Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 988: | Line 988: | ||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=prev&oldid=730453938 Edits like this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=prev&oldid=730054906 this] stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=prev&oldid=730453938 Edits like this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=prev&oldid=730054906 this] stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
::It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::[[user:MrX|MrX]], I would suggest you need to review the Chrysler edits in context before deciding. That material was the subject of a long RfC and with quite a few editor's weighing in. If Dennis (or anyone else) felt the final edits were wrong they should have voiced concern at the time (or now on the Chrysler talk page). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do. |
Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do. |
||
Line 994: | Line 996: | ||
Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
:[[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]], I would ask that you review the recent interactions related to the recent RfC[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_vehicle_use_in_crimes_as_part_of_vehicle_articles]] and understand this issue before dragging out old issues. Please look at the way Dennis attacked me with accusations of bad faith almost from the word go[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=737976280&oldid=737975710]]. Please also review the conversation that followed before assuming this is an issue with me vs Dennis (who also has black marks on his record). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v[[Special:Contributions/74.70.146.1|74.70.146.1]] ([[User talk:74.70.146.1|talk]]) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v[[Special:Contributions/74.70.146.1|74.70.146.1]] ([[User talk:74.70.146.1|talk]]) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Are you another sock of the blocked KochTruth IP editor? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
'''Reply from Springee''': I don't currently have time for a point by point refutation of the accusations made by Dennis but I strongly disagree with the accusations he has made. Dennis seems to have read all my actions in the worst light ever since throwing down an accusation of bad faith after I realized the material we were discussing was outside of the scope of the F-650 article (the F-700 in question was a 1993 truck, the article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar). Because I realized this issue after we were already in discussion (note that no one else noticed this sooner), I was accused of bad faith negotiations [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=737976280&oldid=737975710]]. I was concerned about the nasty accusations and asked [[Arthur Rubin]] for suggestions (unrelated to asking about the content dispute) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_Rubin&diff=prev&oldid=739157659]]. I have worked very hard to avoid counter accusations of bad faith or personal attacks. Please note Dennis's first post on the RfC was as much an attack on me as anything [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=739154329&oldid=739144602]]. I'm very frustrated that Dennis isn't willing to discuss these issues or offer any sort of benefit of the doubt [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Bratland#Please_stop_your_disruptive_editing_.28moved_from_Springee.27s_talk_page.29]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Springee#September_2016]]. |
|||
Dennis has a number of errors in his presentation of the facts. Please note that the RfC was started on Sept 9th. Many of his claims that I was ignoring RfC results predate the RfC! He also seems to confuse the limited conversations that occurred on the article talk pages for the longer discussion (involving all the same editors) on the Automotive Project page. The Chrysler material Dennis refers to was extensively discussed by a large number of editors. I think he is grossly misrepresenting things, including claiming the material that was the subject of the RfC wasn't added to the article (it was). Unfortunately something Dennis did get right is the wall of text from Springee. He has posted so many accusations and to answer each with context would require a lot of text. One final note, despite Dennis's claims that I was misreading WEIGHT and other policies/guidelines etc the current RfC favors removing the material in question by something like 15:5. Dennis is one of the five. Is this an editor issue with me or an attempt by Dennis to use an ANI to block an editor he doesn't agree with? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Constant POV pushing by deliberately contradicting the sources in the [[Ganja, Azerbaijan]] article and also cross-wiki == |
== Constant POV pushing by deliberately contradicting the sources in the [[Ganja, Azerbaijan]] article and also cross-wiki == |
Revision as of 17:11, 26 September 2016
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Poodleboy
Poodleboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently returned after what is, in essence, a ten-year hiatus following a short arbitration enforcement block in 2006. His main focus of editing has been climate change, where he has been combative and edit-warred (e.g. [1], [2]). His comments align ideologically with climate change denialism (e.g. [3]). This was the kind of editing that led to the AE block.
In the last few days he has taken it upon himself to wage a one-man war against the characterisation of Intelligent Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.". This text has been in the lede since at least April 2014 and has been discussed on Talk several times. Four consecutive discussions demanding removal of the (sourced) characterisation "pseudoscientific" exist on Talk, three of these were started by Poodleboy. All four were closed (by three different editors) as no consensus for the change. On closure of the last, Poodleboy immediately started a new thread again demanding the change.
Several people have engaged thoughtfully on Poodleboy's talk page, but he does not seem to have taken on any of their advice.
Bluntly, Poodleboy appears to me to be here to Right Great Wrongs. His constant wrongteous anger is wearing to everybody else involved in these discussions. I propose a topic ban from topics related to both Intelligent Design and climate change. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can we go for something succinct rather that blunt. Would it be fair to paraphrase the offense I am accused of, as "Poodleboy continued to respond to some commenters (perhaps half a dozen or more) after two or three people tried to terminate the discussion."?Poodleboy (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't edited on climate change since that recent block and I'm a supported of the climate change consensus, not a denier, evidently JzG is going for a twofer. What he is bluntly stating is not truthful or objective. The discussion on ID was not a one man war, there was another arguing for a more encyclopedic voice, and there was good and civil, give and take in the discussion, until a biased and involved editor started edit warring on the talk page, using closure and deleting a comment on the talk page [User:Binksternet] and issued a warning this warning to me [4]. Notice that this editor User:Binksternet unilaterally claimed there was no possibility of the discussion bearing fruit. The discussion had been continuing and was substantive in exposing the positions and correcting assumptions. Binksternet's bias is shown by his warning only one participant in the discussion and by his sudden panic at the thought that a graph long in the article might lend credence to the topic.[5] Note that I have not edited the article and instead worked to try to achieve consensus on the talk page. I will notify Binksternet that his name is being mentioned. Unilaterally closing discussions should not be acceptable discussion behavior. Note that he was not a participant on the talk page, there he no evidence he actually read it. Notice also, that I considered the discussion on the ID talk page complete and even proposed retention of that discussion to avoid needless repitition before this unjustified ANI was started. Unlike the past ANI, I have been a model of civility. Regards. Poodleboy (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you said that you're a supporter of evolution too, but strangely all your edits to related topics are aimed at watering down the scientific consensus, just as all your edits to climate change topics were aimed at watering down the mainstream view. On Wikipedia, you tend to be judged by what you actually write, rather than what you say you believe. Calling Oreskes' work "an embarrassment to science" and defending Heartland as "equally valid" sure as hell doesn't look like a supporter of the reality-based view on climate change.
- You have failed to address the core issue, which is that four separate discussions showed no consensus for change (and there are plenty more in the archives that also have no consensus for change, as was pointed out to you), yet your response was to start a fifth thread. That is beyond boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You neglect the core issue that two of those four were before the last ANI, and that you were involved in one of the recent closures, when others, including eventually yourself, saw there was more to discuss and the discussion continued. I wasn't repeating myself, and if I my points repeated others that have been archived in my responsiveness, then the other participants must not have read those archives, because they did not seem to anticipate the problems with their points.Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, my Heartland comment was not about climate science, but about the attempt to portray them as holding the position they do because of corporate influence. Their response about the internal controls and standards in place are what was equally valid. Oreskes is not justified in drawing the conclusions that she does from just analyzing the abstracts, such opinions are most likely to be expressed in the discussion portion of the articles. Her students conducting the evaluations were inconsistent in applying the standards. The methodology was poor. Poodleboy (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Note that JzG chose to mischaracterize my position at ID, I don't oppose the statement he mentioned, and I never demanded removal of the pseudoscientific characterization, just that it that it not give a biased, unencyclopedic impression by being in the first sentence. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Face it JzG/Guy, you were an involved admin unilaterally closing ongoing discussion on an article under discretionary sanctions. Acting as an admin without disclosing that were were an admin, and you, yourself continuted discussing after your failed close attempt. Perhaps you just wanted the last word.Poodleboy (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic bans I am involved in that I moved a comment by Poodleboy into a collapsed section using the edit summary "
extend close: article talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources
" (diff). Poodleboy's response (diff) was to post a new section with a heading taken from my edit summary, and with a convoluted comment indicating a hard-to-follow dissatisfaction. An article talk page, particularly one with an "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" box, is not a place for interminable attempts to make a case. There is no sign the attempts will stop without ANI action. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)- You don't consider this comment, posted before I was aware of any ANI a "sign" [6] ? It is pretty clear that I was through with the discussion. This dissatisfaction was with your erroneous edit summary characterization. Why couldn't you come up with an excuse you could defend for using a premature close to cut of an on-going discussion with multiple participants?Poodleboy (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The second of my two diffs is your "sign" link. Article talk pages are not intended for on-going discussions merely for the sake of discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). As stated, talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article. Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but Talk:Intelligent design shows there has been no consensus for your proposal since July—a topic ban is needed as you are still promoting the idea despite the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- So you just chose to ignore the evidence that I considered the discussion complete and sought to avoid a repeat, and lie by stating there is no sign? Ironically, the ANI came after it had already stopped. That would have been clear, if there hadn't been such a rush. Poodleboy (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The second of my two diffs is your "sign" link. Article talk pages are not intended for on-going discussions merely for the sake of discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). As stated, talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article. Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but Talk:Intelligent design shows there has been no consensus for your proposal since July—a topic ban is needed as you are still promoting the idea despite the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You don't consider this comment, posted before I was aware of any ANI a "sign" [6] ? It is pretty clear that I was through with the discussion. This dissatisfaction was with your erroneous edit summary characterization. Why couldn't you come up with an excuse you could defend for using a premature close to cut of an on-going discussion with multiple participants?Poodleboy (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic bans - this editor's response to a DS/alert I left for them as well as their comments above, are examples of how this editor is only here to show how clever they are, and not to build the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself? You did not leave a DS/alert for "them", you were closing the discussion that others were participating in, it wasn't like I was commenting on my own, yet you only left an alert for me. Face it, you were biased and involved, and devolved into edit warring on the talk page, when a civil and substantive discussion was ongoing. Poodleboy (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on climate change and evolution. This person is poison to the project, working to diminish the scientific position wherever possible, especially by denying a consensus and instead attacking individual elements that contribute to consensus. A divide-and-conquer strategy. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I guess that is how you define "the project", you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy. Have you even read the Global Warming page? The "scientific position" follows where the science leads, it isn't fixed. The IPCC lowered the climate sensitivity range from 2.0C-4.5C down to 1.5C-4.5C in AR5, and refused to give a best estimate for the sensitivity as in the past because of a divergence in the evidence. Recent publications have reinforced the lower end of the range again. The next reports range is likely to be even lower. The fact of the matter is we don't know whether the net feedback from the water cycle is positive or negative over the time frame of interest, even though the increase in water vapor is a positive feedback contribution.Poodleboy (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support evolution topic ban, no opinion on other proposal – I've been following the discussion at talk:ID and Poodleboy's arguments have been flawed and display either an agenda or a serious lack of competence. Arguing that pseudoscience is not a defining characteristic of ID is unsupported by logic and evidence and lacks objective understanding. Refusing to listen and to drop the stick shows that change is highly unlikely. Poodleboy, demonstrate that you can work collaboratively somewhere else on WP as you can't manage it in this area. EdChem (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You misunderstood the logic. Others were arguing that pseudoscience was intrinsic or inherent in ID. I pointed out that more than the definition was required to reach such a judgement. One can define ID without mentioning pseudoscience, in fact, other encyclopedias manage whole articles without mentioning it. One could argue that it is a matter of empirical necessity. You ignore the evidence when you stat that I refuse to listen. My responses were on point which is difficult to do if I didn't listen. The whole discussion was collaborative. Don't you find it, just a little bit strident that so many editors feel they must have the pseudoscience opinion in the first sentence? After all that is the whole point of the attempt to improve the article. If you are so confident in your position, why don't you see if that sentence can survive a featured article review? Keep in mind that only two of us in the recent discussion were actually trying to improve the article, everyone else was for the status quo. It wasn't like we weren't open to all kinds of alternative language suggestions. There was only one side unwilling to compromise.Poodleboy (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic bans The bludgeoning on ID has to end. The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous. They in fact go further into depth and assign ID the very definition of pseudoscience. At WP we have the luxury of simply linking it and not having to go into the definition. Capeo (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Evidently, you didn't notice that I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all. I did recommend that the excellent discussions that were had there be preserved and not archived, so the others don't fall into the trap of trying to improve the article. It will help them to see the quality of effort that has already been given, and not think that it wasn't just incompetence that prevented a reasonable compromise. As for me, I had already given up. Poodleboy (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You edited the talk page today. Capeo (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, they are quick, it is the content of that edit that is the admission that it is over and the recommendation I have been mentioning. If JzG/Guy had waited a few days, this whole whatever-it-is-called wouldn't seem urgent or necessary. Regards.Poodleboy (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You edited the talk page today. Capeo (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic bans I edit climate, but not ID. I support the TB because (A) Poodleboys responses in this very thread demonstrate his penchant for attacks and difficulty with AGF,
- example from above thread, you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy
- example from above thread, :Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself?
