already-baffled brain. One, too many words. Two, too too much adhominenmication, which just adds to problem One. Could someone/s sum up the facts of the case? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A blatant Conflict of Interrest (COI) occurs when there is an elephant in the room and the owner of the elephant expects that nobody will discover the fact. When someone comes and says: look at my nice elephant, this becomes a disclosed COI. And now, it remains to examine if the Washington Examiner is a more Reliable Source (RS) than The Atlantic when it comes to en:wp. A DC versus MA controversy? Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Necessary sub-section
May I reiterate that the user's disclosure is a fairly recent event? The majority of his seemingly bad-faith edits, which, among those I glanced, included the aforementioned revisionism and borderline advertising. And, while I apologize for what might very well constitute a lynch-mob mentality (I'm very results-oriented, but only the correct ones, achieved with due diligence), I feel that too much focus is being placed on the COI alone and not on the nature of the edits themselves. Finally, with regards to the COI rule itself, independent of Mr. Alva, I'm sensing there's no clear delineation on what the procedural policy is for dealing with editors who violate this principle. Even among here, there've been a wide array of stances on the issue. Is there a definitive guideline set forth on the matter? I ask in order to better contribute and respect whatever the guidelines instruct Administrators to do in such cases. KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about, KirkCliff2? As far as I can see, the very first edit Edwardpatrickalva made to Wikipedia was to declare his COI on his user page, which means he is fully compliant with the Wikimedia terms of use. If he sought agreement from other editors for any edits, as Brustopher asserts below, then he has done absolutely nothing to deserve anyone's wrath, and the related press article seems like a rather cheap shot. AndreasJN466 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Leo, a lot of the key issues were spoken of by me plus others in what constitutes the lede, and also shortly thereafter. The rest has largely been run-of-the-mill Wikipedia debate club material (perhaps we should have one, bringing together the best of the best to WikiLawyer in good nature?). KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks LeoRomero, that is what I have been trying to understand: what exactly am I being accused of? I have no idea. In this thread, people have said I am disruptive, that I am a liar, that I have introduced bias. Elsewhere, the founder of Wikipedia (!) said it is appropriate that I should be publicly shamed. None of this makes any sense to me. If there is a place where I erred, I would like to know about it as much as anybody -- and if public shaming has to come along with that, OK. I am relatively new here, I can take a little hazing if necessary.
In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest.
Please believe, if I wrote a version that matches my own bias, it would look radically different from any version of the Wikipedia article that has ever existed. But since I know Wikipedia is a place for reasoned deliberation and careful vetting of sources and facts, I have never pushed for something that even comes close to reflecting my own bias. Again, if I have erred anywhere I would like to know about it -- but so far, all I see is broad and unfounded accusations. I also hope editors will put even a fraction of the energy they have put into this page, into improving the biography of one of the most talked-about athletes of our time. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This is why I'd support a ban of you altogether, Edward: You continue alternating between a partial admission of guilt and acting as though you never were aware of any wrongdoing, all the while trying your hardest to ignore everything I and others have said about your actions and for which we have blatant proof. If you cannot plausibly understand what the rules are, you have no business editing until you do. If you think lying to Administrators and normal editors and portraying yourself as a victim will help you, you're gaming the system, and likewise should abstain from editing. If you could simply own up to your mistakes and agree to not insert your personal bias into articles, let alone your need to rewrite them so they make your film seem accurate, that would show a degree of willingness on your part to help improve the encyclopedia for the common good. I'm trying my hardest to remain civil with you, Edward, but your repeated and condescending attempts to feign ignorance and at the same time show disdain for the whole process of finding an optimal resolution to this issue are honestly very frustrating. Just stop. You can't hide your edit history, or the warnings given to you by Admins. Leo, am I wrong? KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Kirk, you need to stop the wild accusations and actually provide diffs. You MUST AGF!! Even if you're right, this is nothing compared to this SPI case, where a large paid PR team got away with it, and their meat puppets are still whitewashing articles. Huge COI. That is real harm.
No harm is being done here (other editors have been collaboratively involved all along), and if necessary, a topic ban (from the articles, but not their talk pages) would protect Wikipedia. I haven't examined everything, but what I've seen is certainly debatable and without edit warring, IOW typical editing. What I've seen showed the other editors agreeing with the quality of Alva's edits and thought his edits were good.
These types of accusations should not include normal content disputes, but only concern truly egregious edits and edit warring, and I fear you're including mere content disputes in your calls for a burning at the stake and lynching. That's way over the top. We want content experts here and we aren't supposed to bite newbies. Alva has only made "79 edits since 2015-03-13", and many of them were not to articles.
So, no more accusations without diffs. Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok I've looked at his contributions to Jameis Winston and Alva has played very close to the rules with regards to COI policy. It doesn't look like he's made a single change to the article without prior agreement from another editor. From his very first edit he had his role on the Hunting None of his edits are anything that would get someone without a COI sanctioned. As proof of this, look at how none of the editors who approved of his proposals are being dragged to ANI. Would not support any sanction stronger than a restriction to only talk pages. Brustopher (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Brustopher: Thanks for doing that. If you could share your evidence via diffs, that would be very helpful. Only Nagle, the most experienced arbitrator among us, has submitted diffs so far. Quoting him from text above: "Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation (diff1,diff2). That's a major BLP issue." Neither Edwardpatrickalva, nor anyone who supports his case, has addressed Nagle's evidence. @Edwardpatrickalva: Would you mind addressing just those two edits, also via diffs (f.e showing the consensus-building conversations you had prior to those two edits)? If you're not used to our arcane procedures, let me know and I'll help you. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@LeoRomero:Sure thing! Before making the changes in the first diff, Alva presented the proposed text at Talk:Jameis_Winston#Updating_article, where it was approved by User:Muboshgu. The changes in the second diff were made on the recommendation of User:Jadeslair in Talk:Jameis_Winston#Including_rape_allegation_etc._in_lead_section. The rest of his edits to Jameis Winston follow pretty much the same method linked to above. From a COI policy standpoint Alva did nothing wrong on that article. If his edits are indeed smearing Winston as people claim, those who approved them share equal blame. However, after further searching, I've come to the conclusion that the same cannot be said about his edits to other articles. Alva added links to the film's article to Title IX, Anti-rape movement and Annie E. Clark. While Alva made proposals beforehand on the talk pages for Title IX and the Anti-rape movement, these additions were made before anyone responded. His additions to Clark's article were done without any previous talk page discussion. While these edits are clearly problematic, I wouldn't say they're enough to warrant any kind of sanction if he agrees to stick to talk pages on COI issues as I have requested on his talk page. Brustopher (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Brustopher: Thanks! You've made it so much easier for a bystander like me to follow the trail that led to the two contested edits by @Edwardpatrickalva:
23 March 2015: Edwardpatrickalva starts conversation on proposed edits. This goes on for eight days. diff
31 March 2015: Edwardpatrickalva updates the article along lines agreed at Talk diff
5 May 2015 Edwardpatrickalva discusses new edits re rape allegations on Talk diff
24 August 2015 Edwardpatrickalva edits Article diff
I thus see no evidence that Edwardpatrickalva broke COI, as to these two edits. As to the other edits you found while doing further research, no one's supplied relevant diffs, so I'll just trust your judgment that although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI, no sanctions are warranted if he agrees to stick to Talk. I'm grateful for your research, and your balanced approach. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not notice that the coi on his user page was related to the page being edited. I had no idea what that movie was about. The main thing I was concerned with was that the NYT article was original research. After looking at this tonight, it is clear the the user should not be editing pages directly but to my knowledge the editor has not broken any policies just guidelines. Although this edit probably supports the movie, it updated incorrect information based on what the citation says. It seems this dispute is from an article about the editor. The external news sources do not know all of our rules and I do not think we should bow to them. He is most certainly biased, as we all are but I think the edits are pretty solid. I am not an admin so I am not even sure If I am supposed to be commenting here, if not please disregard Jadeslair (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. My mistake Andreas. I thought it needed other sources to verify it's accuracy. Which the editor later provided. Jadeslair (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Brustopher for good work, although the burden of proof is on those making the accusations. They have not provided any diffs showing any wrongdoing. I too looked at the very few edits made by Alva and found nothing wrong, and his talk page interactions were fine. Unfortunately he met some stiff resistance and uncalled for demands from accusers who don't understand the COI guideline.
I'm not sure what LeoRomero means by "although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI." He has a COI, but did not make any improper edits, so he did not violate the COI guideline. It does not forbid careful and collaborative editing. When we are dealing with a subject expert who has a COI, that is the type of editing we want from them, and that's what he gave us.
Only if his edits were problematic would he be required to only use the talk page, or if worse get a topic ban. None of that seems necessary. He's been an exemplary COI editor who openly and honestly declared his COI, made very careful edits, worked well with other editors, and did no wrong. He's a subject expert whose expertise has improved the encyclopedia.
He should get a medal and everyone who made such severe accusations and failed to AGF should apologize to him and be forced to carry a wet trout in their underpants for a week. People who don't understand the guideline should keep quiet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What's deplorable in cases like this is that the press can manufacture a plausible-sounding story out of nothing. AndreasJN466 14:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, he did add links to his movie in three articles without gaining prior approval (as I detailed above), which is what LeoRomero is probably referring to. But in 2 of those articles its was because his proposal was met with silence, so it's really a pretty small fry violation if anything. Definitely not something worth getting the pitchforks out for if he agrees to stop doing it. Brustopher (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I didn't say what you said I did. Not that it matters, because Edward himself said he didn't stick to COI all the time. More important, your trout proposal is a clear and direct violation of [WP-TROUT], and that's a blockable offense. LeoRomero (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
LeoRomero, "although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI" is an exact quote from you. As far as the "trout" goes, you're supposed to laugh. I'll put a smiley up there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that the filmmakers behind The Hunting Ground have posted a response to the accusations of COI editing on Wikipedia: Fact check: The Hunting Ground and Wikipedia. I've been working on the article, and have added a paragraph summarizing their position to the "Controversy/Reports of inappropriate Wikipedia edits" section:
In an statement on "The Hunting Ground" website, the filmmakers disagreed, stating that they had "not only met but exceeded Wikipedia’s standards for disclosure", that they "taken great care to respect Wikipedia’s principles and values" including seeking "the advice of a qualified Wikipedia agency before beginning", and that their "goal was to improve Wikipedia according to its own standards, not to boost the film". (cited to their website in the actual article)
(BTW—my opinion is that Edwardpatrickalva did violate the COI rules in some of his edits.) Carl Henderson (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys - After going through the text above and the summary below one more time, here's what I see so far. Did I get that right? And if I did, how much time should we give others to present actual evidence against Edward before I ask the Examiner to re-examine their story? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC) BAN ALL COI EDITS! He said again.
Summary so far
Incident submitted 11/19;
two Wikipedians asked that Edward be banned altogether and outright;
they did not present evidence, and stopped participating in this discussion on 11/20 and 11/25;
as to those, we received two diffs (diffdiff) relevant only to WP:COI and WP:BLP. They showed that Edward did make at least two COI edits to a BLP, over a span of months
we subsequently received two diffs (diff, diff) which showed that Edward did in fact consult other editors prior to posting the edits: Edward did not break COI, not in these two cases;
there are indications of other COI edits, but no one who is still in this discussion thinks they're a big deal;
recommendations on actions, as of 11/29: temporary topic ban, permanent topic ban, site ban;
Edward had already volunteered to a temporary topic ban;
no one at this point is proposing any ban or block against Edward;
others have gotten away with worse.
Conclusions
Verdicts: Not exactly not guilty, but not guilty enough to be blocked from site. Since Edward had already volunteered to impose a temporary subject ban on himself, No Topic Ban. No Page Ban. No Bans.
We have created way too much jargon (we need our own dictionary), and have way too many rules, procedures, and proceedings.
dangit, I forgot to add "... and waaaaaaaaaaay too much drama." LeoRomero (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
[Moved summary section up LeoRomero (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)]
Summary as of 11/25
[ Update: I think my analysis as of 11/25 below has served its purpose, and don't plan to update the table. No objections to anyone getting it out of the way. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) as I shake my head over how much work goes into just one COI case. My solution to the COI problem is to get rid of COI. No Conflict of Interest edits. You get one warning. You ignore that, we send you to Friendster, forever. Join the discussion at COI Talk. ]
More information Table of points, diffs, and recommendations, POL/REQ ...
Table of points, diffs, and recommendations
My first and only attempt at a case summary, ever. We have a shortage of diffs. Missing diffs are marked as? under the diff column. I think this includes all relevant points, though I may have accidentally left some snarkiness in. Please edit as you please, esp for brevity. If you are not comfortable with markup, just do as I did and test a Visual version on your User page/subpage first, then copy the source code over. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion
Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy ... I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests.
clear evidence of violation of the guideline WP:COI It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit.
His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative
I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself ... In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest.
one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion.
regardless of how your edits were received, and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. ... No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s).
I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate.
He did declare his COI. He did use the talk page. We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored.
disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground.
No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval.
even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate.
The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good.
could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out
@LeoRomero: I can't tell if your intent was to close this discussion or not. These summaries (here and at User talk:Jimbo Wales) are admirable and probably helpful, but if this is not an actual close, it does, at least in part, have the effect of closing/moderating discussion. Operating under the assumption you're looking to aid continued discussion rather than close it, I've renamed the section from "case summary" to "summary of discussion so far" and collapsed the extended table. Others can feel free to restore if I'm alone in thinking this way. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Rhododendrites: I like all your edits, thanks. The only change I made was to add the word "diffs" to your title. We have a severe shortage of diffs in this case. (Is there a Diff Drought?) Of all the participants, only one provided diffs - @Nagle: all 3 of those diffs linked from the table. Our overworked Arbs and staff need good diffs in order to examine the evidence without having to read yet another gazillion pages.
And thanks for assuming my good faith, Rhod, and for the opportunity to address your concerns. Even if I did have the power to close an ANI (or any) discussion (which I don't, and never-ever will), there's no way that I would close this case without adequate evidence via diffs. I wouldn't even open it. And that would be such a disservice, esp to both the accuser and the accused, who almost always, as in this case, get the most abuse.
Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Close
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User has five times deleted the same piece of text without explanation and despite requests to discuss and warning on Talk page. Special:Contributions/201.88.39.234Btljs (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Six times: they've just done it again. Btljs (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
User has been blocked, this should've been reported to Wikipedia:AIV. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Got a new account repeatedly copy/pasting text from this source into the lede of our article (also adding biomedical information not sourced to WP:MEDRS, which is another matter). Could an admin take a look? Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Note the source does not have a CC license compatible with Wikipedia. --NeilNtalk to me 11:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
And increased to 72 hours for block evasion. --NeilNtalk to me 11:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting! Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Which editor is being discussed here? Is it 128.90.106.96? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert: Wow, Firefox throws up some unflattering autocorrections for your name That was the IP. The registered editor was T12999 who I eventually indeffed. --NeilNtalk to me 05:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Smallbones has twice now removed factual commentary of mine and accuses me of being a banned editor. If he wants to proceed with a background investigation of me, that's his prerogative, but until then, his editorial sweep is out of line. - Checking the checkers (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Checking the checkers has been identified by Jimbo Wales on his talk page as the banned editor who has harassed him for 10 years. I think this is obvious, e.g. from CtheC's editing history and his talk page. Jimbo has made clear that other editors (this is in general, though I have been named in particular) can remove edits on that page from editors who are not welcome there. This has been tested twice at ArbCom and they agree that Jimbo's "personal talk page policy" is within the rules and that he doesn't need to personally bless each removal of troll comments. BTW WP:BANREVERT applies here as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
As Checking the checkers is not currently a banned editor. No it doesnt. "Jimbo says so" is not sufficient. If you feel they are a banned editor, open an SPI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't we also give editos the ability to dictate what remains on their talk pages? I get that Jimbo's talk page is a different sort of talk page, but wouldn't Jimbo specifically asking that this editor's comments be removed trump pretty much everything else? UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 16:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that Wales replied to a comment it's not clear he doesn't want the guy posting. Anyone have a diff of Wale's saying so? NE Ent 01:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like him kept off my talk page, regardless of the outcome of this discussion or any other. He does nothing but troll, and I don't see any reason to put up with it. Legitimate questions are always welcome - questions asked dishonestly or with a tone of "gotcha" nonsense are just a waste of everyone's time. It is my belief that it is well past time that we introduce a quiet "block this user from my talk page" feature to help eliminate this kind of long term abuse across all of Wikipedia. Many people face this kind of thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo replied "Nail on the head" (diff) to my post describing how there is nothing helpful he can say. As Smallbones indicates above there has been lots of disruption and Arbcom involvement. Glancing at contribs confirms the diagnosis for those who have followed the pathetic gotcha trolling at Jimbo's talk for years. The banned user spends serious time and money in his campaign to show the evils of Jimbo and the WMF, and he can easily evade checkusers. It's fine if no one wants to block this account, but let's not feed him. The OP has had his fun, but he'll have to make another account in order to resume project Tell the World!. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Lemme tell you a story, Smallbones. A week or so ago there was some back-and-forth on Jimbotalk during which a person who I believed to be my friend Greg Kohs was chirping back and forth with you and Jimmy Wales. I made a comment about it in a Wikipedia thread and Greg posted a smirky little "who, meeeee???" type of post, with a mischievous glimmer in his eye. And about 30 minutes later I received a (non-viewable) personal message from somebody else entirely, another friend, who claimed total responsibility. It wasn't the dreaded Greg Kohs at all... So, Smallbones, long story short — you're not a checkuser, you're not a sock puppet investigator, and you're not an expert in behavioral psychology, nor are you the Chief Censor and Guardian of Wikipedia... You could very easily be getting trolled by a Joe Job — it wouldn't be hard to pull your chain on this topic, that's for certain. If you have a problem, start a proper Sock Puppet Investigation. Maybe it is him, maybe it isn't him. You have no way of knowing... Your pretending that you do is disruptive of the project. Let it go. Carrite (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Who cares whether the now-indeffed editor is the actual banned user or was merely emulating them? I wouldn't boast about friends like yours. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP editor 146.111.144.130(talk·contribs·IP contribs·WHOIS) has been repeatedly introducing a non-notable individual into Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 for a little over a week now. In that time they have been reverted by five different editors (including myself) a total of 12 times. I have tried to explain that that page has a notability requirement and that their draft article (Draft:Walter N. Iwachiw) does not meet those requirements. See this for my post on their talk page which was ignored. After they continued to add the person to the article without responding to my post on their talk page I began placing disruptive editing warnings on their talk page. They have not stopped. It seems like this person is only here to advertise Mr. Iwachiw's candidacy. Any help regarding this would be appreciated. Thanks. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A block of a couple of weeks might be needed, and blanking of the draft. This is a shared IP at CUNY, it does appear to be used by others for legitimate edits though not much. User talk:Iwachiw2001 was indef blocked in 2013 for block evasion after an earlier editing spate involving Iwachiw's mayoral run. Fences&Windows 22:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
72.226.4.245(talk·contribs·IP contribs·WHOIS) is also being used, that IP created the draft. I speedily deleted it as it made unsourced and serious allegations against living people. Fences&Windows 22:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Indications are that this is deja vu from a couple of years ago, when the guy was running for mayor of NYC. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
After further consideration, I blocked both IP addresses for two weeks to prevent further disruption for the time being. Fences&Windows 22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:DUCK
Indeffed as vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Got a self admitted sock on my talk page dont suppse anyone fancies putting them back in the drawer.