- Also, (B) the other reason I support the TB is specific to the topic of ID and it is this - Poodleboy apparently has self-imposed at TB already, as evidence by his above comment "I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all..... I have already given up" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Penchants for attack on this page don't count, this is an attack page. I haven't been uncivil on any topic or topic talk page since the last thingy-me-bob. Each comment you cite above from this process is either mirroring a similar attack on me, or points out evidence that the characterization is true. You are spinning rather selectively. Poodleboy (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support that is some of the most in depth and persistent IDHT I have seen in a few years. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is most complete, that is why I felt finished. I couldn't think of any further arguments, and the other side was left only with their locally superior numbers. If that discussion wouldn't convince the others then there is no hope. No one on the other side ever proposed a compromise. I would like to retain the ability to vote on the page, if ever the community were to change. After all, implementing bans on people one by one, doesn't allow an alternative community to accumulate.Poodleboy (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban
on IDgenerally: I was involved in the ID discussions. I have trouble in assuming the good faith of someone whose professes that X is totally a Y, but one should not say so right away to preserve the "appearance of objectivity". If I recall, a total of two other editors were convinced by his argumentation. Despite that, an ungodly amount of time was wasted beating that horse. Thus I strongly support the ban on ID. I haven't followed climate change. My general impression is that Poodleboy delights in wasting people's time -- and has proven adept at it. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)- Correct me if I am wrong, but 17 comments over 3 days on the ID talk page is hardly an "ungodly amount of time" and some of those probably shouldn't count because of the edit war [[User:Binksternet] started on the ID talk page, and has continued even during this ANI process. He has deleted comments on the ID talk page again. Could someone please restore that last comment of mine that I have been referencing during this process. It will test whether he really does want to get himself banned as he seems to indicate with his recent behavior. I suspect I may be less than a third to a quarter of the comments in the discussion. Ungodly, not!! Poodleboy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Is this the hill you want to die on? The only one who is going to get himself banned is yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't surprise me if Binksternet gets little more than a wink and a nod, despite is far more severe abuses.Poodleboy (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for inviting me to correct you, Poodleboy. You fired your first salvo July, 22. I would say that's a bit more than 3 days ago. The discussion mercifully died while you were blocked, and resurrected a little time after you came back. If "ungodly" irks you so, would you be satisfied with "shockingly disproportionate to the quality and range of the arguments that have been advanced"? Even if the vast majority is wrong -- that happens -- and you are right -- I'm making a strenuous effort of imagination here, but I suppose that might occasionally happen in some universes -- it should have been clear that the way you were going about it was not going to be productive. Also, some of your over-the-top claims ("I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgeable supporter of evolution"), cast doubt on your sincerity, to my mind. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with going back 20 times as far, is that the number of comments only increases by 16, for a total of 33 and some of these were mere correction of typos or word choice and a couple others were reversing comments others had deleted. Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Poodleboy: ok, I finally got what's wrong with your statistics. You are counting only your own edits on ID talk. I said you were wasting people's time. You are evidently free to waste your own however you want, I won't give a single solitary murid's behind. But all edits on ID talk since your arrival, about 160 if I count right, were in response to your necromantically resurrected threads. Plus all the nonsense on the Talk pages of some of the involved, and now we're on the bloody drama boards. That's a lot of entropy being generated for a completely trivial and trivially doomed proposal. There have been many similar proposals (content-wise) in the few years I've watched that page but that's the first time I see such a tempest in that particular teapot. I never accused you of being inefficient at causing other people to waste their time; obviously you're good at it, if that's your intent, for I'm doing just that right now. Your answers seem to somehow always miss the point in a way that invites correction. In your last answers here only, you just offered me a number that's obviously wrong, so that I'd have to check, then find your count missed the point, then explain it; then your answers to MjolnirPants and Yoshi24517 just beg for an explanation of the value of uninvolvedness. Most of your posts come with built-in hooks, and I'm just not sure that's accidental; the more I interact with you, the more I get the impression that you are deliberately setting things up to generate drama. Either that or you're a natural. If anything, I think the case against you is currently understated. I'm altering my support to include the ban on climate change. I would support a permablock if that came up. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with going back 20 times as far, is that the number of comments only increases by 16, for a total of 33 and some of these were mere correction of typos or word choice and a couple others were reversing comments others had deleted. Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Is this the hill you want to die on? The only one who is going to get himself banned is yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I was counting only my edits and even overstating them because I included them whether they were just typo corrects or reverting a comment that one of the talk page edit warriors deleted. But I can't take credit for all those responses, because a few were by the one or two backing the more encyclopedic voice for the first sentence, so those comments, and those responding to those comments should not be included. What you call "hooks" in my responses, are where I made seemingly strong points either debunking their points or making the case for the more encylopedic voice that others were not willing to let stand. Frankly, I think both positions were clarified, and would be clear to any readers to come, and that was why I was satisfied and finished at the end. Those who were prematurely trying to end the clarification and full exposition of the arguments must be responsible for the noise they added trying to argue that there was a consensus and that everything had been said, when a clear majority were not through discussing, even if you blame that on my "hooks". I found this paragraph unsigned, I sign it now, but keep in mind the date/time is later than originally posted. I don't know if it was oversight on my part or someone elses mistake. Poodleboy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban Just on the basis of the back-and-forth in this thread and the diffs presented herein. I'm completely uninvolved, by the way. Never interacted with Poodleboy or edited either of the two articles in question, to my recollection. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do I have to paste the whole talk page in here to get you to read it? Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have absolutely no understanding of the hole you have dug for yourself, that you are so intent on digging further. If you have any semblance of sanity, stop digging. Stop replying to every single person who is voting. You are only making it worse for yourself. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Poodleboy: I want to be clear here. I know you will respond, and I don't care because I'll be done after this. I'm only responding because I believe my initial vote could use some clarification. I based my support entirely upon what you've said here, how you've said it, and what you've said in the diffs provided. I considered it before commenting, and in my opinion (an opinion you have absolutely NO ability to affect by arguing with me here) that alone is enough evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you lack the ability to meaningfully contribute to these topics. I read where you explicitly claimed to be pro-climate change and pro-evolution, and I have read where you made arguments or suggested edits which were clearly anti-climate change and anti-evolution. Even assuming some legitimacy for those positions (there is none), the fact that you willfully lie about your own beliefs strips the credibility from any defense you put forth. Furthermore, I have seen you display a complete refusal to admit any wrongdoing throughout all of this thread. I have additionally seen you make a point of responding to each and every support vote in this thread. Finally, I have seen a large number of editors, some of whom I know to have good judgement all supporting a topic ban (and many calling for a site ban), with none in opposition. To be completely honest, I would fully support a permanent site ban, just based on your behavior in this thread and the provided links. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is all I have to say. You may, of course, respond, but I ask that you not ping me in your response, because I will not reply further, in any case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't lied about any of my beliefs, and while not admitting wrong doing on this ANI, on the previous one I did admit wrong doing. Frankly, I don't see any wrong doing on my part of this latest episode, except perhaps I should have brought an ANI against Binksternet instead of reverting the comment deletions he made on the talk page. However, that ANI, like this one, would probably have wasted far more time than has been expressed as a concern based upon my discussion on the talk page. If wasting time is a fault, it more strongly lies with those who brought this ANI and those who support it. As to climate, I usually clearly state that I am part of the consensus, and if I elaborate further I detail that it is the 97% peer reviewed consensus based upon the responses to two questions. Lukewarmer/skeptics like myself are part of that consensus. The lies I have identified on this ANI are substantiated and your inference and accusation can not be substantiated. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. Per MjolnirPants. Also uninvolved. Yoshi24517Chat Online 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- You two might be the first that are that uninvolved. Hopwfully you at least read the talk page, there is something to be said for at least having an informed opinion.Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Poodleboy, I am uninvolved but scientifically literate / educated. I read your arguments, and understood them. Your arguments are flawed, however. And even if they weren't, WP works on a consensus model which says you are welcome to make suggestions and try to persuade but in return you are expected to abide by the consensus conclusion so long as it is policy-compliant. Fighting as you have since that became clear, and here at ANI, are the reasons you face a topic ban. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban Poodleboy is right about the pejorative tone in the first sentence. I agree with Capeo that "The bludgeoning on ID has to end": everyone who raises the point of bias gets bludgeoned. I disagree with Capeo that "The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous": our argument is not whether or not ID is a pseudoscience, but what the proper encyclopedic tone is for explaining what is it. We believe it should first be defined in its proponents' terms and then be explained in the light of academic consensus.
- The article of Palmistry is the model I believe the ID article should follow.
- I have noted on the talk page that the NAS, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the NCSE--for heaven's sake! (a partisan think tank dedicated to debunking creationism)--and UC Berkeley use the encyclopedic tone I wish to see here. YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- 0RR restriction + maximum of 2 edits per week per article talk page for the two topic areas. This will allow Poodleboy to make any edits he wishes to make and put forward any arguments in defense of his edits and give his response to comments, but it makes it a lot easier for the other editors to deal with edits by Poodleboy they don't agree with and all the associated talk page arguments. 0RR means that it's pointless to make an edit that isn't going to stick, and there wonlt be protracted arguments on the talk page, if you can make only two posts per week there, you want to reserve one for a reply, that leaves you one posting to make an argument, so you'd better get that argument to be a good, constructive one as judged by the other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea; Poodleboy has raised a couple criticisms I have agreed with and I'd like to see an outcome that prevents past problems while retaining his input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Totally unfair, the number of edits, few as they are, should be considered in the context of the other editors. The ID talk page and even the discourse here show that they fail to assume good faith, instead, not only do the make POV pushing accusations, they are poor at inferring what the POV is and get it wrong. Such a severe restriction on edits of the talk page, would unfairly leave such false accusations and characterizations incorrectable. Sure I could try to correct them on the editors talk page, but you've seen the contributers here. How many have gone back to the talk page to retract or correct their accusations and inferences? The expectation is that the editor himself would do that if they were erroneous or untrue.Poodleboy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, Poodleboy. You'd better stop yapping or you'll get sent to the doghouse big time. YoPienso (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support TBAN for both topics. I think if it were just behavior in the topic spaces alone I could get on board with something like Count Iblis is talking about above. The contentiousness and adversarial tone that this thread has taken leads me to think that this isn't behavior that is going to end. I have read this thread up to this point and I have read everything on the ID page as it was going on. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic bans. As Adam notes in the immediately preceding comment, Poodleboy's approach is problematic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic bans. Do we need a stronger consensus? Like Adam said above, it seems like this problematic behavior is not going to stop. The behavior in this thread alone would probably be enough to get someone sanctioned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Evolution
I feel compelled to defend myself as a strong supporter of evolution and opponent of Intelligent Design. I've been an avid follower of evolution starting in the 60s with the works popularizing evolution by Robert Ardrey, Phillip Wylie and Desmond Morris, and consider Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" contributions and classics that have stood the test time. I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here. I quote myself from my own talk page here:
- " I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am. I'm so confident that evolution is the best explanation of the evidence that I'm not afraid of giving other hypotheses a fair hearing, and believe that we do evolution and science a disservice by acting so fearfully to suppress other views. Do you really think Intelligent Design has legs to stand upon? How intelligent is the design that has mammal losing the ability to regrow limbs and that has primates with a vestigial pseudo-gene for synthesizing vitamin C? How intelligent was using the same genetic code for humans as for other species, making inter specific virus transmission easier? How intelligent is a design that a species like ours with only 10,000 years of civilization behind us, can see the flaws in and will shortly be able to improve upon? How intelligent is a design that resulted in you making such erroneous characterizations?" [7]
Furthermore, I have a strong continuing interest in the evolvability characteristic of life that has itself evolved over time. I hope to make a contribution here in that area, I quote myself again, this time from the evolvability talk page:
- "internal homeostasis, developmental homeostasis, sexual recombination/redundancy and niche reduction"
- The way to make beneficial genetic changes more likely is to make detrimental changes less detrimental and the the organism more robust to detrimental changes. The genetic changes that made the human infant a noisy, slow, weak incompetent organism, were made less detrimental by the niche reduction of parental care. The young human did not have to be evolutionarily fit throughout growth and development and in a variety of environments, but just within the niche of parental care, until viable at adulthood. The redundant genes at every location involved allow genetic variation to accumulate until it might prove beneficial or detrimental in new combinations or environments. Internal homeostasis through active metabolism and related partially redundant pathways, allow genetic variation to be tolerated and yet viable conditions maintained. Families of related enzymes from past genome replications are an example of this evolability. Developmental homeostasis enables a genetic change in, for example, bone length to be survivable. It won't fail because changes in the genes for the length of blood vessels, muscles and nerves did not simultaneously happen. A change in genetic or enviromentally caused bone length can be accomodated by the robustness of the developmental process. Far from being merged with other articles, Evolvability is arguably one of the most important concepts for understanding and communicating evolution. The major breakthrough in evolution was evolving evolvability. Evolution was probably a slow process until enough evolvability had accumulated. I think these topics are not covered well enough (some not at all) in the article, and expansion under this topic is warranted. Poodleboy (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)"
regards. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above WALLOFTEXT illustrates why I earlier supported the TBAN and boils down to Poodleboy just not getting this place and is apparently immune to feedback.
- 1. Problems due to claimed expert status Frequently Poodleboy expresses his own WP:Original research without citing RSs, and he seems to think this is OK because, as in the above post, his self-image goes like this "I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am." Despite multiple feedback remarks from multiple eds (example thread from July) he's still speaking based on his own claims of expert knowledge instead of RSs.
- 2. POV-PUSHING In the above comment Poodleboy admits he is not trying to be encyclopedic but persuasive. That's the definition of a POV-PUSHER. His words were "I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here." Personally, I am expressing no opinion on the Intelligent Design content dispute per se and the content dispute is not the issue. The issue is that Poodleboy describes himself as our #1 expert in this area and says outright that he is trying to use our platform to persuade others based on his expertise rather than build a neutral RS-based encyclopedia.
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Logic fail, the less encyclopedic but more persuasive phrase, meant I realized that those arguments could not be used in the wikipedia article. I was so objective that most responding here erroneously concluded that I was pushing ID and opposed evolution. How much further from POV pushing could I have gotten? What is this criticism about lack of sources? You don't need sources for admittedly unencyclopedic material that you are NOT trying to put into wikipedia. As to "evolvability", I have plenty of sources, that was just some explanation of what I thought was missing or not well explained in the article, i.e., a more informative and helpful "needs work". And this was on the talk page. Poodleboy (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- As to the example from the Global Warming talk page, leave it to you to pick an example that readers here would have to dig deep into the discussed sources to understand. I was discussing and understanding the sources, so I didn't need sources for that. Eventually, when a sentence used in the review article was found that mistated the earlier evidence in the articles being reviewed, I yielded, since I couldn't dispute that. Unfortunately, errors like that slip through peer review. Just like in the Doran and Zimmerman article where the wrong denominator was used and the "consensus" that I was part of should have been 94.9% instead of 97%. Poodleboy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above WALLOFTEXT illustrates why I earlier supported the TBAN and boils down to Poodleboy just not getting this place and is apparently immune to feedback.
- NewsandEventsGuy, I must protest. Your comment is typical of the ad hominem attacks used to shut down discussion.
- Poodleboy was NOT claiming expert status in order to edit the article, but as a defense against being called a creationist.
- Here's a diff for the accusation of creationist as a response to pleas for an objective tone: "Another is that creationists will never be content with an objective view of ID. . ."