.
Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Month Year" redirects
The user DoctorKubla has turned the month articles from January 1997 to November 2015 into redirects. However, they have not yet been moved to the Portal namespace. An administrator should start moving them with the "Leave a redirect behind" box unchecked and make the Portal pages transclude Template:Current events archive with the first parameter being the year and the second parameter the month. The administrator should also recreate redirects to the year articles (they will be marked as "N" in the user contributions and have a log entry saying "automatically marked revision REVISIONID of page PAGENAME patrolled"). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears this was discussed before redirects were made/changed. Since this was discussed and this can be easily reverted, I don't see any harm done here.
As I mentioned above....Big notice at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Next time, please discuss this with the user before coming to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Replicative editing of Leaf-cutter bee articles
User:Thine Antique Pen has made a replicate expansion of hundreds of Megachile species articles from August 28. He/she seems to have concocted general information about the genus Megachile together with specific information about a single species, and copied them over almost each and every species article in the genus. The result is simply a devastating amount of misinformation in hundreds of articles. I opt for immediate reversal of all these edits. Gidip (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I am going to discuss this at WT:INSECTS where there has been some feedback. I am not sure what administrator assistance is being requested; a number of experienced editors, including administrators, have been aware of these article expansions that I made in August for a long time. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gidip:, can you briefly indicate how much of a sample article is incorrect? I can hardly believe what I've seen, that 1,501 bee species don't differ in any way worth mentioning, but I know nothing of the Megachilidae. NebY (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Correction; the articles were edited in August 2015 with the insertion of the three apparently identical paragraphs of description. They were actually created in October 2014, also by Thine Antique Pen. Sorry for my error; I've taken the liberty of correcting it above. NebY (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
For convenience, let's continue the discussion at WT:INSECTS. Gidip (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
When one rereads the nominations and supports at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen (from one month later) with the knowledge we have now, one wonders how this was missed by everyone at that time. Anyway, it seems from the linked discussion that the OP was correct and that the content additions were generally wrong. They have been reverted, and if no further action is needed (like checking if the same happened at other articles as well) this can be closed. Fram (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Book spam
A book called Worlds Together, Worlds Apart is being spammed (at least that's the appearance into multiple articles by multiple new editors, eg User:Jaredlynn, User:AlexandraMKing and User:Sarahgilbert18. I've blocked Sarahgilbert18 after a warning, but if anyone feels an unblock makes sense no need to contact me. I see that User:JamesBWatson and User:Elizium23 warned AlexandraMKing and I asked her if it was a school project, after which she stopped editing. I'm off to bed now but I'll notify them - although I guess this could be one person. Doug Weller (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I was also surprised at how fast these users learned our citation markup, even using ref names. Doug Weller (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I really am trying to get to bed, but to be fair, it's possible that this is a class, although I've seen no indication that it is. That doesn't make it not spam, and I am of the opinion that although this seems to be an excellent generalist textbook we should be using specialist books for history, paleontology, etc, and I've seen at least one error introduced to an article citing the book. Doug Weller (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Turns out this is a class assignment, add material from their textbook to 20 articles. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
And looking further, not only do I think the book is dubious as a source for at least some of the articles, editors are treating dab pages as articles and addding text sourced to this book, are adding a citations to the book at the top of the articles, and further investigation might show other problems. Doug Weller (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I've posted a fairly long message on their talk page, with an emphasis that their professor should set up a course page or contact someone about the school assignment. I've also given an alternate suggestion that they could probably use other sources, since I feel that it's probably most likely that the teacher wants to ensure that they understand the topic and can apply it properly in a real world setting. I think that the textbook choice is incidental, as it's most likely this particular textbook since it's the one they're using in class and as such, the teacher is more aware of the book's content than they would a random source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Doug Weller, Tokyogirl79, and Joshua Jonathan:-- I'm the professor on this particular assignment, and it's one I've used pretty successfully for several years. I've asked my students to look through their textbook and through other materials we've used in class [World History before 1500], and asked them to make corrections and/or additions to articles related to the materials we're studying. The idea is two-fold. First, it allows them to [hopefully] make a more lasting contribution to people's understanding of history than simply writing a bunch of papers for me that I'll end up throwing out a week after the semester is over. Second, it might prompt a few of them to get more involved in editing on a longer-term basis.
Because this was a semester-long assignment with a due date "by the end of the semester," they are all now (unfortunately) doing this all at once. So, narrow-ish topics, 40 students, 10 or so required edits each--yeah I can understand why it appears spam-like. But they have a limited number of sources for the class, and we've spent an entire semester going through the issue of footnoting, citing sources, etc etc. We also spent time in class "practice-editing" a few articles to ensure they would get it right. WP:RS notes that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." So, I've encouraged them to footnote their textbook in order to provide a reliable source. Are they making some mistakes in their editing? Almost certainly. We all did when we started. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the textbook is "dubious as a source." It's a peer-reviewed textbook used in hundreds of college classrooms around the U.S. Does it have flaws? Sure. An unreliable source? I don't think so.