- You utterly misconstrued Poodleboy's comment, "I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here," into "Poodleboy admits he is not trying to be encyclopedic but persuasive."
- Gamall Wednesday Ida understood our intent but not the definition of "objectivity" when s/he said our argument was "a pure matter of convention, taste, and temperament." Yes, pretty much; that's how I understand WP:IMPARTIAL. YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yopienso's comments opposing a TBAN (see prior section) is mainly about the intelligent design content dispute but this filing despite being here at ANI is really a question of arbitration enforcement because it's about the principles laid down by the ARBS in the ID case ruling and also the climate change ruling. Poodleboy in his own words claims ID expertise. For whatever the reason or context, he claims ID expertise. In the ID ruling experts are explicitly denied special consideration. Both rulings forbid original research. Many of his arguments omit the RSs on which they are based. In my opinion, this should have been filed at WP:AE instead of here at ANI. But in any case, its hardly an ad hominem to ask for enforcement to prevent future problems. That is, after all, the whole idea of of our approach to sanctions. I don't really know about community TBANs as distinct from long blocks. Maybe a long block in the name of reform is in order, but I'll trust others who know more about that stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, when Guy opened this discussion, it was regarding talk page discussion about content--specifically, on calling ID pseudoscience--not regarding arbitration enforcement. Your assertion about Poodleboy claiming ID expertise is bogus. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- True, Guy identified the content dispute that serves as the context, but he then complained about problematic behavior. Poodleboy claims expertise as a "supporter of evolution", not "intelligent design", you're right... but it doesn't alter the application of the ARB "principles", most importantly the prohibition against repeatedly speaking on the basis of personal knowledge, aka original research. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) PS By the way, I like having experts around, and I hope Poodleboy can figure out how to speak through RSs, make better use of WP:DR, and learn grace in the face of feedback. We need more experts, but not at the expense of our basic collaborative process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, when Guy opened this discussion, it was regarding talk page discussion about content--specifically, on calling ID pseudoscience--not regarding arbitration enforcement. Your assertion about Poodleboy claiming ID expertise is bogus. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yopienso's comments opposing a TBAN (see prior section) is mainly about the intelligent design content dispute but this filing despite being here at ANI is really a question of arbitration enforcement because it's about the principles laid down by the ARBS in the ID case ruling and also the climate change ruling. Poodleboy in his own words claims ID expertise. For whatever the reason or context, he claims ID expertise. In the ID ruling experts are explicitly denied special consideration. Both rulings forbid original research. Many of his arguments omit the RSs on which they are based. In my opinion, this should have been filed at WP:AE instead of here at ANI. But in any case, its hardly an ad hominem to ask for enforcement to prevent future problems. That is, after all, the whole idea of of our approach to sanctions. I don't really know about community TBANs as distinct from long blocks. Maybe a long block in the name of reform is in order, but I'll trust others who know more about that stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- NewsandEventsGuy, I must protest. Your comment is typical of the ad hominem attacks used to shut down discussion.
It does alter the application of ARB "principles", because such errors, mischaracterizations and mistatements are frequent, so it shows how unfair a numerical edit restriction would be, although a dozen over 3 days seems like plenty as long as people aren't deleting talk page comments. So much was accomplished on the ID talk page despite POV pushing accusations and other edits that did not address the substance.Poodleboy (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus here is solid. Close? Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seems prudent.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems like it is time to close this thread and log the two tbans.--Adam in MO Talk 23:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Bump
Someone want to close this? The consensus seems clear.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This is still open? The discussion has long run its course and achieved consensus. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, yet the topic bans haven't been logged.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- When the reporting statement is false and has been shown to be false by independent statements in the responding comments, the consensus shouldn't matter. The "one man war" was waged by at least three, and many of those voting here were participants that also continued discussing after attempts to close the discussion. The person making the charge stated that "Several people have engaged thoughtfully on Poodleboy's talk page", when Guy/JzG himself attacked me as a POV pusher, yet diagnosed exactly the opposite views that I hold "You have recently returned from what is essentially a ten-year hiatus, and have aggressively pursued two ideologies: climate change denialism, and evolution denialism." I'm an atheist, global warming believing , darwinist. Another "thoughtful" editor posting on my page, posted a warning about a page I hadn't ever edited on. Guy/JzG's combative and edit warring "evidence" had been handled previously by a sizable ban, and the behavior which I admitted, hasn't recurred. Poodleboy (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- After my last comments in this thread Poodleboy has continued to push OR as he has done despite many warnings from many eds since summer. For example,
- in a different topic area he shows studious ignorance of the WP:OR policy by pushing a synthesis or personal research.
- in a climate change thread, to his credit he took issue with an error in article text which did lead to an article improvement. But he still pushed OR talking about it.
- Also, its frustrating to hear Poddleboy today repeat his denial of ever editing at a given location by splitting hairs on the difference between an article and its talk page. Already many have explained that talk page comments are edits, and but he's repeating the same false claim about "never editing there" (paraphrased). The apparent immunity to feedback is what makes me think action is necessary to prevent future problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- After my last comments in this thread Poodleboy has continued to push OR as he has done despite many warnings from many eds since summer. For example,
Michael Shrimpton
Michael Shrimpton (talk · contribs) is Michael Shrimpton, a lawyer and an ardent proponent of what reliable sources describe as "conspiracy theories". He was the subject two previous autobiographies here on Wikipedia, both of which were deleted in 2012 for lack of notability and sourcing. (See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shrimpton.)
After these deletions, Shrimpton became notable by virtue of his moderately publicized criminal convictions for child pornography and a bomb-threat hoax at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and also because some of his conspiracy theories (upon which the bomb threat was based) were covered in the press and in The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories. I therefore created a new Michael Shrimpton article from scratch based on all the apparently reliable sources I could find. (I was not involved in creating, editing, reviewing, or deleting any of the previous incarnations of the article. I never even saw them.)
The problem is that User:Michael Shrimpton is once again turning the article into a poorly sourced autobiography and edit-warring to keep it that way. He is supplementing or replacing well-sourced information with unsourced or poorly sourced material that argues against his criminal convictions, or that paints him in a positive light. In many cases the new information he adds directly contradicts what is stated in the original sources, effectively whitewashing his biography. Compare this version before his edits with the current version. Note in particular:
Extended content
|
---|
For the above changes I provide only the first diff. I and two other users have been reverting his changes, but he has edit-warred to reinsert them. The reinsertions are also unreferenced, or else contain citations to court cases that, as far as I can tell, have not been transcribed and published, and more importantly have not been covered in any newspaper, magazine, book, or other reliable source. |
He is also now using the article to cover in detail his own conspiracy theories relating to climate change, the death of David Kelly, the De Havilland Comet, etc. This is a resumption of behaviour that he was previously blocked for. Back in 2007, several users attempted to educate him about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:3RR, which culminated in several warnings and a block: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27][28] He was completely oblivious to these warnings and to all requests to provide reliable sources. He stubbornly insisted that he was "aware of the Wikiepedia [sic] rules" and that the real problem was other editors "vandalising" his work [29].
I've made several attempts to engage him [30] [31], though he has never replied other than by attacking me and other editors in his edit summaries.
I submit that User:Michael Shrimpton is not here to build an encyclopedia. He's here to right great wrongs by promoting his own conspiracy theories and whitewashing his own biography. I suggest that he be blocked until such time as he demonstrates an understanding of, and willingness to comply with, our policies and guidelines, particularly ones relating to verifiability and reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that Psychonaut, with respect, whose name I do not know, and who is hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, clearly has an agenda. He wants to abuse his Wikipedia privileges by using a LPB as an attack piece. He appears to be obsessed with the notion that I am a "conspiracy theorist", which is a crude smear. When in the space of a couple of lines I explain my published theory on the death of Dr Kelly, instead of attempting to deal with my analysis, he resorts to an attempt at censorship. As drafted the biography accurately reflects my published work on the Kelly assassination. Gordon Thomas has confirmed in his book "Gideon's Spies" that some of my analysis on the Kelly assassination is taught in Mossad's training school.
- The points I have made, so far from being a conspiracy theory, represent sound intelligence analysis, based on detailed discussion with experienced physicians and pathologists, and one of HM's Coroners, to which there is no answer. He cannot have taken coproxamol as the blood ratio was wrong and the stomach contents cannot be reconciled with the number of empty slots in the blister pack placed beside his body. Psychonaut may not like the fact that I have spotted fatal flaws in the suicide theory, but I have. Any balanced biography of me should refer to this intelligence success.
- I do not know whether Psychonaut is anti-semitic or not - I do not even know who he or she is - but it is a possibility which may be worthy of investigation. Because I am a strong supporter of Israel and have worked with their excellent Mossad, to the point where I am now referred to in a standard work about the agency, I frequently experience attack from anti-semitic Internet trolls. Psychonaut admits involvement in the disgraceful incident in 2007, when a determined group of editors successfully suppressed the fact that the Gloster Meteor F Mk 1 was the world's first operational jet fighter (616 Squadron, RAF Manston, July 1944 - the first 262 unit, even then not a regular line unit, did not go operational on the type until October 1944) and used Wikipedia as a vehicle to recycle discredited claims of the German Propaganda Ministry, when it was under Nazi control. This group would not even permit a reference to the published research of John W R Taylor, then Editor of Janes All The World's Aircraft, who exploded this particular Nazi myth in 1965. I am not of course suggesting that Psychonaut is a Nazi sympathiser, however he admits to being partially responsible for Wikipedia being used as the vehicle for the continued publication of a false claim first made by the German Propaganda Ministry, with the approval of the Reichs Minister, Dr Josef Goebbels, in 1944. Wikipedia, with respect, must decide for itself where its priorities lie - in the truth, or in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda.
- The Bucks Herald engaged in tabloid journalism. They did not make any meaningful attempt to talk to me and printed several major factual errors. They could not even get the name of the Secretary of State for Defence right, It was the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, not Philip Dunne. The prosecution case at my trial was that the Secretary of State's Private Secretary, Barry Burton, rang me, not the other way round. That is factually correct, as are the other references to my prosecutions, each of which is under official investigation.
- The change to 'male teenagers' accurately reflects both the prosecution case - the ages given were teenage - and the ongoing factual dispute about the ages of the models used by the police and the prosecution in the now failing effort to discredit me. It transpires that the models in question were probably adults. The police claim that they found the memory stick in my bedroom is one of the matters being inquired into by the CCRC. It is a fact, admitted by the police in open court, that the memory stick they claim to have found, when examined, was not found to contain any fingerprint or partial fingerprint of mine. A fair and balanced summary of the case needs to contain that information, along with the learned judge's characterisation, on the record, in open court, that the charge was "not particularly serious".
- It is also a fact that the serial number of the hard drive used by the police cannot be matched to my Dell laptop computer. I have given the CCRC reference numbers, enabling Wiki-users to verify if need be.
- The climate change reference is brief and accurately reflects my published analysis, and the views of my late friend Sir Patrick Moore, indeed Patrick and I shared a platform on this, some 20 years ago. It is characteristic of those pushing the man-made global warming hypothesis, such as Psychonaut, with respect, that they are unable to engage in rational debate and resort to crude censorship, or smears.
- With respect, Psychonaut needs to stop using Wikipedia as the vehicle for personal vendettas, show more respect for the facts and stop hurling abusive comments such as "conspiracy theorist" at other Wiki editors and users. It he who should be blocked, not me.
- There needs to be urgent editorial intervention on the Me 262 and Meteor pages to ensure that they do not contain Nazi propaganda. They may of course refer to disputed Nazi claims, since it is a fact that the Nazis claimed that their jet fighter, which I am told by pilots who flew it was a pig to fly when asymmetric, was first. John Taylor's published research should also be referred to, however. In order to be fair the entry should make it clear that the "first" claim was a Nazi claim, and is disputed.
- The DH106 Comet page simply recycles official gibberish about metal fatigue, with respect. I shall do my best to try and make it more balanced and factually accurate, but the current entry is almost beyond redemption and smears the reputation of a fine aircraft and a fine company. Again it is a matter for Wikipedia - do you wish to indulge in anti-British smears or do you want to be fair and accurate? Michael Shrimpton (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Shrimpton (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support
indefinite blockban. Shifting stance slightly to take into account Shrimpton's last actions, for which his TPA was revoked: now of the view that threatening members of the community is an attack on the community, and therefore any appeal should be to the community. User is clearly only here to promote himself and his self-view of certain events. And thanks to the user for proving it with the above bombastism: clearly, being unable to rewrite the article to their satisfaction means the community's time must be be absorbed with rehashing the same stuff here instead. If anything convinced me, it was probably the almost immediate recourse to accusations of anti-semitism on the part of the filer. Such instant and absolute WP:ABF demonstrates exactly what we don't want around here. Edits such as this seem to demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND rather clearly. Muffled Pocketed 10:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC) - I Support a block and would even raise this to a ban. This user isn't here to improve the encyclopedia. In the above I see OR, battleground mentality, fringe, NOTHERE, and other concerns; the worst part is I see those in what he posted in reply and didn't even need to go to a link to find them. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support Especially given the legal threat below. Abuses editing privileges to promote his own work, battleground mentality, personal attacks... Block, ban, forget. Kleuske (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support Indef block. These are clear legal threats and are done to create a chilling effect. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note The editor continued the legal threats, even after his block, and compounded them with personal attacks on Psychonaut here. Muffled Pocketed 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support block and ban. No change in behaviour from 2007. Legal threats and baseless accusations of bias against other editors, extensive use of original research. Fences&Windows 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support indef, ban, whatever, per NOTCRAZYISREQUIRED. EEng 19:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- SiteBan - per diff cited by FIM above, which on top of further legal threats, appears to indicate he is going to violate WP:OUTING. Also general not here, violation of both WP:COI and WP:TOU and general pain in the butt. John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Aside, shouldn't TP access be pulled for further legal threats? John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support block per Point #4. Oppose NOTHERE as lazy, as well as a site ban, which is excessive. Doc talk 09:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- support site ban nine years of disruption. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban as a single-purpose account whom isn't here to build an encyclopedia and whose sole purpose is to make sure every Wikipedia article about himself is his own preferred version. This is entirely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia in maintaining a neutral point of view, in that, he is unwilling to put his own conflict of interest aside to the best interests of Wikipedia. On top of that, the legal threats this user has made. Editor is probably de facto banned anyway, but just to seal the deal here, I support a formal community ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ban Quite clearly. Legal threats, COI issues, clearly NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Post Block Support He has been indeffed. Problem solved. It's time to close this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Update
A brief update, for those who are interested:
Though User:Michael Shrimpton was persistently uncooperative when it came to providing sources for his claims, and has been blocked and his user talk page access revoked, I have attempted to address his criticisms of the article. I redoubled my efforts to find reliable sources on the man, with a particular focus on the unreferenced claims he attempted to insert into the article. (This was complicated by the fact that there is a lot of news coverage on another notable Michael Shrimpton, an Australian television producer, who died a few weeks ago.)