To be honest, I've done this same assignment for about three years in different classes, and this is the first time I've encountered an issue. I've been editing for a few years, sometimes intensively, sometimes not. Most of my editing is confined to WP:BEER-related materials, but I also spend time patrolling edits using STiki. All this is by way of saying that I, and they, didn't go into this blindly. But if there's another issue here, I'm open to some guidance. Prof. Mc (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi [User:Prof. Mc|Prof. Mc]] and thanks for responding. Besides the issues of not understanding WP:DAB pages, adding citations at the beginning of paragraphs, etc., there is still the issue of the book. Take for example this edit of our article Black Death. It removed a figuresourced to a specialist book A Pest in the Land: New World Epidemics in a Global Perspective By Suzanne Austin Alchon, University of New Mexico Press, and replaced it with a figure from the textbook. Which source would you prefer? Another problem is that at least in my opinion it's not a good idea to fit a textbook to an article in this way. When sourcing the articles your class is working on, they should be looking for the best academic sources and where there is a dispute showing that dispute in the article. We do have a framework for projects such as yours and can give you guidance and support if you'd like that.Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Doug Weller:. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. If I'm reading you correctly (and it's early here and I've not yet had my caffeine, so anything is possible), the issue seems not to be so much with the source, then, as it is with the use of the source. I am unable to view the page in the Alchon book to which you have linked, but I absolutely agree with your general point--a recently peer-reviewed textbook should not replace a recently-peer reviewed monograph without some further explanation in the Edit Summary and perhaps on the Talk page. To be honest I hadn't really anticipated this scenario and so neglected to cover that in class. The fault here is entirely mine, not theirs. I'll work with them on this, of course. In terms of a framework, whatever you have would be great. I'd like to use this assignment again next semester with my History of Beer students. Prof. Mc (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well now, a professor, beer, a lack of caffeine, this is all starting to sound eerily familiar. It also sounds like you teach at a funner place than me--all we have is a Special Topics class on Ice Tea. (The drink, not Ice-T the rapper.) Textbooks are frequently tertiary sources, whose use is somewhat deprecated here, and I think that applies to this one as well. That's not to say they should never be used; like primary sources, they should be used "to a lesser extent" than secondary sources. There's more at WP:ANALYSIS. Depending on the level of the class, one could require of one's students that they use secondary sources, as a research component, but given what you said earlier, Prof. Mc, it doesn't seem to be the kind of class where you can easily do that--certainly not if they leave it all for the last week of the semester. (Believe me, I know the feeling.) If I can make a suggestion (purely in my capacity as an old fart), placing the particular assignment earlier in the semester may alleviate some of the problems, here and maybe even in your classroom and the computer lab. Happy grading, and cheers, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a 100-level class. So a textbook and a bunch of primary sources are pretty much what they have to work with. See the suggestion below. I don't know if I'll have time to go with the sandbox, but that idea suggests some alternate ones that might work. Prof. Mc (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Another student: Emmageorge549(talk·contribs). They cited the book in previous edits, but started adding unsourced facts today. I hope the professor hasn't instructed them to just stop citing the book. KateWishing (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Prof. Mc I appreciate your efforts in helping these students contribute to wiki. I would like to make a suggestion in order to "de-mess" this. I would like to suggest that you ask your students to edit your "sandbox" instead of the wiki article. The sandbox has the look and feel of a real article so its not any different from editing the real thing. You can create sections for each of your students and they can use their section to do their assignment. Then you can go through their work and move it/insert it into main-space articles. This will have two benefits. Firstly you will be able to review their work at once on the wiki and Secondly they wont cause any mess on the project inadvertently. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The sandbox is a good idea. I've asked them to stop editing until I can get things straightened out. Thanks for that suggestion. Prof. Mc (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Madridejos, Cebu and Lazaro Mangubat
I have had a lot of trouble with WP:DE by User:Mateothehistorian also number as 49.151.10.237 / 49.151.38.12 (in Metro Manila). He has again and again added text without WP:V or WP:RS. I have added additional references but he keeps deleted them.
In the nearly three years, all Mateothehistorian has done is about 60 editings of Lazaro Mangubat and about a dozen of Madridejos, Cebu. All he writes is legend not fact; does not give WP:RS and WP:V; ignores or reverts any references I have had. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 04:13, wikitime= 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I am about to clear again. All edits today I have made 37 to other pages. "Mateothehistorian" made – none. This needs some page protection to allow only logins in. And a block against User:Mateothehistorian. Recap the two articles said by him: * Lazaro Mangubat was grandson of Lapu-Lapu (Lapu-Lapu died about 1542) * Fray de Medina write about 1630. No mention of Spanish forts in Bantayan island. * Madridejos municipality states fort (kota, kuta, cotta) made 1790, as does 'Panublion' of Ateneo de Manila / Society of Jesuits (or 1792) * All watchtowers on Bantayan island where built by Fr. Doroteo Andrada del Rosario, parish priest of Bantayan in the 19th century. * Lazaro Mangubat is an orphan, Madridejos, Cebu is updated and used (Some, I had a stroke in April, and I can read / hear OK but writing / speaking are quite difficult.) – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 07:18, wikitime= 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I hasn't replied anything, not to me, not to you. Has his stop?? – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 08:17, wikitime= 00:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Gotgot44
Gotgot44(talk·contribs) had been warned in the past for vandalism of multiple pages (not recently though), tonight they're at it again. Just great. Aethyta (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You're required to notify the user; I've done so for you. It might also help to explain how the edits constitute "vandalism". For many of us the subject matter is opaque.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
They also broke a few images. This seems to be more incompetence plus some English issues than malicious vandalism of any sort. Blackmane (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Looks like a troll to me. Aethyta (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
wp:agf Seems like a legit user to me. Possibly a little misguided. He only needs a dedicated mentor and he will be fine for editing. I do not consider him a troll. W oWiTmOvEs 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Misleading "retired" template
RESOLVED
Dpmuk has replaced {{Retired}} with a banner atop their talk page to clarify their status. Further discussion of the template itself continues at Template_talk:RetiredNE Ent 02:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Dpmuk insists on having the retired template on their userpage, despite the fact they are continuing to edit and the template instructions clearly state "Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing". They even tried to remove the latter, but was quickly reverted. There was a recent ANI about the same issue (with another user), and a broad consensus not to use this template if the user is still editing. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
More information Off-topic ...
Off-topic
The earlier ANI was pretty stupid and so is this one. By the time someone uses a retirement template (even if they're not completely gone) they are pretty sick of this place, so hassling them over yet more bureaucracy is unhelpful. People who uses those templates usually return after a while regardless, so the template simply reflects a momentary state of mind regardless of what the instructions do or don't say. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Everything on here is pretty stupid, esp. IP jumping trolls and/or socks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ahem, AGF, folks Out There for a hard pimp (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Lemmie guess. You were the kid who got beat up for snitching and tattling. Don't you have anything more productive to do? Out There for a hard pimp (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Close
This report is completely unnecessary—if there is an actual problem, report that and mention the template as a postscript. Lugnuts has removed the template (1 + 2 + 3) and that appears to be the motivation for Dpmuk to have tried to edit the template's documentation. Poking fed-up editors does not benefit the project. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed it in good faith - if he wasn't retired, then the template is no longer needed. The template instructions are very clear. Why have said instructions if they aren't applied? Dpmuk then showed bad faith and tried to WP:GAME the system by removing those instructions. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying Dpmuk acted in bad faith or merely that Dpmuk broke the rules? If an editor was causing trouble with provocative comments or pointy edits, and they had a retired template, the issue should be brought to ANI for resolution. A quick look makes me think that does not apply in this case, and if Dpmuk had been left alone the fuss at the template would never have happened. A key point about editors is that most of them are human, and there may be times when they want to say i'm retired yet still do a couple of things—my suggestion would be to forget about it until there is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Certainly the bad-faith part applies. The template states "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia". Not "very-active". Not "only edit now and again". Not "here sometimes, but I don't post much because of a massive chip on my shoulder due to ArbCom". So there is a problem of disruption by this user. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Any chance of a diff showing actual disruptive editing? Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That would be every edit after adding the template to his talkpage, but here's one to appease you, John. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Your diff shows Dpmuk making an edit to a template documentation page—checking shows they make one edit, then started a discussion at the talk page. That is ideal behavior, not "disruptive editing". I'll stop posting here in case someone else wants a go. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Lugnuts that the decision by Dpmuk to continue editing while using the retired template is extremely confusing and that it is completely reasonable to ask him not to do this. That said, if he ignores that advice then it is not clear to me that he is actually breaking any rules, as opposed to acting unwisely, and so it is not obvious that much can actually be done. The editing of the template documentation is a possible exception, and that was extremely unwise, but even there I am struggling to see anything actionable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Trouts to both of you. The template shouldn't be misused and don't mess with other people's userspace. If you've asked nicely and they've declined, come to a venue like this. Dpmuk, take the template down please. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed - @Lugnuts: you should not have edited another user's page, @Dpmuk: please remove the 'retired' template down before we do it for you. GiantSnowman 12:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this a directive to @Dpmuk: only? I am aware of several other users with such a template on their page, who continue to edit after putting it up. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Any editor who is actively editing should not have the "retired" banner on their page. They could use the "semi-retired" banner, which has a lot of wiggle room, or they could invent a customized banner as I have done from time to time. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing how editing while "Retired" is disruptive, or even confusing. (Yes, I know, "the rules" at Template:Retired/doc say you're not supposed to, but I'm having an equally hard time understanding why those rules are there.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The template itself says "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia." It's not possible to be both active and inactive. The user needs to use the "semi-retired" template instead. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought hard about what template to put on my userpage when I drastically cut back my editing. I thought neither the "retired" nor "semi-retired" template was completely appropriate but decided the retired template with an explanation was likely to be the least confusing to most people visiting my user page. Most people who were visiting my page were visiting about my admin or copyright work. I had "retired" from those roles and was (and still am) unlikely to respond to queries about those. Semi-retired did not seem appropriate because that would imply that I may reply about admin or copyright work. At the time I was not aware of any particular meaning being applied to the template beyond "retired", specifically there seemed no reason to think it only applied to "retired from absolutely all activity at wikipedia" since this is not what it says. For this reason I also don't consider me displaying the template with an explanation to be misleading.