I found about 20 further reliable sources, which I used to expanded the article about twofold. Shrimpton's professional life as a barrister is now covered in greater detail. His "conspiracy theories" (not my term, but rather the one used by reliable sources) also have better treatment, but only to the extent that they are covered in these sources. I have generally avoided citing Shrimpton's own book and articles, except to support material already sourced to mainstream media. The balance of coverage in the article is still suitably slanted towards his crimes, since this is what most of the sources I could locate cover. (About two thirds of the 31 sources are related to his crimes, and these sources tend to be full-length articles entirely about Shrimpton. The remaining one-third tend to be articles which are not focused exclusively on Shrimpton, but which do discuss him in several paragraphs.)
Regarding the factual accuracy of the article, Shrimpton turned out to be correct that the Bucks Herald got the name of the Defence Secretary wrong. I corrected this with reference to articles about his case in other newspapers, including The Telegraph and The Scotsman. (I only wish he had simply pointed me to such a source rather than edit-warring to change the cited information!) He also seems to have been correct that the Defence Secretary's office called him, but I think this "correction" is disingenuous: according to the sources, he was called only because he had left a message requesting a callback. So it's still correct for the article to say that he initiated contact.
If anyone knows of further reliable sources supporting Shrimpton's claims above and in old revisions of the article, please help improve the article, or discuss this on its talk page. We may not be able to produce a biography that the subject is entirely happy with, but we should be able to maintain one that meets our own policies and guidelines. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Legal threat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
'I have today asked that this matter be referred to Wikipedia's General Counsel. Reputations in Britain are protected by law - Psychonaut is clearly used to jurisdictions where reputations do not matter and there is a free for all. You are putting Wikipedia at risk of a law suit for defamation' Muffled Pocketed 13:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, isn't WP:NLT block can be used in here? NgYShung huh? 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, I'm not entirely sure that is a WP:NLT violation. It seems to me that the user is giving free legal advice and not threatening a lawsuit themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- If the user had referred the matter to WMF legal and not announced it on-wiki, that would be acceptable. Users are free to report potential libel to the Foundation. However, in my view, the announcement is a threat and intended to intimidate users editing the Shrimpton and related articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also 'I have referred this to the WMF general counsel' is not a 'threat' of legal action. Its either talking to someone at the WMF who they think can help, or it actually *is* legal action in the first sense of notifying the relevant persons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, I'm not entirely sure that is a WP:NLT violation. It seems to me that the user is giving free legal advice and not threatening a lawsuit themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it breaks the spirit if not the letter of NLT, because the only plausible motive is say "litigation" in some for or other in hopes that so doing will curtail the edits of others. Note that NLT policy explicitly approves of "polite discussions" that debate whether a given comment is defamatory. The comment quoted in the OP is a unilateral declaration, not a 2-way "polite discussion". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly Psychonaut's continued use of Wikipedia to mount personal attacks on me, using inaccurate or distorted information, is headed into libel territory and risks dragging Wikipedia through the British courts. Well: nice of him to clarify. Muffled Pocketed 14:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Much obliged Michael, I guess. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- "headed into libel territory and risks dragging Wikipedia through the British courts" is a fairly clear WP:NLT vio. Blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- @SarekOfVulcan: That's fair enough- but where does it leave the discussion above? You see, I think I'm right in saying that the issuing of legal threats was really just symptomatic of the overall WP:NOTHERE issue- the resolution of which was beginning to be addressed above? Still, of course, a GB though ;) Muffled Pocketed 15:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Post-close Comment - Any further block for WP:NOTHERE is moot as the editor has been indeffed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- He can un-NLT himself by disavowing legal action. Other block discussions can continue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please let the discussion in the previous section continue. In case he withdraws the legal threat, I would like the community to rule on whether there exists other grounds for a block (or ban, as others have suggested). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Post-close FYI Comment - Michael Shrimpton has contacted Wikimedia via OTRS - I have forwarded several of those emails to legal counsel (and I believe I am not the only one to do so.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ticket is 2016092010010342, emails have been forwarded and I advised him to contact legal directly. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 00:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
IP user continuously calling me names
I am copying a dispute resolution demand (argument with an IP user, alumni from the institution, only editing its web page):
Copy/pasted quoting
|
---|
The Sciences Po page was a pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses. Now, they are trying to put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc. I tried to prevent it, but now I face strong personal attacks like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", implying that I have to be a Science Po alumni to edit the page, writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning." And the user implies that because he spent time on his advertisement, nobody must touch it. I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable. I tried to discuss in talk page and to tell him (them) not to personnaly attack me, but it’s getting worse. |
Then, on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง advice, I filed a page protection demand, it was done. Then, because the attacks continued, I asked a protection of the talk page, which was refused (for a good reason):
Copy/pasted quoting
|
---|
Semi-protection: Persistent personal attacks and insults by multiple IP users. Perhaps I was not clear on my first demand, I would like the insults to stop in talk page too (and edit summaries). --Launebee (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
My main claim was not sexism but strong personnal attacks 'like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning."' And he continues to call me "a troll", a "disruptive editor" (I talked about disruptive editing, insults and sexism, but never qualified him of anything). You can understand I don’t like being countinuously publicly insulted. --Launebee (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
|
On Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page, we had this discussion:
Copy/pasted quoting
|
---|
":::Coming to this from RFPP, [32] I am uncomfortable with shutting out one side in a content dispute which only seems to involve two people. I will add something to the IP's talk page --NeilN talk to me 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Dear NeilN, you asked me to tell you if it continues, it does. Despite your messabe on his talk page, the user wrote on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page:
"I believe him/her to be a dishonest editor and we have proof she is lying in her edits."
"when someone calls her a disruptive editor and a liar (which are true for what I was responding to). Anyway I'm through with wasting my time on trolls. I regret that your time (and mine) gets wasted dealing with these kind of people."
"It's so obvious this person is a troll"
He keeps saying that I’m lying about the sources even though I gave him once again in talk page the newspaper articles dealing with all the "scandals".
He keeps saying I’m dishonest when I say I did not understand the question "How come you deleted it anyway?", but I really didn’t.
I would like it to stop, for the third time.
I would also remind the IP user that I never qualified him personnally of anything, I just complained about the personal attacks made to me, not the user himself.
--Launebee (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Launebee: I've popped your copy/paste quoting in a box to make it easier to read -- samtar talk or stalk 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Launebee, nothing urgent but for future reference you may use {{ANI-notice}} to notify an editor of an AN/I discussion so that you don't have to create a diff. Hopefully, you won't be needing it, but, it's there for reference. It's also in the big red box at the top of the page. I've gone and separated your notification from Neil's comment, just so that it's plain obvious. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- What people are missing here is that without prejudice to whomever might be right or wrong, I had already Full protected that page to stop the nonsense. When the protection request at RFPP was made and declined, it was already protected. I worked in a university in France for 12 years and I'm staying well out of anything to do with Sciences Po. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Clarification: I declined to protect the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Samtar and Mr rnddude!
My demand concerns here the personal attacks against me, not Sciences Po page. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This time, 78.51.193.8 who claims to be another user (but has only this contribution), is attacking me on Sciences Po talk page in a civil manner, but is still attacking me (with no basis by the way). I could answer but I guess it’s pointless. Another IP would show up and a talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion. But once again, it has to stop. My editing on Sciences Po is content focused. --Launebee (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I don’t know if it’s considered as a personal attack, but User:SalimJah stated "Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative" and "I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits".
As I told them, I improved a lot of things in the articles and added a good ranking of Sciences Po. Still, these alumni are still attacking me for preventing advertisement to be put in the article and because I talked about the huge amount of scandals extensively covered by newspapers. Actually, everyone can verify in the history, in the beginning, I just wanted to have a neutral statement about reputation in the lede, and because there had been a series of reverts about this, I created a section with sources, and little by little wrote the whole section because there was so much to be said. My edits are not "agressive", they just reflect what is in the newspapers.
And ones again, they only complain about a part of my edits, but not when I add a positive ranking of Sciences Po.
They have to stop bashing me.
--Launebee (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have just seen that the IP user wrote inside my comments , and that he wrote twice that I lie (I deleted, and it’s not my job to put into form his insults). --Launebee (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! By the way, according to him, saying twice that I lie is not personal attacks. At least, if you let him continue on insulting me, not in my text and now he’s deleting my signature! --Launebee (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Launebee; I'm not sure what you mean by
if you let him continue on insulting me
, but, I'll take a stab at responding to what I think you mean. This page is patrolled by both admins and non-admins who are considered experienced users. The balance of this is I'd say 80% non-admin to 20% admin. As a non-admin aside from comments and attempts at dialogue there's little we can do, the most damning is probably the revert button. I can't stop the editor permanently any more than you can. As soon as an admin arrives they can take proper action. I'll try keep an eye on the page and help out as much as I can. The letting them continue part, however, is something only an admin can act on. Give them rope till an admin gets here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)- Your most recent edit, the one where you mention
The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature!
- I see that your sig has been removed, but, haven't been able to identify when and by whom (it was removed earlier than that comment) but their comment appears to have been inserted as a response to yours. It comes right after your signature at 14:16, 19 September 2016 (they've quoted all of your points, that may be tripping you up there). The IP could be far more tactful, the presumption that you are lying is uncivil for a start. I'll post a comment to their ip talk page. See if I'll receive a response. This is a content dispute turned dramatic (due incivility). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)- Mr rnddude Sorry for the ill-worded part of sentence then! Actually, he put it after the discussion, but then reinserted it inside my lines. You can see in history, only a boot and him made edits. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, you are right, he quoted all my text. I put back the insults then... --Launebee (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Launebee give me a couple minutes to separate out the comments, I've reverted part of your edit so that I can move around the comments. Avoid an edit-war hopefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Launebee, I've re-instated their comments with an indent, asked them to remove their inferences of lying, and made sure that your sig stays in place where it is. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Mr rnddude! Let’s wait for the admins now :). --Launebee (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, you are right, he quoted all my text. I put back the insults then... --Launebee (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude Sorry for the ill-worded part of sentence then! Actually, he put it after the discussion, but then reinserted it inside my lines. You can see in history, only a boot and him made edits. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your most recent edit, the one where you mention
- Hi there. My original comment can be found here. @Launebee: please be sure that I have nothing against you, nor your willingness to stress the fact that Sciences Po is subject to strong criticisms in the French academic landscape and has faced a number of scandals. However, anybody looking at the revision history of the Sciences Po article will recognize that the unregistered user had added a lot of factual content to the page. This content may have been framed in an overtly laudable way. There are ways to discuss that and improve the write-up. But merely and repeatedly reverting such contributions without any willingness to reach a compromise between your views and those of other editors is counterproductive: (i) it does not help the article get better, (ii) it creates animosity between contributors and drives newbies away, and (iii) it creates unnecessary work on the part of the community trying to solve what eventually becomes a personal dispute. BTW, I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it. As I see it, the article would have been much improved, had some middle ground been reached between both of you. This is a missed opportunity, which was the main message I wanted to convey through my talk page edit. So yes, your style of editing *was* inappropriate to me in this particular case, and I was (naively?) hoping that we could do better, also potentially trying to convince the unregistered user to come back to work on a compromise.
- Unrelated comments:
- - it would help bring clarity to the conversations if you could indent your talk page answers and keep conversations under a specific header focused on the associated topic.
- - how would you know if I'm a Sciences Po alumni? ;) SalimJah (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- "I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it"
- This whole thing of me biased against Sciences Po makes no sense. Once again, I also added in the article other stuff, like the (only) good ranking of SP by Universal.
- The IP user said himself that he’s an alumnus. I did not mention you as an alumni but you are clearly biased in favor of Sciences Po by accusing me of being biased in spite of the facts. You keep saying my editing is "agressive" etc., but every information I put is sourced. You know say the other user is biased, but before, you only intervened against some my edits, that you consider to go against Sciences Po.
- Well, you did write above that "these alumni are still attacking me". Further, I am *not* attacking you, and did *not* intervene against your edits. I totally welcome your contributions and the sources you include for them. This is not the point. The point is the significant amount of content that this unregistered user added and that you repeatedly deleted without trying to reach consensus. This is not a constructive way to proceed. Reading through it, this material could have been improved upon to enhance the article. Through your reverts, you arguably nourished the animosity of this unregistered user against you (which I do *not* mean to justify, BTW). Regarding the "facts", as I see it, they do not clearly speak in favor of any of you being unbiased. But again, that's not the point. Who can safely pretend to be unbiased about any topic? The magic of Wikipedia is that (necessarily) biased people are willing to collaborate in good faith to create unbiased articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view SalimJah (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I repetitively tried to have the IP user to focus on content, but it did not work.
- You only intervene in defavour of content that you think can do harm to SP. You never complained about me adding a positive ranking of SP, or agreed with my propositions to delete sentences like ""its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." It’s your right to like SP, but don’t write as if you would be a middle point between me biased and the IP user. You are biased in your choices of intervention, and it’s your right, and I am not biased in any way in my editing, which is forbidden of course, and which you are writing I am.
- --Launebee (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister (September 21)
Ignoring consensus
SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has recently completely disregarded consensus regarding the Majesco (insurance software company) article. The user redirected the article twice after consensus at the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majesco (insurance software company) (which the user created as the nominator) was for the article to be kept. The user's edit summary when redirecting after the keep result stated (Diff), "Not independently notable and convincing, PLEASE, no restoring unless you have talked to me about it". A user undid this, and then Swister reverted yet again on 24 August 2016 (Diff), stating in an edit summary, "Completely unexplained and also violating my request at talking to me first".