Since I become aware, due to Lugnuts actions, of what the template says I have investigated this further. The definition that they and a few others seems to be relying seems to be mentioned in no policy or guideline only being mentioned in a rarely edited essay (WP:RETIRED) and on the template documentation page. I see no discussion of those definitions and not enough edits to accept that a consensus had developed by their lack of removal over times. As such I thought, and still do think, that the user page guideline that gives users much leeway on what is on their user pages is more important than a definition that didn't appear to have consensus. Given the comments here and on the template talk page I still see no consensus for "retired" only meaning "no longer editing at all" as several editors seem to be querying it's use in this way. If a consensus emerges that "retired" should only be used in this way then I'll happily remove the template, although I still think such a requirement is overly restrictive and overly bureaucratic. I would suggest the template talk page is the most appropriate place for further discussion of when the template can be used. I have expanded on my thoughts there.
@GiantSnowman: - As I say above I will remove the template once I see a consensus that it should only be used in the way you describe. At the moment I see no such consensus and so will not be acting on your demand since you are only one editor and I still feel what I currently have on my user page to be the least confusing option. Dpmuk (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: and @Dweller: - care to point me at a policy or guideline for your request for me to take it down? Your requests seem to be based on the premise that it is misleading based on your interpretation of what "retired" means from comments here and at the template talk it's for from clear to me that there is consensus that "retired" mean what you think it does. Dpmuk (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
What "consensus"? The wording on the template which you posted says you're no longer editing. If that wording is untrue, use a different template. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
As I point out on the template talk page I interpret that wording differently - I would not consider a user editing infrequently to be active. Maybe I'm wrong in this but from comments here and elsewhere it's obviously not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Dpmuk (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe there was a previous ANI about something similar where an admin wanted to have something that informed visitors that they were no longer an admin but was not retired from editing. I think it was a userbox that was ultimately settled on. I'll have to dig it back up. @Dpmuk:, would something of this sort be useful? Blackmane (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
NE Ent has proposed something similar on my talk page and I'd like a little feedback there from them before posting it here. Dpmuk (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Proposal
The user in question is being dishonest. He's rationalizing the use of a misleading template. If he's unwilling to use the "semi-retired" template, which be the honest thing to do, then his purpose is disruption "to make a point", and he should be booted from Wikipedia. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as pointless rulemongering. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment: could we please have an official template for "gone off in a huff after being dragged to AN/I"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: the editor has said that after researching the past history of the template, they found no evidence of a consensus for its meaning "no edits ever" aside from in the documentation. Who put that in the documentation? If it was just put there by an editor one day, without any discussion or consensus about it, then I'm not sure why it should be heeded. Anyone wanting to pursue this matter needs to research the history behind this template (it also seems very byzantine to me to have a template that's only for permanently retiring with no intention to come back... we have no-going-back templates, really?) LjL (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the template is now being used differently from what it actually says, maybe it should be nominated for deletion? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harassment by User ScrapIronIV
There is clearly no wrongdoing on the part of ScrapIronIV and the accusations have been retracted. Swarm♠ 05:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User ScrapIronIV is following my goodfaith edits at WP and reverting me; I believe by looking at my contributions list. And to extent bragging about it on his talk page. I would appreciate it if you would ask him/her to stand down. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Murray, while removing tags makes the article look "cleaner" it does nothing to improve the actual quality of the article and only hides problems. --NeilNtalk to me 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Neil, actually the tags under dispute were old and inappropriately applied to the page. But I'm not asking to redress that issue. I'm asking that that user ScrapIronIV not follow me around WP making subjective judgement calls on my edits. Please read the comments at his/her talk page, which indicate animosity etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I qoute from the WP: HOUND section. "Many users track other users' edits ...this should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." I think that this situaltion pretty clearly crosses the line. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict):I admit it; I did it! I restored a maintenance tag that he removed without correcting the underlying problem here, and I corrected a word here, and I corrected a similar use of of that same word here - assuming it was this user that was editing while logged out. Otherwise, I changed two of his edits. For that, this user runs crying WP:HOUND on my page, and exacerbates it by coming here. But, then again, he seems to like accusing people who correct his mistakes of hounding him, and threatening them with ANI.Scr★pIronIV 23:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Some cleanup templates should be removed. For example, {{POV}} is only supposed to be on an article if there's a discussion on the talk page. It's not a "badge of shame" to be applied indiscriminately. However, a cleanup template like {{no footnotes}} (diff) should not be removed until the issue is resolved. How are editors supposed to find the articles and fix them when the cleanup tags are removed? That's the entire point of them. I don't know about other people, but I do actively look in the cleanup categories to find articles to improve. On the other hand, it often helps to avoid sarcasm during content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
WP policies only require the inclusion of inline citations in four circumstances. The application of the inline citation tag is subjective and I determined that in several cases that it was unnecessary. To say that tags erroneously placed should remain in perpetuity seems unreasonable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, no. WP:MINREF is basically part of an essay (i.e. a "suggestion"). WP:V is actually Wikipedia policy (i.e. more of a requirement). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. And checking to see if more inappropriate removals were done is not hounding. Kevin Murray, you opened this report on the basis of three reverts? --NeilNtalk to me 23:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
But he rapidly escalated this into a personal issue and reverted an edit that had nothing to do with tags or policy, reverted an edit from "utilize" to "use". All I want is for you to ask him/her to backoff from from reverting my future edits. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. If an editor finds an edit of yours they disagree with and then finds more edits that they don't think improve articles, we're not going to impose an interaction ban unless the reverts are constant and obviously spurious. Sorry, you'll have to defend your changes - no shortcuts. --NeilNtalk to me 23:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I had never had any interaction with this user prior to today, and ANY editor coming to my page with a chilling threat to take me to AN/I over such minimal nonsense deserves whatever they get afterwards. Come to my page with nice words, and you get treated nicely. Funny how that works. Scr★pIronIV 23:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: Took all of two seconds: "Rectaflex was the first company to show publicly, the first to produce and the first to sell a penta prism slr camera." --NeilNtalk to me 23:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Copy/Paste error on my part in my original response; I have corrected it. Scr★pIronIV 23:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: Rectaflex - Of the four conditions requiring inline citations, the only instance under which an inline citation might be required at Rectaflex is "Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged." The tag was placed (May 2013), and no "challenge" has been made in over two years. Empirically, there was little expectation that there would be a challenge.
Again, no. Page templates are often used in lieu of cluttering up the article with lots of inline tags. --NeilNtalk to me 00:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, notwithstanding my initial error, ScrapIronIV has taken it beyond this with actions and threats is it appropriate for him/her to continue to stalk and revert my edits? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they can look at your Contributions page, and if they see something that legitimately needs being reverted, they can revert it. That's not the same as reverting for no reason except to hound you... LjL (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
If ScrapIronIV is reverting you for reasons that no independent good-faith editor would accept, then report him. --NeilNtalk to me 00:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:MINREF is pretty clear on the subject. How does a vague tag that does not indicate what actually needs to be fixed placed by a person too lazy to actually fix it improve the encyclopedia? NE Ent 00:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This "too lazy" thing is a crock. I notice you were "too lazy" to check over the article for "any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged" before removing the tag and were "too lazy" to find a cite instead of placing a cn tag. I'm sure we can argue this at length but the bottom line is that this report is extremely premature and Kevin needs to defend his editing instead of coming here after three justifiable reverts. --NeilNtalk to me 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:MINREF is not policy. In any case, it should be read in its entirety, in which it makes it pretty clear that sourcing beyond the "four minimums" is usual, and should generally be expected... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:V nutshell (and first paragraph) states "This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If someone wants to inline beyond that's great, but adding a tag doesn't actually improve anything. There are about a quarter million{{unreferenced}} template inclusions , or about 1 in 20 articles; that actually improves Wikipedia?? NE Ent 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they tell the reader the material is unverified and tells us to fix these things. Better than patting ourselves on the back, thinking everything is hunky-dory. --NeilNtalk to me 04:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently encountered a similar pattern of behavior with this editor. Some background can be seen at Talk:Danbury, Connecticut#Huge deletions. The editor has removed all trace of it from their talk page though there was tell of it there. There is some discussion at ANI here. I do not wish to make enemies but i also must speak what i know. I had set up a discussion on a controversial topic without taking a position, and i got this reaction and then the actions on my recent contribs list that appeared to be as a result. SageRad (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget you "bullied" the editor by calling their valid removals (with edit summaries) vandalism and dragging them here. Interested editors should look at the material SageRad was trying to protect and how much was eventually removed. --NeilNtalk to me 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect characterization. I ask others to look at the record and not buy this characterization. NeilN was involved there and had a similar defense of the editor in question there as here. I could have remained silent here but I chose to speak. There is a pattern of uncivil behavior here. Misuse of the word "bullied" here too. SageRad (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For my own sake, this is the last I will say of this here. For @SageRad:, I never touched a single one of your edits, but I did remove a ton of cruft from a page that you feel some sense of proprietorship over. It was a justified removal, and the fact that you took it as some sort of personal attack says more about you than it does about me. I archived that discussion - that is not "removing all trace" as described.
As far as the subject of this original accusation here, I made two edits to Kevin Murray's contributions. I made a third edit to an IP's contribution, which may or may not have been this user. Before the third was complete, I received a threat to take me here for hounding. I made no further edits to any of this user's contributions, yet here I am on the noticeboards. At what point is it acceptable to say that I had "taken it beyond this with actions and threats"? I replied on my talk page - to an uncivil threat with an appropriate response.
I will never respond positively to threats of being taken - inappropriately - here to the noticeboards. That is bullying behavior. My edits speak for themselves, I leave appropriate summaries, and - while I am not always right - they are neither "vandalism" nor some form of personal vengeance. If I have something to say, I'll say it. But apart from something truly egregious, I don't drag editors here.
If Kevin Murray wanted to actually talk about why I restored a tag, or why I - among others - believed that one word was preferable to another, then discussion should be held on article talk pages - not with posts on a user's page threatening "further edits in reversion of my work at WP will be reported on the Admin Noticeboard" - after two minor revisions. 'Nuff said. Scr★pIronIV 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
From my experience, talking on your use page didn't help to solve the problem but only gave more indication of a pattern of uncivil behavior. This was your very first interaction with me: "I know you and your new buddy have become very close since your mutual backscratching sessions on his talk page, but you can take your POV pushing elsewhere." SageRad (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
ScrapIronIV, I'm not looking for any type of retribution, and through the noticeboard I have learned more about the current WP processes. I have respect for Neil as an experienced and up-to-date Admin. I also have respect for you as a diligent and energetic defender of WP. We differ on vision, but clearly you are passionate about the best interest of WP. We also both have some combative aspects to our styles, and there is good and bad to that. In retrospect I do see how you felt it was appropriate to look over my shoulder. Because, as the guidelines are written, I technically should not have removed the tags you replaced. That being said, I'd prefer to see a process where tags expire if not acted upon, but that policy is not in place, and I don't see this as the forum to discuss that issue. I apologize for accusing you of improper action, though we both would have been better off talking first. Perhaps we can agree to shake hands and walk away from this benefiting a bit from understanding varying points of view. My very best regards and happy holidays to all. Thank you to all that have shared their wisdom here! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sandboxes found in mainspace!
All sorted. Sam Walton (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This shows how active Wikipedia's recent changes patrollers are.
Things always slip through I'm afraid... marking them CSD, but I'm sure an admin will come along and delete them soon -- samtarwhisper 13:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I've marked Sphaerotheca fuliginea/sandbox as a draft as it seems it was actively and constructively edited in the last couple of months -- samtarwhisper 13:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Tidied up the first lot. Most of them just needed moving. --Errant(chat!) 13:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Florida libraries
Messages left for the user by WP:Wiki Ed attempting to coordinate with the instructor. No other action needed at this time via ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had reverted excessive materials (prices, fees, service lists, historical timelines and trivial past events) that had been added about the library system on the article Charlotte County, Florida (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) by DeValk10(talk·contribs). After the second revert, I also started a talk page discussion where I pointed out the concerns above, as well as the issue of WP:WEIGHT of the library material in an article about the county. If there are adequate third party sources, then some of that content may be appropriate for creating an article about the library systems - but it is excessive for an article about the county.
As a next step, I was going to start an RFC on the talk page; but I had it pointed out on my talk page that the user is doing similar edits to multiple articles. As a result, I thought it best to start a discussion at WP:ANI to request others to look at these edits are spreading to additional articles - and the user is arguing in their edit summaries that they should not be reverted because "This is a university assignment to add Library Information", suggesting they seem to think their assignment takes precedence over Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This looks like a confused new user, not a COI problem or vandalism. The edits seem well-intentioned and reasonable, just wordy. Please don't WP:BITE the new editor. I put a note on the user's talk page to read WP:ASSIGN and let us know more about their school assignment and instructor. The real problem here is that some instructor told their student(s) to edit Wikipedia but didn't set up a school project so we can communicate with the instructor when necessary. John Nagle (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, not COI nor vandalism. Not sure why the comment about bite - my only post to their talk page was mentioning the discussion here, and they never replied to my comment on the article talk page.
Hopefully the user will point their instructor towards WP:ASSIGN. My concern was the pattern spreading to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
We've reached out to the student to see if we can figure out what class and school this assignment is for. IF we can figure it out, I'll reach out to the instructor. Thanks. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Professor JR on political articles
Consensus for a topic ban on Hilary Clinton, broadly construed--the latter because many contributors here indicate disruption is not limited to that area. Fred Bauder, thank you for your comment, but if other editors are disruptive, they should be called to account for that; it doesn't exculpate the behavior of this editor. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ProfessorJR(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog), a long-time editor claiming to be a former professor of American studies and history, "senior…government official", etc., returned to the project in early 2015 under a new account name and quickly amassed an impressive record of behavioral transgressions. By my review he got 20 cautions on his talk page from 14 different editors since June 2015, and innumerable pleas and rebukes on article talk pages.
He seems to edit constructively in other topic areas, but nearly all of his edits to political articles involve repeated attempts to include disputed content that disparages Hillary Clinton. The three primary behavior problems are: (1) persistent edit warring American political articles relating to the 2016 presidential election (all of which are, nominally, under discretionary sanctions), (2) a stated and demonstrated refusal to participate in consensus discussions, and (3) flinging accusations of bad faith against other editors. There are also POV issues, misleading edit summaries, and other wikigaming.The talk page comments I found (including two "final warnings" by me):
Warnings:
(3RR warning)
(unexplained deletion of content)
(civility)
(personal attacks)
(edit warring)
(3RR warning)
(3RR warning)
(personal attacks)
(3RR warning)
(edit warring - two notices from me)
(edit warring, not participating in discussion)
(edit warring, not participating in discussions)
(edit warring, accusations of bad faith - my "final warning")
Other cautions:
(restoring nonconsensus material)
(adding unsourced content)
(adding nonconsensus content)
(adding fringe content)
(adding fringe content)
(trolling)
(BLP violation)
There some more I missed, if you look at User:Professor JR/archive/dustbin. The editor made 3 more POV reverts (see above) after my "final warning", so here we are.
If this were a new editor, AGF suggests that we chalk this up to inexperience and unfamiliarity with editing process, basically not knowing better. However, given the claims to be a longstanding editor and government official, they surely know better. If they've edited under a different account name they need to reveal that. Conversely, if they're trying to make a WP:Clean start they've obviously failed.