The user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding other user's opinions at the AfD discussion and the consensus that occurred there. The user is also acting inappropriately as an authority, stating that other users must discuss the matter with him first, and that the user who later reverted was "violating my request", despite that the actual consensus was for the article to be retained. This really, really needs to stop. This is a blatant disregard of community consensus in favor of the user's own subjective opinion, and demonstrates a seriously problematic lack of respect for consensus on Wikipedia.
These types of ongoing problems of stating orders to other users, editing at too fast of a pace, as well as other issues such as not following proper procedures and ongoing I didn't hear that types of behaviors, were recently addressed in part at a very recent ANI discussion Here, and at other discussions Here, Here and Here, but the user continues to edit problematically, at an overly fast pace, and in manners that ignore consensus. Normally I would discuss this with the user, but they have stated in the past that they don't want to communicate with me, so I am left with no choice but to take this to ANI to request community input. North America1000 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
- Northamerica1000, -in regards to consensus, not the redirects- has any of this happened since the discussion closed above on the 20th September? if not then I'd oppose any action being taken until we see what they do post previous thread discussion. From the diffs I've seen this is all pre-last discussion. That you came to notice these transgressions post previous discussion is unfortunate, but, WP:AGF and see if the lesson has been learned. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The most recent direct for the Majesco (insurance software company) article occurred on 24 August 2016 (diff), six days before the most recent ANI discussion was initiated. I did not notice this while the discussion was occurring. I do not view this as double jeopardy, though, because this matter was not brought up at all in the recent discussion, and this further demonstrates an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing. North America1000 10:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I fear this is an overeagerness to restart a thread which apparently only consists of one apparent concern, and stating that they had no other choice but to come here is not entirely true, they could have used the talk page. Even if this had not been mentioned at the previous thread, there's nothing to suggest any other such activities since August 24. As it is, I hardly remember that article and I clearly have not touched it since, but I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment and note those sources were still unsatisfactory. I suggest the anyone commenting here look at both of our recent contributions, whereas my PRODs were being considerably removed despite large details and extensive concerns, but they were simply removed without actually listening to the PROD concerns. As it is, I have not only attempted my best to fatten my PRODs with information, but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia, so I have to fear there's some form of overpersonal behavior again. I'll note this all was triggered after Tony Gilippi where I redirected because it largely showed he was best known for BitPay, and I explicitly noted my concerns again along with WP:AGF. SwisterTwister talk 14:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Could you explain 2 things for me? First, you say "I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment", when it was relisted twice and open for 3 weeks. What do you mean? Secondly, you say "but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia". I often have difficulty understanding what you write - I think others have mentioned that, too - but here I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say with that phrase. -- Begoon 15:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I had not commented at the AfD sooner because I hoped others would actually care to comment before that; as for the last comment, the simple meaning is that I have even not cared to come here to Wikipedia as often recently. SwisterTwister talk 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. So not "before you could even comment", then - you chose not to comment. Rather different in meaning, but easier to understand. If your other comment means that you are disillusioned because of criticism, I can understand that too, and sympathise. I think one of the reasons this keeps coming up is that people feel, rightly or wrongly, that it never results in a proper dialogue where you discuss concerns and agree to address any valid ones. Do you think that is a fair assessment, or am I wrong? I think it's often frustration that causes these long discussions, pushing for sanctions, born from a feeling that constructive dialogue has failed. Generally everyone ends up happier when both sides engage openly, and productive compromises are reached. -- Begoon 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:SwisterTwister, I have defended you more than once, but this just keeps going on. First of all, I subscribe to Begoon's comments and line of questioning. Second, I sense an attitudinal problem in your comment that, after the AfD (in which you did not participate) was closed, "those sources were still unsatisfactory". The consensus of the AfD was clearly that the subject was notable and the article should be kept because the sources were satisfactory. So, sorry, but you're wrong and had no business redirecting. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. So not "before you could even comment", then - you chose not to comment. Rather different in meaning, but easier to understand. If your other comment means that you are disillusioned because of criticism, I can understand that too, and sympathise. I think one of the reasons this keeps coming up is that people feel, rightly or wrongly, that it never results in a proper dialogue where you discuss concerns and agree to address any valid ones. Do you think that is a fair assessment, or am I wrong? I think it's often frustration that causes these long discussions, pushing for sanctions, born from a feeling that constructive dialogue has failed. Generally everyone ends up happier when both sides engage openly, and productive compromises are reached. -- Begoon 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I had not commented at the AfD sooner because I hoped others would actually care to comment before that; as for the last comment, the simple meaning is that I have even not cared to come here to Wikipedia as often recently. SwisterTwister talk 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Could you explain 2 things for me? First, you say "I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment", when it was relisted twice and open for 3 weeks. What do you mean? Secondly, you say "but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia". I often have difficulty understanding what you write - I think others have mentioned that, too - but here I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say with that phrase. -- Begoon 15:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I fear this is an overeagerness to restart a thread which apparently only consists of one apparent concern, and stating that they had no other choice but to come here is not entirely true, they could have used the talk page. Even if this had not been mentioned at the previous thread, there's nothing to suggest any other such activities since August 24. As it is, I hardly remember that article and I clearly have not touched it since, but I'll note the AfD was closed before I could even comment and note those sources were still unsatisfactory. I suggest the anyone commenting here look at both of our recent contributions, whereas my PRODs were being considerably removed despite large details and extensive concerns, but they were simply removed without actually listening to the PROD concerns. As it is, I have not only attempted my best to fatten my PRODs with information, but to also attempt my best to even visit Wikipedia, so I have to fear there's some form of overpersonal behavior again. I'll note this all was triggered after Tony Gilippi where I redirected because it largely showed he was best known for BitPay, and I explicitly noted my concerns again along with WP:AGF. SwisterTwister talk 14:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The most recent direct for the Majesco (insurance software company) article occurred on 24 August 2016 (diff), six days before the most recent ANI discussion was initiated. I did not notice this while the discussion was occurring. I do not view this as double jeopardy, though, because this matter was not brought up at all in the recent discussion, and this further demonstrates an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing. North America1000 10:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- As for the articles listed, they were sound considering I explicitly mentioned them, and I well could have nominated them for deletion, but considering this user as it is has followed me too closely after any time I nominate something for deletion (See both contribs logs again), it is not accurate to say Deborah Moore satisfies the actors notability for "significant roles" because IMDb itself actually lists no major or longterm works, there was only a few casual characters. Listing another article of apparent concern to them is here where they apparently note I removed contents (which I removed since they were unsourced, even note the obvious CN tags, and were not contributing to notability, and I then added the only thing that actually helped for notability which was WorldCat). SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is hard to follow some of the back-and-forth here. So I'm going to state what I think I've read. If I'm correct, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed. ST nominated an article for deletion. Per consensus, the result of the AfD was "keep". ST contends that the close was improper. So ST turns the article page into a redirect.
- If I've got that right, this is behavior that severely undermines the assumption of good faith that is essential to our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. It merits some sort of administrative action - admonishment, at the very least. If admonishments have not worked in the past, more robust action is called for. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Indeed, it's the purpose of WP:DRV to determine if a close was improper. If this is about Majesco (insurance software company), then there was over two months between the AfD and ST's redirect, in which case a new AfD would be more appropriate. ST's admonition not to restore without permission, however, is highly inappropriate. That situation is a bit stale, though. Tony Gallippi, on the other hand, is more recent. ST shouldn't have restored their unilateral redirect once it was made known that there was disagreement over it, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. clpo13(talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is completely unacceptable behavior. The AFD discussion even closed as a unanimous "keep". If you don't like a consensus, you start up a new discussion in hopes of finding a new consensus, not bludgeon your way through it, hoping no one notices. (Not to mention, there is no formal requirement for anyone to "consult with him first". You can't just make up your own terms for others to follow, especially when you don't have a consensus in your favor.) Very disappointing, especially since I feel its almost impossible that he doesn't know all of this already, considering how experienced he is. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- (EC) For transparency, I will note that the claims of "I had no other choice than to start an ANI because the user says No to my messaging of them" is not entirely true, I requested the user not message me because their messages were becoming over personal arguments and large criticisms of any of my contributoons (there were noticeable threats of ANi, once simply because they disagreed with merges), as shown by this currently. Thus, because of these past messages, I would awake to "You have 15 notifications from User" and "You have 15 messages from User", something that became tiring as it continued (and, essentially, the messages still in fact continued later). Therefore, any concerns this user had, there was the available option of the talk page. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you've already said most of that. I think what people were hoping to see, rather than you just mainly repeating that, was an actual response to the points made by David in DC, Clpo13, Sergecross73 etc. Points such as
"This is completely unacceptable behavior. The AFD discussion even closed as a unanimous "keep". If you don't like a consensus, you start up a new discussion in hopes of finding a new consensus, not bludgeon your way through it, hoping no one notices.",
"this is behavior that severely undermines the assumption of good faith that is essential to our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia.",
"ST shouldn't have restored their unilateral redirect once it was made known that there was disagreement over it",
"ST's admonition not to restore without permission, however, is highly inappropriate.",
"Not to mention, there is no formal requirement for anyone to "consult with him first". You can't just make up your own terms for others to follow, especially when you don't have a consensus in your favor.".
If you think these comments are wrong, you should explain why - if you think they have some merit, you should explain how you will address that. As I said above, I think most of the frustration comes from a perception that there isn't a productive dialogue, and it might help if we stayed focused on actual complaints. -- Begoon 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you've already said most of that. I think what people were hoping to see, rather than you just mainly repeating that, was an actual response to the points made by David in DC, Clpo13, Sergecross73 etc. Points such as
- As someone who leans way more inclusionist than ST, I don't want to lose an AfD participant who is 1, more deletionist than I, and 2, expresses those views sufficiently civilly as to maintain the discussion (i.e. without resorting to sarcasm, name-calling, etc. that drives participants away). I think civilly-engaged opposing perspectives lead to some of the most rigorous analysis of entries and sources on the site, and I value that a great deal. As DGG put it at a previous ANI, I really do not want to "win arguments by removing an opponent;" I believe that would degrade the encyclopedia.
- Trouble is, things like overruling consensus by fiat also seriously threaten the process of building an encyclopedia: I mean, if we can't trust community consensus at AfD or as established in policy will be followed, why bother to contribute input to it at all? Of course, everyone will make honest mistakes about labyrinthine policy here, but it's important to acknowledge when that's happened so it's clear you're not intending to mislead (e.g. here).
- I see ST has really taken on board previous feedback about elaborating his views more fully at AfD, and I greatly appreciate that responsiveness. I am hoping that will be true here too, and if I may, I'd suggest it'd go a long way, SwisterTwister, if you also verbalized that you hear the concern and plan to adjust accordingly. As I say, it's been easy to notice the change in AfD comments, but for things that happen outside of regularly checked venues like AfD, unless you say you hear this and will do things differently, I think folks will feel continue to feel like checking up is necessary to make sure consensus is being followed...and it's my sense that that feeds the cycle of friction that keeps bringing us back here. Let me know if you think I've misinterpreted, though, or if you have a different idea of how to solve. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Rapid redirects
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has also demonstrated a pattern of rapidly redirecting articles, often (as denoted below) with only one minute occurring in-between their previous edits on other pages (this requires a cross-comparison with their user contributions, which I have performed), which suggests that a review of sources, involving actually reading the sources (addendum: when applicable), and source searching has not been occurring at all (as suggested per WP:BEFORE and in disregard for the potential of WP:NEXISTing sources that may be available), and that the redirects are being performed subjectively based upon opinion, or only based upon sources present in articles, rather than any type of research. Some of these redirects have occurred up to three at a time within one minute, such as some of those redirecting to the Fear Itself (TV series) article.
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Fear Itself (TV series) redirects: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff.
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff
- Diff: Edit summary, "Restore, still not independently, NO RESTORING please". This edit occurred one minute after a previous prod edit for an unrelated article was performed. It is also inappropriate to state "no restoring" as an order to other users in this manner.