I'm not going to suggest a remedy, just asking admins to pay some attention and see if we can calm the deteriorating editing environment on these articles. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support showing this editor kindness and understanding. He seems a little lost and confused. Let us show him the way so that he may better assimilate to wikipedia. W oWiTmOvEs 11:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
He's not lost and confused. He's been around since 2005 He just really, really can't stand Hillary Clinton. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a long assimilation process for some of us. W oWiTmOvEs 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
These diffs are all to warnings. Some have links to diffs inside the warning, of course, but though it's an indication of a pattern of problems, for a topic ban (as proposed below), I think we'd really want to see more diffs of the problematic editing that led to the warnings. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Just look at his contribs and reverts. I mean, seriously? Edit warring to insist the American public is really not sick and tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton's emails as Bernie Sanders joked? Edit warring to include info that Hillary Clinton is "easily" and "often confused" because it could be a "possible health issue"? —МандичкаYO 😜 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Responding via the ANI notice I saw on Professor JR's talk page. I do not edit or follow articles related to Hillary Clinton or Hillary Clinton email controversy, however, I do follow Nixon White House tapes where he keeps inserting a throw-away comment by Bob Woodward about the Clinton controversy into that article: diff, diff, diff, diff. Multiple editors have removed the material, indicating a consensus that it does not belong, yet he insists in his edit summaries and on the talk page that there was some agreement made in a different article that the material belongs there: diff. This is my first encounter with this editor, so I have no first hand knowledge of whether or not this is typical behavior. - Location (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I am changing my response to the topic ban after reading this. - Cwobeel(talk) 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A few edit wars
(a very partial list of major content additions; this does not include edit warring over deletions or smaller text changes)
Added anti-Clinton insults about their attendance at wedding and they were only there in exchange for money , then restored it after someone deleted it accusing them of possible vandalism
Propose topic ban for Professor JR on Hillary Clinton
I well remember Professor JR from the ludicrous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies, one of the most flagrant BLP violations I've seen that WP:COATRACKed things that had nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton (ie Anthony Weiner sexting scandals). Given the other diffs above, I have no faith that this editor has shown the judgement needed to neutrally edit articles related to Hillary Clinton, and this problem is only going to intensify in 2016. I propose a topic ban. Additionally, he has stated he has been on WP since 2005, but did not establish his current account until 2015. I'm wondering if he has an alternate account that he has not identified.(emailed functionaries regarding other accounts)—МандичкаYO 😜 11:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I think we must try to understand the internal nuances of this complex yet charming character, who like so many of us here on Wikipedia just wants to be accepted. Yes he may dislike Clinton but this is trivial when measured against his beauty as a human being. I say between 4 to 6 more chances are in order before any substantial action against the editor is considered. As for alternate accounts, so long as there is no overlap there is no problem. Even if there was an overlap that would be good as we would get to see even more of this pretty fellow. To conclude, I propose we show Professor JR love, rather than a topic ban. W oWiTmOvEs 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Striking comment by blocked troll account. BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
He can exercise his human beauty and complex charm on other articles not concerning Hillary Clinton. Alternate accounts, if valid, should be revealed WP:SOCK#LEGIT—МандичкаYO 😜 11:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support -- this editor is on a mission, and he/she has shown ample willingness to edit disruptively to accomplish it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
CommentSupport - If Professor JR is of this opinion as expressed at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016: And you ask why I so infrequently participate in these always fruitless TalkPage discussions with you guys. I am so done here. Have fun ganging up on Fred, and congratulating and reinforcing each-other in your little closed-minded, delusionalecho chamber. Ciao. --- Professor JR (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)then he should As he is unable to heed his own advice and stop editing these articles voluntarily, instead of and continues edit warring as he has done after that comment, a topic ban is appropriate.: , , . - - Cwobeel(talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support as nominator - it should be noted by reviewing admin for the record that Professor JR knows very well the rules regarding WP:BLP - see argument on talk page of Jack Hemingway in which he states why there should not be any mention of Hemingway's daughters' memories of abuse they suffered.... —МандичкаYO 😜 18:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Professor JR has been given ample time and more than enough warnings by quite a few editors about correcting his problematic behaviour. Nations United (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Only in regards the Hillary Clinton email controversy, which is a horribly biased POV article, which I recently tried to provide balance. JR was the only one to appreciate my recent edit there, which has recently been reverted. (See discussion on that Talk page.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You mean the derogatory screed in Wikipedia's voice concerning Sydney Blumenthal, sourced only to the partisan chair of the Benghazi committee? Professor JR's reversion without talk page discussion but with an accusation of bad faith in the edit summary, tends to support the opposite conclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"Derogatory"?! Gowdy is merely summarizing facts, something I have not read in any newspaper article. The article on HRC's emails is one of the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - Similar issues abound at Huma Abedin, where the user has repeatedly engaged in revert-warring negative and controversial information into her biography without any effort to gain consensus on the article talk page — and in fact, has refused repeated requests to discuss their proposed changes. They apparently feel that it's not necessary to gain consensus, and that's corrosive to the foundation of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. I've seen this edit war take place on the Carly Fiorina biography, and I've also seen Professor JR edit warring on the Planned Parenthood article, making POV changes such as pro-life activists to the more attractive "advocates", giving a voice to a pro-life attack group ("CMP issued a statement") to give it credence it didn't deserve, and inserting a POV image into the article. I agree with the Clinton topic ban and I would support an extension to the topic of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. Professor JR is an exceedingly capable editor and I have pleaded with him to engage in talk page discussion to try to achieve consensus, because I believe he could be of great value to these articles. But his response to my pleas has always been to (a) wax lyrical about how me and other editors are biased, and (b) place any pleas or warnings appearing on his user talk page into his "dustbin" subpage. At this point, I think a topic ban on current presidential candidates, broadly construed to include related articles, would be appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support -- It's cumbersome to distinguish between the editors good faith edits and the many POV driven edits they insert in between those edits. Lining up edits to disguise the POV edits in ways it make it difficult. Then when faced with editors who question their edits, this editor turns hostile and starts making disruptive comments, deleting any discussions or warnings on their Talk page, and proceeds to continue the same pattern over and over. I agree with Scjessey that this editor could be an asset to the project, but on the topics Scjessey lists, Professor_JR should be topic banned from. Whatever 'clean start' this editor had, it has failed. But removing the editor completely will only activate a new reincarnation, while I think a topic ban might shift the editor into other articles that I believe they could improve. Dave Dial (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support for POV pushing; editing competence does not trump NPOV. Miniapolis 23:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Prof JR is on a mission that is not compatible with NPOV or collaboration. An example given above is the coatracking of Hillary Clinton's woes in a Nixon article (diff). Another example is a list of political talking points pointedly added to an AfD (diff) followed by blanking a "BLP applies everywhere" notice (diff) to the user's "archive/dustbin". The second example again attacks Clinton because of her connection with Huma Abedin, an article where Prof JR has added other undue talking points such as "often confused" for Clinton (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - SPA editing with a clear POV which shows up in their edits. BMK (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - this degree of POV-pushing, BLP violations and disruption by the editor violates one of the five pillars. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I hate to use the term "whitewashing" here, or rely on supposed undercover "investigations" by journalists to post content under false pretenses only to write about editors objecting to their social breaching (which violates Wikipedia's TOS and policies). The mirror image here is that guy from WND who posted Obama birther nonsense under a fake account only to write a deceptive expose that there was a wikipedia conspiracy to whitewash Obama's eligibility - see http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91114/. If there's sockpuppetry and meatpupptery here, which is possible, it ought to be exposed and dealt with on our own terms. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Right now we have enough for a topic ban. A wider topic ban may actually be necessary, but we can deal with that another time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support The SNOW AfD close on Alleged Clinton Controversies in late July should have told PJR to step back and examine their neutrality. Instead, they've continued solely as a detriment to these articles. Nate•(chatter) 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support on the basis of the above diffs indicating a pattern of bad stuff, although I am concerned that this will just push this editor to move the problematic conduct to non-Hillary-but-still-U.S.-politics articles. I recently engaged with Prof. JR on such an article. Despite repeated entreaties from me to join the discussion at talk, he repeatedly reverted, removed sourced material, etc. Neutralitytalk 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Censoring PJR will have a chilling effect on other editorsOut There for a hard pimp (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The above comment is the second edit by a throw-away account. If anyone wants to remove it and my post, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Just about to say the same thing myself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it's not suspicious at all when an account's first edits are all at ANI.... —МандичкаYO 😜 09:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support for not just POV pushing, but POV pushing brought to a new level. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - Pile-on support !vote doesn't look to be needed here, but since I requested diffs above and they have been provided, I've gone through them and come to the same conclusion it appears others have. Serious, persistent problems despite various attempts to discuss/warn. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Strongly justified by the pattern of editing documented by the above diffs. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment Hmm, no block log. He seems to use reliable sources for his one-sided content. Are the several editors who only add positive content about Hillary Clinton also POV-pushers who should be topic banned? A very poor idea to decide topic bans about something so polarizing like the American politics during elections by a popular vote here, anyway. --Pudeo' 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"No block log" - Meaningless, every day editors go from having absolutely no block log to being indef blocked. Sometimes it takes weeks or months for their behavior to catch up with them. "Seems to use reliable sources" - Meaningless, the majority of POV-pushers use seemingly "reliable" sources which turn out to be badly biased, even full of deliberate disinformation. It's not hard to find good-looking sources, even very well-known ones, which are completely skewed and wouldn't know an unbiased statement if it was delivered to their door by FedEx. And, of course, those sources are adept at playing the Big Lie and accusing straight-forward sources as being biased in the other direction. If we all weren't so damned polite, we'd call the sources that POV-pushers use what they are: propaganda. BMK (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Using "reliable sources" to insert material violating BLP or UNDUE means nothing. Look at this info he added about the Clintons attending the Trump wedding - these are straight-up insults . Additionally he may have a block log under another account. Here he claims he has never used another account , which is flat out untrue as I've found at least two other accounts he has used. He has also as an IP editor inserted fake references to his own personal diary that does not even appear to be self-published, much less published. I can't post that info here per WP:OUTING but I've emailed the functionaries list and hope they open an SPI. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Support – Having read Professor JR's defence and rationale of their actions, below, I'm still unconvinced they grasp the problem at hand, and so therefore I support a topic ban on editing Hillary Clinton related articles and content. Instead of taking some responsibility, they instead have gone onto accuse others of wrong-doing with limited proof (despite this ANI discussion being specifically about Professor JR's conduct — not anyone elses). They fail to properly address their own conduct which is on question. Even so, I think their edits speak volumes; there is POV-pushing being done – on this user's part. The adage "the best defense is a good offense" does not cut it, Professor JR, but being accountable to your own edits does. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Singling out a particular, possibly "right-wing" editor, for a ban on editing this article is inappropriate when there are several other editors engaged in systemic biased editing of the article. To verify simply look at the editing history of the article and the talk page. User:Fred BauderTalk 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Break - Comments from the Accused
@MaxSem: Thank you for seeking my input and comments on this matter.
A careful, unbiased and objective look into what is going on here will fairly quickly reveal that this is a case where a small group of editors (Cwobeel, Muboshgu, Scjessey, Wikidemon, and occasionally a couple others --- very passionate about their cause, which is OK, but unable to keep their own POV out of their editing practices) has been ganging up on any other editors (not just me) and trying to suppress good faith content edits that they simply just don't like about a particular candidate for the presidency in the 2016 election. You will note, that in virtually no instance are their objections to other user's edits based on the content being untrue or inaccurate --- but, instead, they rely on excuses for suppressing it by coming up with all kinds of, usually unfounded, Wikipedia policy reasons (UNDUE; NOT NEWS; BLP; POV-pushing; etc.) for reverting, undoing or parsing that content. For example, see HERE (where I admit that I got sucked in, and made a couple of, in retrospect, injudicious comments myself.)
My suggestion and recommendation is: before Administrators take any action here, they should take a careful look at the edit history of the User who made the warnings and brought this up (Wikidemon), and those of the rest of this group (Cwobeel, Muboshgu, Scjessey) as well as some of those rushing in to support a proposed blocking. You will see that, for the most part at least, my edits were made in good faith, and that the group objecting to them really just doesn't like the content, and engages in much of the same editing conduct they are complaining about.
As for these four editors, and those who immediately jumped in to support the blocking --- If you look at their own edit histories and logs, you will see that they are themselves at least as guilty (and perhaps more so) of the very things they accuse, not just me, but many other editors of when they engage in a pattern of fairly consistently undoing, reverting and otherwise parsing the articles in question here relating to a presidential candidate. This is done always from their same POV --- and always pushing favorable text regarding her --- and consistently reverting or undoing anything that balances that content with anything that might be seen as at all negative, however well-sourced to such valid sources as the Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, etc. --- hardly fringe or right-wing media outlets.
Some might conclude, too, that these same four or so users (Cwobeel, Muboshgu, Scjessey, Wikidemon and others) frequently engage in that which by all appearances runs counter to the Wikipedia policies relating to 'Wiki-Ninjas', 'Bullying', and 'Collaborating', among others --- and commonly issue all kinds of 'warnings' against other editors in an attempt to dissuade edits by the other editors.
As you will see, too (in their histories and logs) I am not the only one that has been targeted by exactly this same group, for edits to exactly the same articles. In addition, in at least one or two cases of these editors supporting this proposed blocking --- they certainly appear to be engaged in what Wikipedia calls 'Stalking'. Either that, or this person just coincidentally and suddenly developed a sudden interest 'out-of-the-blue' in articles far afield from their normal purview, that they have never edited before, within seconds after I make an edit to those articles (for example: Shirley Chisholm which was edited by Muboshgu just minutes after I made completely non-political edit to it.)
I have no bone to pick generally with Wikipedia, and certainly enjoy contributing to it when and where I can. In conclusion here, however, and in my modest opinion, for what it's worth --- I would hope that an unbiased, disinterested Administrator would not block me, without consideration also being given to also blocking those that are making what really amount to very half-baked and POV-biased allegations against me, or in some cases totally inaccurate or false charges. See for example this one which Wikidemon cites above and calls "trolling":
* which when you read it, actually says just the opposite --- that is, it says that I was NOT trolling.
Several other final points with regard to allegations made about me in this thread:
* I have NEVER edited under any other account --- having ONLY edited Wikipedia under my IP address prior to establishing my Professor JR account, and then only under that account (from the same IP address).
* I have NEVER engaged in any 'sockpuppetry', nor collaborated with any other editor in any manner 'off-line' in some sort of cooperative 'sockpuppetry'.
* Unlike some of those making these allegations, I do NOT 'troll', and have no interest in doing so.
* I do engage in discussions at times on TalkPages where I find they are productive --- and have in many instances with other well-intentioned and good-faith editors --- but have found such never-ending threads of such discussions with editors like Cwobeel, Muboshgu, Scjessey, & Wikidemon to be completely fruitless and non-productive. I generally agree with something another editor, DGG has stated on his UserPage: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience.... [T]his is why I try to avoid head-to-head debates with other editors. Once things have reached that stage, experience here as elsewhere shows that people are not generally successful in convincing their direct opponents...."
* Although accused here by BullRangifer of being "a prolific right-wing troll on several articles", I am actually (may be a surprise these folks) a liberal Democrat --- and do NOT 'troll', and never have.
* Archiving stuff from my TalkPage is NOT the same as deleting it, as alleged above by Dave Dial and several others in this thread.
* Anything I have written on my UserPage about myself is totally accurate, none of it made up.
In my opinion, only very rarely should any good-faith, account-registered editor be blocked --- and heated discourse representative of ALL points of view (POV) should be encouraged, not blocked. For, it is from the heated crucible of such back-and-forth discussions and debates, that emerges an even better final product of the kind of encyclopedic quality that Wikipedia constantly strives for, and deserves to achieve.
I will be happy to respond to any specific questions that you may have, Max, or from other Administrators (which could be posted to my TalkPage, if you wish).
Thank you for your consideration. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. - For a sample of editors who seem to appreciate my contributions, and have 'thanked' me -- See: HERE.
None of this changes my view about this editor's behaviour. If sanctions are needed for other editors, then they should be proposed in a separate section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"I have NEVER edited under any other account --- having ONLY edited Wikipedia under my IP address prior to establishing my Professor JR account" This is absolutely untrue. You edited using at least two other accounts: "JG*****s" and "JG***********s." Given what these accounts were editing and the info on your userpage, it's not conceivable these were not your accounts. Simply unbelievable. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: Patently false! And, you should be careful with making such allegations, Мандичка. To what two other accounts are you referring?? --- spell them out in full, please (not just as 'JG.... and 'JG.....') if you are so sure you are correct. Otherwise, please retract your false claim. --- Professor JR (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I will not as I will get in trouble per WP:OUTING. But they aren't too hard to find. Additionally I've already emailed the admin list with the names so I'm not fabricating it. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would it be considered outing to identify an editor's alternate accounts? People do it at WP:SPI all the time. If this is a reappearance of one of the vexatious users from years past we ought to know. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Because the alternate accounts are possibly under his real name and/or edited information that very specifically identifies him. WP:OUTING Even though he chose to put this info on WP in the first place, he has since removed it, so even if it's still available in history, you're not supposed to repost it. I can't do an SPI for the same reason. I emailed the functionaries, whether or not they choose to do an SPI is in their hands. I didn't find any evidence of sockpuppetry abuse (ie using different accounts to edit war) but IMHO they should do an SPI based on his denial these accounts exist. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: If you are so confident, Мандичка, that those accounts are mine (and confident enough to make such serious allegations) then, not to worry --- you have my permission to reveal the alleged "JG*****s" and "JG***********s" account names you accuse me of having had. Otherwise, I a retraction of your claim is in order. --- Professor JR (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If I have an admin say it's OK then I will. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
So you don't want to out Professor JR even though he is asking you to provide the information? Yeah, that's not how outing works. Professor JR, even though you've explicitly given permission above, I'll ask again - do you give Wikimandia permission to make public this information? -- samtarwhisper 17:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No, because he is asking me to explicitly violate the rules. There is nothing in the guidelines that says one can give another person permission to out them. I've gotten in trouble before for AGF and following instructions from another editor who I mistakenly thought was an admin. It made no difference that I was just doing what someone else advised me to do; he wasn't an admin and I chose to follow his advice. Any admin who wants to guarantee I won't get in trouble, feel free to post. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Neutral I'm very divided by this, as I've had past (Trump-related) editing disputes with ProfessorJR which have been productively resolved through Talk, and I've come to think of him as a kind of eccentric friend here in the community — yes, he can edit and delete precipitously, but I've never myself found him unanswerable or disengaged. In fact, I've come around to some of his arguments, particularly on BLP related to Melania Trump (we both actively defend her page). People have questioned whether his bio is legit, and now there are these identity accusations. Just to say, I've no reason to doubt his bio, and can at the very least personally attest it is possible to be a liberal Democrat and be unhinged by Hillary Clinton. I read this piling-on here with dismay, knowing there's a real person here whom I've come to understand and have sympathy for — is there a disciplinary approach that does not involve open-ended topic-banning, or worse? This IS the political season, after all, and none of us can truly claim impartiality. Here's hoping this episode can be resolved with a carrot-and-stick approach. This editor is valuable in many contexts and will continue to be so; I don't at all think ProfessorJR is irredeemable. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
—ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
samtar {t} 12:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Checkuser note: The account is not compromised in the sense that someone else is using either a different device or editing from a different location. I can't speak as to the issue of someone else using Bonadea's devices from the same location because the other person has access to Bonadea's password.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed sock of Who R you? (talk · contribs · count). I've blocked the master for two weeks. I've removed the image, cute, but interferes, and please sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
People who don't understand the guideline should keep quiet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)