- Diff
- Additional concern: Diff: Blanks a bunch of content, only leaving an edit summary of "add". North America1000 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
- With possibly one or two BLP exceptions (Gallippi & CheapyD), most of those articles you have diff'd above are valid targets to be redirected. Being either unsourced with no reliable independant secondary sources or not notable independantly (eg a song released by an artist that only has standard 'this song was released' coverage). I agree once challenged they should have started a discussion on the talk page, and instructions not to revert what is effectively a unilateral deletion are not appropriate. This also seems to be an end-run around nominating articles for AFD where their nominations have been recently heavily criticised. While at the point they were redirected those articles are less than stellar, a few of them would probably survive an AFD with a little work. This appears not to have been brought up in the recent discussion because that concentrated on their behaviour where articles/editing was subject to group dicussion (AFD etc) rather than the things which didnt go there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- A concern is an ongoing assumption of non-notability sans any research qualifying such actions, based upon the redirects being performed very rapidly (often one minute) after the editor has edited in an entirely unrelated area. It comes across that the editor prefers deletion or redirection from the start, regardless of actual potential notability. Per the rapid pace of the redirects, it's highly improbable that any source searching or consideration of the content for potential merging occurred. North America1000 10:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dont entirely disagree, but its a bit much to rap someone on the knuckles for having a not fantastic AFD record, then also take them to task for doing things (which are perfectly valid at first attempt) that dont require an AFD. The only thing really problematic is the 'dont revert' notices which, unless there is a serious issue like BLP, are entirely not appropriate when you are effectively deleting/removing an article from view. Even if it does actually deserve to be redirect etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inre Tony Gallippi: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America1000 11:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would not place money on that surviving an AFD as an independant article. I just dont think it should be unilaterally redirected without a discussion somewhere, either at AFD or on the talk page. It has plenty of sources but most (if not all) are related specifically to his company. It's something that needs to be explored rather than just 'I'm redirecting this'. I agree after the first reversion it should have either gone to the talk page, or an AFD if they felt confident enough. But the actual first redirect? Having looked at the sources I would certainly entertain an argument he is not independantly notable. I cant fault someone for coming to a more definite conclusion and acting accordingly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The first redirect (Diff) occurred one minute after the editor was working on an unrelated article (Diff, Diff). Is it really possible to read all of those 17 sources in a minute or less? North America1000 11:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would not place money on that surviving an AFD as an independant article. I just dont think it should be unilaterally redirected without a discussion somewhere, either at AFD or on the talk page. It has plenty of sources but most (if not all) are related specifically to his company. It's something that needs to be explored rather than just 'I'm redirecting this'. I agree after the first reversion it should have either gone to the talk page, or an AFD if they felt confident enough. But the actual first redirect? Having looked at the sources I would certainly entertain an argument he is not independantly notable. I cant fault someone for coming to a more definite conclusion and acting accordingly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inre IClub48: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America1000 11:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inre Tony Gallippi: First attempt (Diff) and second attempt (Diff). North America1000 11:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dont entirely disagree, but its a bit much to rap someone on the knuckles for having a not fantastic AFD record, then also take them to task for doing things (which are perfectly valid at first attempt) that dont require an AFD. The only thing really problematic is the 'dont revert' notices which, unless there is a serious issue like BLP, are entirely not appropriate when you are effectively deleting/removing an article from view. Even if it does actually deserve to be redirect etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- A concern is an ongoing assumption of non-notability sans any research qualifying such actions, based upon the redirects being performed very rapidly (often one minute) after the editor has edited in an entirely unrelated area. It comes across that the editor prefers deletion or redirection from the start, regardless of actual potential notability. Per the rapid pace of the redirects, it's highly improbable that any source searching or consideration of the content for potential merging occurred. North America1000 10:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'm inclined to agree with OID on this; a lot of them look like valid, good-faith edits; drawing conclusions from the amount of time between a user's edits is not a good idea, especially when tabs allow people using most modern browsers to make a bunch of edits over the course of an hour and "save changes" on all of them at the same time; in this case, we don't even need that assumption, because anyone can look at sourcing problems over any length of time without having the edit window open. Also -- again? The last (very long) thread on this user just closed (because it had died down for about a week, mind you). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your points. As I stated atop, normally I would discuss this directly with the user, but they have stated in the past that they don't want to communicate with me, so I am left with no choice but to take this to ANI. The rapid pace concerned me enough to post here, rather than ignoring it. North America1000 12:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's another example of SwisterTwister's less than stellar deletion activities, in this case, avoiding the creation of XfD discussions which have been heavily criticised. I'm unconvinced their reasoning concerning notability is sound, having looked at some of their AfC work recently, so I'd suggest we simply prohibit them from creating redirects for notability reasons for 6 months and move on. Nick (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1
In light of the recurring threads about SwisterTwister which by and large seem to be focused on his unconstructive approach to judging deletion, I propose that SwisterTwister be banned from turning pages into redirects for 1 month. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I know my support is already acknowledged but I wanted to clarify my reasons for the proposal. Mainly, it pains me that so many quality editors are having to spend time cleaning up after SwisterTwister. So all-in-all when an editor ignores consensus and clogs discussion pages with unreasonable and sometimes even incoherent rationales, I think it is a disservice to a wide variety of editors, including content creators who are discouraged, thread closers for obviousreasons, administrators, who clean up after him, and newbies who end up confused. All-in-all, SwisterTwister also strikes me as slanted too strongly in favor of deletionism almost to the point of being unreasonable. I believe that the benefit of such a ban is three-fold, firstly ST being temporarily more timorous will hopefully him being more reflective and subsequently more constructive; secondly, we will have less quality articles vanishing into thin air and thirdly, there will be less wok for editors that inevitably clean up after him. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have been here for a couple of months. How do you know SwisterTwister so well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 05:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (or question). The example that started this thread is pretty stale. The Tony Gallippi article is more recent; any other examples to show a pattern among recent edits?--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - This user has gone from reviewing issues, to AFD issues, to CSD-tagging issues to now redirecting issues .... I'm beginning to wonder if topic banning them from Reviewing, CSDing, AFDs and Redirecting would be a good idea but maybe I'm being OTT here, My point is there's now been 5 threads on this user this year alone and it doesn't seem like these threads are going to stop anytime soon. –Davey2010Talk 21:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per below - My above comment was OTT and rather bad faith, Anywho a stern warning is the best solution imho. –Davey2010Talk 22:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose on principle. Ironically, it seems to be one rapid-fire anti-Swister thread after another here. If there are genuine ongoing concerns with this user's behaviour, an RFCU would be a better idea. If we keep carrying on like this, with one ban proposal after another, eventually the only people with the patience to keep participating will be a small core of his most fervent opponents. Who will end up getting the ban they want through the "consensus" of being the only three people to put in a vote. Reyk YO! 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Reyk: Just a note that WP:RFC/U no longer exists. It was closed down on 7 December 2014. North America1000 10:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - This thread stems from issues that took place prior to the previous thread that just closed on this page. While I know redirects weren't a major part of that thread, it seems prudent to hold off to see if ST took something away from the previous thread(s), and wait a little while (assuming nothing egregious) before opening another one (with newer diffs). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time premature. There's only been two isolated incidents that occurred in July and August with the most recent examples only dating September 21. There's nothing longstanding to suggest that formalizing via sanction is absolutely necessary at this point. For the time being, what needs to happen is ST receive a formal warning not to continue. If ST does not heed it, then sanctions would become necessary. All things considered, I'd rather a voluntary agreement than a forced measure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Bludgeoning at AFD
I have a concern that User:SwisterTwister has strayed outside what is acceptable during AFD discussions, WP:BLUDGEONing to the point of disruption. I would like community input to decide if this is a valid concern, or not. Specifically, these concerns are with the following active AFDs:
User has been notified on their talk page of this discussion. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, they don't appear to very good nominations or arguments, considering the responses to it, and he doesn't seem to be convincing anyone either, but I don't see much actionable beyond "you might want to rethink your approach" based on these responses.. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I share the WP:BLUDGEON concerns but am not sure what can be done about it. I think this user does make good contributions to AFD, but is at times overzealous and heavy-handed. There is an WP:IDHT attitude in the face of WP:CONSENSUS on quite a few AFDs. I guess what I would say is that I've never seen this user's non-!vote AFD comments sway anyone, and they are long-winded and may dissuade participation by other editors at AFD. So maybe the user could commit to only making nominations and !votes, but not responding to other users !votes? The comments don't seem to be helping (no one seems to change their opinion), and they are long and undoubtedly take a lot of time to make, so it might be a win-win in terms of productivity to stop making them. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Am I the only one who sees what's going on here? First Swister gets bashed for making terse and cryptic comments on AfDs and, now that he is making an effort to explain better, he's getting bashed for that too. WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER would seem to apply. Reyk YO! 07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I personally think ST is doing a much better job here. The previous conversation was all about ST not sufficiently explaining their reasons for deletion. Now that ST is explaining the edits, isn't that a step in the right direction? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- While I can see the WP:BLUDGEON concerns being raised here, I don't think its an issue of great merit to this thread. The only thing the WP:BLUDGEON concerns demonstrate is further indication that SwisterTwister is more often than not, unable to convince the community with his deletion rationales, which isn't what this thread is particularly about. We need to stay on topic with the issues being raised at large and not get distracted with irrelevant matters. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've not been aware of or participated in any previous discussions of this user. I only recently became aware of this user through my participation at AFD. As I said above, I'm not suggesting a sanction. But I am suggesting that this user agree to reflect on their AFD participation. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel. SwisterTwister made this nomination after their PROD was declined. Five users have !voted keep (with reasoning), none have !voted to delete. But after virtually every keep !vote, SwisterTwister has made long, increasingly aggressive comments accusing other editors of not reading his comments or appropriately analyzing the sources. This is annoying, sure, but it's also a failure to WP:AGF. It is assuming the other editors participating are not doing their due diligence. SwisterTwister seems to be of the mind that if other users don't agree with him, there is something wrong with the other users, and that the only reasonable course of action is to agree with him. Obviously, editors acting in good faith disagree all the time. I've never seen SwisterTwister change their mind on an AFD, so I don't understand why he routinely expects others to do so. I would again advise this user to only make nominations and !votes, and to refrain from commenting upon other users' !votes. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inadvisable? Yes. Disruptive? No. There's no rule against being argumentative, and, while I find little redeeming value in SwisterTwister's unrehearsed, paragraph-free word soup ("These Keep vote have not at all even close actually specified where they find the extensive comments unconvincing yet with the concerns all laid."), I don't think the behavior shown in these examples is disruptive enough to merit community intervention. Rebbing 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant topic; nothing to discuss here. Suggest this subsection be closed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Request to close this subthread. As Lemongirl942 points out, SwisterTwister was actually instructed by admin at previous ANIs to take on board feedback from users requesting he take more time to elaborate reasoning at AfD; he's done this so noticeably that I was actually meaning to drop a note to say I saw and appreciated it (and as LG and ST can both tell you, I really don't say that because ST and I share the same view of what should be deleted from the encyclopedia!) If there's a conversation to be had about further refining, a collegial note would be my recommendation; as it stands I don't think it's appropriate or useful to make it a part of ANI. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Reporting for 2 different but related issues
The user Stubb05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing content with multiple reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&action=history I left a comment on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStubb05&type=revision&diff=740531574&oldid=740528860 but he deleted my comment in his talk page (replacing it with a copy of the page/article version he keeps restoring) and removed the multiple sourced content from the page again. (Disclaimer: I have edited on the page before with my IP adresses. 151.35.9.55 151.47.207.137 I created this account since I didn't want to create confussion with my edits.)
- Further development: Another user Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intervened and removed all the contet with multiple sources I had added on the article. Here is the edit of the en-block removal : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&type=revision&diff=740534625&oldid=740532864 He gives as a reason "Non reliable sources" but this is not true since the sources were reliable. He contends that http://www.politicalresearch.org/ is not a reliable source. Sinc I don't know if that is true I asked him if he could provide a link demonstrating that http://www.politicalresearch.org/ is not a reliable source? He is not replying. Even if one particular link (from PoliticalResearch) is not RS that doesn't legitimate removing other sourced content from the page.
- Furthermore, I want to report Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for harassment since today he has followed my edit history and reverted at least 3 of my edits on 3 different articles:
- 1. First, removing an edit of mine after I added a citation demonstrating the fact that libertarians are for free migration and adding the template libertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_migration&type=revision&diff=740500203&oldid=740499574
- 2. The second edit of mine he reverted was on another page (template): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Libertarianism_sidebar&diff=prev&oldid=740501948 Again he reverty my edit giving as a reasonin Non RS (which is not true since I provided him at least one Reliable Source to demonstrate the libertarian position.)
- 3. The third time he reverted an edit of mine is here, where he did the same action another user did before I reverted him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&diff=prev&oldid=740534625 He uses again as a reason NON RS (which might be true only for one link from PoliticalResearchAssociates - I asked him a link for that claim - If the claim results true I'll remove that as a source). All the other sources are reliable, while some others are pripary sources used to demonstrate that the author wrote some articles for some specific journals - nothing more.
- I believe he is following my edit history... --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- What editing history? You barely have one to begin with. It's a single page... --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think that was their thirty-eigth edit. The thirty-ninth might be the unblock appeal. Joke. But seriously, GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN, you have only registered today, yet you are seemingly on a mission to add potentially defamatory (and poorly sourced, at that) material in the face of reasoned advice from a
twoseasoned editors(redact: Stubb05 has even fewer edits than the filer. Something funny there?). Why the urgencg? Suggested reading > Wikipedia's policy on 'edit-warring'. Muffled Pocketed 18:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)- I made an error about reverting the edits I considered vandalism. I should have just posted a warging on the user page. I get it. No further edits from me on that page for 24 hours. Now, can you consider the merit of my complaint... Why is he reverting my edits in 3 different pages? Why id he remove multiple sourced content just because of 1 supposed non RS? Is that normal? :) --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have the links above. 3 Reverts on 3 different pages/articles. He asked for sources I provided them. He removed parapgarphs with reliable sources just because of 1 supposed non RS source. This is not counstructive editing, from a supposed experienced user. That's all I'm saying. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Further reading, whilst I'm thinking >WP:BOOMERANG; for advice on when not to bring cases to AN/I. Muffled Pocketed 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I get it. Made an error on edit warring. What about the other actions? Or 1 error of mine legitimises the errors of others? :)--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Look at it like this: If A makes an error, and B corrects that error, than how could B have made any error? Muffled Pocketed 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if A makes an error on p and B corrects that error, there is nothing wrong with B seeing if A made the same error on q. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Look at it like this: If A makes an error, and B corrects that error, than how could B have made any error? Muffled Pocketed 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I get it. Made an error on edit warring. What about the other actions? Or 1 error of mine legitimises the errors of others? :)--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Further reading, whilst I'm thinking >WP:BOOMERANG; for advice on when not to bring cases to AN/I. Muffled Pocketed 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think that was their thirty-eigth edit. The thirty-ninth might be the unblock appeal. Joke. But seriously, GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN, you have only registered today, yet you are seemingly on a mission to add potentially defamatory (and poorly sourced, at that) material in the face of reasoned advice from a
- What editing history? You barely have one to begin with. It's a single page... --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, I am mrs. Kleuske and I frankly resent people assuming me to be male. I like males, love some, but I'm not one. With that out of the way, here's my side of the story.
- User talk:GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (GL) added a large sidebar to a modest article. The sidebar in question made it appear as if this article is one in a series on libertarianism, which it is not, since other political ideologies also advocate that view. I removed it, and outlined my objections on the talk-page. GL then suggested I add even more sidebars. GL then went on to threaten to report me and stated "I'll do everything in order to add it permanently to that article." claiming I am hostile towards libertarianism and/or GL. I got the impression GL was WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but instead WP:SOAPBOXing for libertarianism.
- GL then went on to add the article to the sidebar template, which I reverted, since the article Libertarian perspectives on immigration suggested the view is not universally held by libertarians. I then requested a third party opinion and stepped out to walk my dog, which is an excellent way of regaining some perspective.
- Roused by the apparant WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I checked up on GL and found him accusing a novice of
vandalismunconstructive behavior, reverted the edit in question (per WP:BLP, since I found the sources questionable) and notified GL. GL subsequently threathened to report me again, and I decided to call his bluf. - In my opinion GL is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, is WP:SOAPBOXING and displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The only reason I am not requesting a WP:BOOMERANG is that GL is a newbie and we should not WP:BITE the noobs. GL should have a good talking to, though. Kleuske (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- [33] This link is pretty telling. Wikipedia sort of is a bureaucracy. I think GL has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well considering WP:NOTBUREAU is key policy, I would be reluctant to criticise someone simply for saying wikipedia is not a bureaucracy even if you could also say we are a bureaucracy in some ways. However since we are also WP:NOTANARCHY and other things (like those already linked) someone who refuses to read any guidance is problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- [33] This link is pretty telling. Wikipedia sort of is a bureaucracy. I think GL has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is going nowhere, I suggest someone close this. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The World Tomorrow Sock
Looks like The World Tomorrow Sock has a new IP address.[34] does anyone remember what sockmaster we are logging these under? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Garnerted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Not seeing anything in the SPI archives though. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Barek, do you know what account is the sockmaster? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, there has been no SPI investigation; blocks in the past have been a mix of duck test sock blocks, and blocks for WP:NPA and WP:HAR violations. The name provided above is the oldest named account of which I'm aware.
- The three named accounts have all self-identified as the same person when signing posts[35][36][37], as well as at least one of them self-identifying as "one of the program producer's"[38]. Although Garnerted has also self-identified as a different person as well[39], so unclear if they were using a shared account or if they were signing with multiple other peoples contact info.
- As to the IPs, of those who have provided some form of claimed identity: some have self-identified as being the producers, some as representing the producers, and some as members of the church. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted. This report can be closed now. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Barek, do you know what account is the sockmaster? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Problem edits from University of Idaho
A series of IPs and block evasion accounts, many of which emanate from the university, have been vandalizing local articles for at least the past week, and have harassed accounts that have reverted their vandalism. My observation is that it started with NWAyeah (talk · contribs), who created three school district articles that I nominated for deletion as promotional and blatant copyright violations, but there were instances of vandalism as well [40]; [41]. Since deletion of the district articles, the IPs have cropped up, disrupting Idaho, Skyline High School (Idaho), Bonneville High School (Idaho Falls, Idaho), Idaho Falls, Idaho, as well as articles further afield, like Harbor City International School, Bel Air, Los Angeles, and some where they're merely trailing my edits or those of others who've reverted them, as at McDonaldization. And there's the vandalizing of user pages [42]; [43]; [44]. It may be that additional and longer page protection measures will be necessary, or that an SPI will be opened. Since many of the disruptions are from 129 accounts at the university, I'm wondering if it's advisable to contact the school. Thanks for any help that can be provided. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- So possible vandalism from the Vandals? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ironic as hell. I've been in this too but other than calling good faith edits vandalism (Go Broncos), they've left me alone. Lots of IPs involved and not just school IPs. Other than protection (Skyline and Bonneville already are) and RBI, I don't see much to be done, short of range blocking the whole school, and I doubt that would stop the problem.. If things ever slow down a bit IRL, I'll do the deleted articles over correctly. John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm ready for a school block; either that or contact the school. We seem able to pinpoint the room. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ironic as hell. I've been in this too but other than calling good faith edits vandalism (Go Broncos), they've left me alone. Lots of IPs involved and not just school IPs. Other than protection (Skyline and Bonneville already are) and RBI, I don't see much to be done, short of range blocking the whole school, and I doubt that would stop the problem.. If things ever slow down a bit IRL, I'll do the deleted articles over correctly. John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit filter?
I've noticed that a telephone number keeps being added to pages such as AOL, ESET, Avast Software, Webroot, maybe other pages too. See for eg [45] [46] [47] [48]. It's the same number across all pages; I'm not going to call it to find out what it is, but I'm fairly sure it isn't what it claims to be. Is this a potential case for an edit filter to prevent it being added? Keri (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I called it, Keri...seems to be an internet support scam. I was able to locate another article vandalized with that number, AVG Technologies. I reverted the vandalism there. -- Dane2007 talk 23:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- (You're braver than me then :D ) Good candidate for a filter, in that case. Keri (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I blocked the editor, but absolutely a filter should be added. A bit more than I chew, so someone please step up and create a filter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Might also be work hitting a block at 69.35.241.80 (talk · contribs) as well. Same edit except at AVG article linked above. -- Dane2007 talk 23:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- See Special:AbuseFilter/793. MER-C 00:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- A quick google showed that the number is actually for the ESET anti virus company based in Slovakia. Looks like someone trying to get some cheap SEO going. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I called the number, I assure you it's a scam and not a legit number for ESET anymore at least. They told me they can help me with any product on a personal computer and the charge is in relation to the product I need help with. I asked for a list of products and they said name something and we'll give you a price. -- Dane2007 talk 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Have to agree; Google results for that number won't be trustworthy if it's being spammed. The results that Google returns for me shows an article about ESET at gudanglagu.xyz, but the number doesn't appear anywhere in the page. It's also linked to other website articles about Norton Antivirus, Malwarebytes, Softcare 247, QuickHeal... The scammers have been busy. Keri (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Might also be work hitting a block at 69.35.241.80 (talk · contribs) as well. Same edit except at AVG article linked above. -- Dane2007 talk 23:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I blocked the editor, but absolutely a filter should be added. A bit more than I chew, so someone please step up and create a filter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That filter should have the 1- removed as some publish numbers without this, and add this number to it. My searching shows the number is not safe. I'm about to take off and I might not have access to the internet for the weekend. Not sure who to ping here to make sure this gets done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the leading 1- and added this particular phone number. This filter needs to be made a regular expression -- we've just had a torrid hour or two fighting Indian astrology spammers. MER-C 13:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @MER-C: They're using this format now [49] [50] Keri (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Keri: Thanks for posting that! I was at work but did not have a chance to follow up after reverting! -- Dane2007 talk 21:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- My my, they have been busy. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I semi-protected the three hardest hit articles, Avast Software, ESET and AVG Technologies, for three months each. MER-C 05:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @MER-C: They're using this format now [49] [50] Keri (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore
Wrigleygum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Wrigleygum is POV pushing at Singapore and using WP:BRD to do a Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Last year they added a bunch of puffery to the article and managed to let it stay up for while. Now they don't want anyone to remove it and despite having being told by multiple users particularly User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Mailer diablo, User:Nick-D they refuse to listen and will revert any edit. The lead now contains way too much information, most of which is WP:UNDUE for the lead. There were steps taken to resolve this problem:
- Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section which was closed as
There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone.
(Permalink) - Extensive discussions on the article talk page, but somehow Wrigleygum keeps asking for more consensus.
- Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section which was closed as
Here are some of the problematic diffs (all of which were reverts of my edits):
- [51], Using BRD for status quo stonewalling and also falsely claiming that "Sources in body, see Talk"
- [52] Another revert, questioning the RFC close itself.
- [53] Removing a "lead rewrite" tag I had added (based on the RFC close), with the edit summary "Undue tag after RFC (2-mth), specific issues in Talk"
Wrigleygum keeps asking for more consensus Diff and also accused me of forum shopping. They claim sources are in the article, but cannot show them. I seriously don't know what to do now so I am asking the community to take a look and decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is pretty terrible conduct by Wrigleygum. Their conduct in the RfC on the lead was unhelpful, and they're now edit warring to try to defy its result and preserve the puffed up lead which there was a general agreement to redevelop in a more concise and neutral way. I note that they were blocked for 24 hours in early August for edit warring to try to insert and keep similar puffed up material in the lead of the article on Singapore's prime minister (example diff of this conduct), so there seems to be an agenda here. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Nick-D, I'm disappointed at your comments. Almost all posted RFC concerns are addressed in [Singapore Lead: Specific Issues] yet I do not see you commenting/disputing any of it. Lead length has been compared and as for neutrality - perhaps you do not mind mentioning your city/country so we find negatives to insert too?
- [Lee Hsien Loong lead expansion] is a good example of properly-sourced efforts being held back against WP:AGF. The content covers the most significant policies under Lee's government. Any editor would have been frustrated because all content are incremental and should have been left there while we resolve differences in talk. After vacation through national day holidays, I lost interest because of Lemongirl's slow pace of checking. It's not difficult to be specific and to propose any rephrasing in Talk. Almost every other country leader has significant leads, so what agenda are you alluding to?
- I'm just back from an outing, so will address Lemongirl's issues tomorrow.Wrigleygum (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- "
perhaps you do not mind mentioning your city/country so we find negatives to insert too?
" Excellent! You just confirmed what User:Nick-D said about agenda editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- "
Antisemitism by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74
This IP editor has been posting grossly antisemitic comments on talk pages (diff), and has just restored an antisemitic comment for which 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (whom I strongly suspect to be the same individual, due to same editing pattern) has been blocked (see diff and ANI archive). I think this is enough reason for an immediate block. In addition, the editor has a months-long history of similar comments (e.g. last July: diff) and persistent disruptive editing in general. Maybe even a long-term or indefinite block or ban is appropriate; I don't know the regulations well enough to judge that. --Novarupta (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this appears to be the same user as 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet IP's who are cross-article edit-warring
Could any admin deal with these edit-warring sock IP's, all operated by the same user (who's evading his block) and are being very nuisansical to put it polite?
- IP 88.251.238.191
- IP 95.13.200.156
- IP 95.13.211.213
- IP 95.13.206.22
- IP 85.98.187.16
Just take a look at this menace here, which is still ongoing as we speak; [54]. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the page for 3 days. Hard to deal with IP hoppers though. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank Doug, yeah, I know it is, unfortunately. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu
This user has been blocked about a dozen of times, including three times this year (once by myself), mainly for personal attacks. What they are doing on Wikipedia is not particularly useless but not very useful either: they find unsourced statements, mark them as unsourced, and after a while, without making any effort, remove them, often with a rude remarks [55]. Today, they got a complaint on a talk page from a user in good standing [56]. They responded like this. I noticed their response and asked them whether they realize that the comment is rude. I was told more or less to mind my own business. May be time has come for this user to have a longer Wikipedia break, a year or may be even longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential libel going on at Talk:Geely: [57]. clpo13(talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely a serious BLP problem, so I have reverted and hidden it. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regrettably, after reviewing this user's behavior in the time they have been on Wikipedia, I agree and support a one year ban. The user has had two three-month long blocks, and each time they have returned only to behave in the same manner. There is evidence of racial bias [58] [59], disparagement of positions the user disagrees with [60], name-calling [61] [62] [63], disparaging living subjects of articles [64], and at least one accusation that other editors are the President of Kazakhstan [65]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that this user will cease their behavior even after that time. As it stands now though, such a large portion of this user's edits are objectionable that I do not think we have another choice. agtx 23:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support one year ban per above and after looking at the notes in their block log. Le Grand Bleu does not display the temperament customary to participating in a collaborative project. These aren't just small lapses in civility where can be like "could you please be more civil? Thank you". Le Grand Bleu has demonstrated a complete inability to interact with others in a collaborative manner without responding with just downright mean and abrasive comments and bashing those he disagrees with. That is entirely contravention to working with others and building an encyclopedia. I am absolutely convinced that nothing short of a one year site ban will convince this user to engage in the community in a proactive and not combative manner. If not, then the user can always be blocked again if they come back with the same behavior. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support indef block: With those comments above, Should we indef block the user because he's totally incompentent with this user. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support one year block - Moriori has already applied this block, but I'm going to add my two cents nonetheless. After reviewing this user's recent contributions to Talk:Greely and other articles in relation to Greely, and looking through this user's past blocks and history, I agree that the community has exhausted all other options, and that a one year block is the logical next step regarding a sanction to impose in order to stop the problematic behavior and the disruption that has been made. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support Indef block - This user has demonstrated no respect for the project, the administrators and the content. I'd go as far to say as the user is WP:NOTHERE. -- Dane2007 talk 03:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support 1 year block a one year block is the logical step, as Oshwah has said. I don't think an indef is necessary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support indef ban 96.237.18.247 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Community ban for User:Le Grand Bleu
It seems everyone has a different take on this situtation; but most can agree that he needs a community site ban for at least a full year. I'm not even going to go into detail about this; his block log, contributions, and the rest of this section prove anything I ever could. I do have one thing I noticed that most people don't, though: he uses being a "new user" (Yeah, that tag has been up since June 2014 and hasn't learned anything) as an excuse for all of the aforementioned BS. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was actually the reason I wrote this. Although I can understand if you misunderstand; I think a site ban is deserved because he has kept up with this shit for around 26 months. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, massive kudos to User:Clpo13 for fixing up the Geely article a bit by adding sources, reverting him, and tagging it. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- e/c Wow! I freely admit I know nothing about the user or their edits, but it seems to me that blocking someone for a year within 3 hours of the OP and the user has not even replied (been able to reply) to the accusations is, well, premature. DrChrissy (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I blocked him not because of the OP, but because a subsequent comment from another editor alerted me to something else. When notifying User:Le Grand Bleu that I had blocked him, I said it was for his "BLP transgression at Geely today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history." He can appeal the block if he wants to. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- e/c Wow! I freely admit I know nothing about the user or their edits, but it seems to me that blocking someone for a year within 3 hours of the OP and the user has not even replied (been able to reply) to the accusations is, well, premature. DrChrissy (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rekt! 96.237.22.40 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 and their personal cat war
A short lived attempt to remove Category talk:Violence against men from Domestic violence, which has a section dedicated to the topic (not to mention a category that specifies domestic violence), led to a lengthy unproductive conversation where I advised them that if they didn't like the definition of the cat, to take it up there. They apparently interpreted this as a call to edit war a different definition ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) wherein one of their summaries, whatever it said, had to be redacted. This led to an equally unproductive discussion on WP:NPOVN, where their header needed to be redacted. This led eventually to an equally unproductive conversation on the category talk, which resulted in what looks to be an equally unproductive RfC on the issue started by them. Meanwhile, the user is continuing to war their preferences in (e.g., [74], [75], [76], [77]) where they see fit. The user is impervious to discussion, to the point where I've literally copy pasted my own response from earlier in the same conversation and I don't think they noticed. TimothyJosephWood 00:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This seems like a reasonable time for WP:DR. Both major players in the dispute have shown themselves willing to discuss, and at its heart this is a content dispute. It's a very tricky question, and I feel like I can understand where both are coming from.
- The category description appears to include domestic violence, but at the same time says that nothing should be included except when gender is relevant to the targeting of the victim. Based on what jps says, the sources about domestic violence against men do not say that men are targeted because of their gender (this in contrast to some of the literature about domestic violence against women). So while the language including domestic violence makes sense for Category:Violence against women, it makes a bit less sense with the same language mirrored in the men's category. As the categories stand now, they would be more accurately named "violence against women/men in which the victim was targeted for being a woman/man". Jps thus seems to have a decent argument for removing e.g. domestic violence from the category despite having a section about men (although the language his argument relies on is in some part discordant with the stated inclusion of domestic violence), while TJW has an appeal to common sense on his side, along with the stated inclusion of domestic violence (although, again, such inclusion conflicts with the other language of the category description).
- The more I read of this, the more I think all that qualifying language should be kicked out altogether, and make it a more straightforward "violence against men", which would include concepts which are understood via reliable sources to be "violence against men" rather than violence against people who happen to be men (i.e. it doesn't have to be because of their gender -- a noted connection is enough).
- Regardless, I'm going off on the details of the content dispute and that doesn't need to happen here. I don't see any 3RRs breached, but I think jps's argument would be better served by DR or another form of discussion rather than continuing to remove the category, when it's
clear TJW is going to undo all of themactively being disputed, and with neither party objectively correct. BRD prevails, I suppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)- This is not about a content dispute; this is about a war that one user is waging against all sides. If you don't see an edit war in eight reverts, you need to look more closely. TimothyJosephWood 01:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, the filing party has a vendetta specifically against me since he did not mention the third user involved in this bullshit who I have pointed out before wikistalks me. jps (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Rhododendrites. Jps is known to have issues with civility and edit-warring, but DR could solve this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Had no interaction with them before the issue with the DV article, stayed mostly out of the NPOVN thread until I saw it on my feed, and the first cat discussion until I was pinged. I was alerted again by another user on my talk, and intended to report to ANEW until I looked through edits, and saw that they they were pretty much warring across articles. I patently don't care enough to go to DR. If ANI doesn't want it I'll put together an ANEW report and be done with it. TimothyJosephWood 01:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
While I don't have the patience to file the WP:DR request myself, if someone else were to file it, I would happily participate. jps (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Bizarre Personal Attack by User:Buff 4u2000
User:Buff 4u2000 made a bizarre personal attack on me and on User:Sitush, saying that we are on commission to take control of certain pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buff_4u2000&diff=prev&oldid=740777370
The history is that Buff_4u2000 made some edits to Akhilesh Yadav, Sitush reverted, the edits were made again, Sitush reverted. So far, so good; that was two parts of WP:BRD. There was discussion on Sitush’s talk page. Buff_4u2000 went to the dispute resolution noticeboard, in itself a good idea for a content dispute. I closed the DRN thread because it was improperly filed, and because there had been no effort to discuss at Talk:Akhilesh Yadav. I cautioned Buff_4u2000 that their comments about Sitush were uncivil, and got this bizarre reply. Normally I would simply provide a Level 3 warning (having already given a non-templated warning), but this editor seems to need to hear it from an admin.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sitush made three reverts in a row, then templated the other editor for edit warring. You don't think that might have annoyed Buff a little bit? Then when you chastise Buff for pointing that out, he goes ballistic. He shouldn't have gone ballistic, but what's the point in chastising him? I don't understand what you thought that would accomplish. Don't poke people, and they probably won't react. How about this: Buff apologizes to you and Sitush, you leave Buff alone, and Sitush stops edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is satisfactory to me. I am willing to leave him alone if he will withdraw his bizarre allegation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Akhilesh Yadav has held the position of Chief Minister for 4 years. This is a government position. Yet, the wiki page has nothing about his work as Chief Minister. I just wanted to add a single line, and i also agreed and changed the wording to State Government, but even then Sitush deleted it. This shows that he has a personal agenda. I want to take this issue to the wiki top management. People cannot take control of pages, this is not their personal website. What's the use of a wiki page if it contains outdated information? Buff 4u2000 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, you tried to add his position plus other content. Sitush and another editor felt the article was better before you edited it. Why is your position privileged? People cannot take control of pages, but neither can people force content in over the objections of others. When that happens, you follow dispute resolution, like everyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Akhilesh Yadav has held the position of Chief Minister for 4 years. This is a government position. Yet, the wiki page has nothing about his work as Chief Minister. I just wanted to add a single line, and i also agreed and changed the wording to State Government, but even then Sitush deleted it. This shows that he has a personal agenda. I want to take this issue to the wiki top management. People cannot take control of pages, this is not their personal website. What's the use of a wiki page if it contains outdated information? Buff 4u2000 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is satisfactory to me. I am willing to leave him alone if he will withdraw his bizarre allegation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Spammer leaving phone numbers behind
Example. These accounts keep popping up and leaving talk pages full of phone numbers. Can we delete these talk pages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This appears to be a new form of the hookers and astrologers spam that we get, I think there was an edit filter to weed out these India phone numbers, was discussed here or at AN not more than a few weeks ago. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, SpacemanSpiff. And what about these talk pages? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that they've sprouted several new phone numbers in the last day. I've been adding them to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as they appear. MER-C 03:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi MER-C. But about the talk pages? They are full of phone numbers. Is it okay to delete them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. These guys are spammers, and we're not the only ones being spammed. MER-C 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. So, I'll be deleting such usertalk pages as non-controversial housekeeping unless told otherwise. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. These guys are spammers, and we're not the only ones being spammed. MER-C 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi MER-C. But about the talk pages? They are full of phone numbers. Is it okay to delete them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that they've sprouted several new phone numbers in the last day. I've been adding them to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as they appear. MER-C 03:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff, Anna Frodesiak, and MER-C: Regarding the phone number filter: edit filter 425 is designed to catch this sort of spam; it was set to log-only recently as it had very little to catch, but I've set it back to blocking actions now. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User seemingly ignoring repeated requests to use references, edit summaries
User Billy Liakopoulos makes (usually) constructive edits on Wikipedia across a range of articles, however, almost never uses references in their edits. While the information is generally valid, correct and proper, making the additions with a lack of citations is concerning. It has been brought up numerous times on his talk page but seemingly to no effect. It includes creating articles without sources such as 2015–16 WNBL season or The Home Team (Australian TV series) or The Home Team (Australian TV series), and in the case of the latter two, the articles are barely notable (especially because they have no reliable sources to establish notability). It is a common theme if you review articles created by this user. Additionally, the user almost never uses edit summaries making it difficult to establish what their edit involves via page history.
Billy Liakopoulos (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
As I say, I don't bring this to the attention of this noticeboard because the user is disruptive or vandalises. Put simply, the user fails to notice (or ignores, but I'll assume good faith) repeated requests on his talk page from multiple users, and presumably notices constant reverts of his edits but doesn't learn why they've been reverted. I'm not sure exactly what action (if any) is appropriate at this time, but I'm hoping an admin might be able to send the message to the user that referencing is critical, article creation is only for topics which can establish notability, and that edit summaries are basic practice. Thanks, -- Whats new?(talk) 06:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see giving this editor advice as a waste of time. He's been here since 2011. He has over 21,000 edits. He doesn't listen to anyone, and he never talks. So, either we accept him as he is or we sanction him, and sanctioning him would require some recent evidence of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dropped a link to WP:COMMUNICATE, an essay I started some time ago that explains why you must communicate sometimes. We have several editors who refuse to communicate here, and while it isn't usually a problem, sometimes communication isn't optional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Appreciate that, although the user likely won't read it and will ignore it. Constantly flagging unreferenced articles and reverting unsourced claims is rather tiresome, just wish the user would follow guidelines and actually use referencing!! -- Whats new?(talk) 03:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dropped a link to WP:COMMUNICATE, an essay I started some time ago that explains why you must communicate sometimes. We have several editors who refuse to communicate here, and while it isn't usually a problem, sometimes communication isn't optional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked. As some of the edits were adding unsourced information about living people, he is persistently violating WP:BLP (though doing so in good faith). I haven't used the standard template, which I feel is totally inappropriate, but added a personal message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that User talk:Billy Liakopoulos be blanked except for the last section. I'll manually archive it if wanted. Someone not used to talk pages could easily think that page has only inconsequential commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Long-term abuse - Mart253
I apologize if I'm going about this in the wrong way, but since Favonian's talkpage is protected, I cannot post there so I have to get there attention using the "ping" template. Anyway, it seems to me that Vector198765 (talk · contribs) is one of many sockpuppet accounts of which the master account is Mart253 (talk · contribs). Here are the sockpuppets that I believe are related to Mart253 (talk · contribs) based on their editing patterns.
Currently blocked:
- Bonnermann123 (talk · contribs) - Blocked by Favonian for sock puppetry of Vector198765 (talk · contribs) but may actually be Mart253 (talk · contribs).
- Vector198765 (talk · contribs) - Recently blocked for 1 week by Favonian for abusing multiple accounts (should be changed to indefinite based on the fact that it could be Mart253 (talk · contribs).
- Upinhere (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a VOA by Oshwah.
- Mart2258 (talk · contribs) - Blocked (This one makes it obvious since this account has the "Mart-" prefix within the username).
Not currently blocked: (Possible sleeper accounts):
With this in mind, could someone possibly notify Favonian of this ANI thread since their talkpage is protected, and maybe a possible SPI could be posted as well. Thank you. 73.96.114.182 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have notified Favonian. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Mart2258 is globally locked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- 2nd note, the IP may very well be right on everything but the last three, who I don't have time to check. One has no edits. All things considered, a CU should look into this, if they haven't already. Might need to file at SPI for that, although since it is already here, maybe Bbb23 or a friend will notice it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. CU is definitely needed to get to the bottom of this. They'll probably insist on some proper diffs to substantiate the claims. Favonian (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- What the three users all have in common is edits to Slovakia that ranged from odd-but-harmless to outright vandalism. I suppose the question is whether or not they're similar enough to justify CheckUser.
- User:Jaruno: [78] and [79]
- Jaruno’s edits were awfully strange but I’m not sure they’re relevant to today’s issues. Matetrojk is a likely sock; they could have been indefinitely blocked based on that edit and the crap they added to Marie Byrd Land. As for Len0bium, I have no idea what the OP saw there. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @RunnyAmiga: All of Jaruno's edits are to add the name Czechia to various articles. Czechia is a name that is being promoted to replace the Czech Republic as the official name for the country. Blackmane (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm totally confused. I can see the fact that the three unblocked accounts have Slovakia in common. I can see that that Bonnermann123 and Vector198765 also have Slovakia in common. However, Mart253 and Mart2258 don't, at least not that I can easily see. So what on earth does any of this have to do with the accounts people suspect might be Mart253?
- That said, the following accounts are Confirmed to each other:
- Bonnermann123
- Vector198765
- The following accounts are Unrelated to each other and to the two confirmed accounts:
- Jaruno
- Matetrojk
- Len0bium
- Mart2258
- Those are the only accounts I checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Need some objective eyes on threatening post
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not objective enough about this post to be able to tell whether it is actionable. This person is threatening to report me to the US State Dept, so it seems like it might edge into WP:NLT territory. He or she is already blocked indefinitely so the only thing left to do is remove talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like a legal threat and I have removed talk page access. -- GB fan 02:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Misuse of administrator rights
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reporting user:Favonian for misuse of administrator privileges by not vetting block requests by account editors prior to enacting blocks. For example actioning requests by user:Sro23 who is clearly treating wikipedia as their own personal battleground against IP editors 49.196.161.81 (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- And whose sock might you be? hmm? Blackmane (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Range?)block(s) needed. EEng 09:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yup. The old one just expired, so I've renewed it. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- In light of the OP's complaint, did you vet my block request prior to enacting the block? EEng 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- clearly not 120.145.169.159 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ever so carefully! Even had opportunity to reevaluate my two previous blocks of the same range as well as the countless other blocks of this particular pest. Favonian (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- In light of the OP's complaint, did you vet my block request prior to enacting the block? EEng 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yup. The old one just expired, so I've renewed it. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Range?)block(s) needed. EEng 09:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Persistent copyright violations from 182.182.0.0/17, rangeblock advice
Affected articles:
- Sangdil (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Noor Jahan (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wafa (Geo Tv) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Maikay Ki Yaad Na Aaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mannchali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shaam Dhaley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Noor-e-Zindagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meri Saheli Meri Bhabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Joru Ka Ghulam (Geo TV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Thoda Sa Aasman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Marzi (Geo Tv) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mannchali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some of these articles are on their third or fourth copyvio restoration. I applied a month's semi-protection to most of these not too long ago, but the copyvios have resumed. Blocking the individual IPs is pointless. I'm considering a rangeblock, but would like a second opinion first. MER-C 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The range contribs tool is down, but I'd support a rangeblock of the /17 if enough disruption exists in that range. Katietalk 16:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- [82] works in the meantime. I just dealt with another sock (User:Anaskhan000, of User:ANASKHAN777) who is almost certainly editing on this range and is probably the one causing these copyright problems in the first place. MER-C 08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Cassianto Violating Civility Policy
Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cassianto has been warned about following the civility policy several times at his talk page. He has resisted these warnings and proceeded to leave this edit summary when I once again warned him for his comment on my talk page. As he has been warned several times, I'm requesting that he be blocked for continuing to disregard WP:Civil. -- Dane2007 talk 15:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Notification left of this discussion on his talk page. His response was another rude comment -- Dane2007 talk 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dane2007: Can you please avoid interacting with Cassianto for the next month? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- ... Are you serious? - Dane, impose an page ban on Cass to stay off your userpage, that's about the best you can hope for in this climate. Or so I am yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I imposed said ban after his comments today on my talk page and I interact with Cassianto as little as possible. He chose to violate the civility policy after I reverted a mistake on a page we both were watching. I did not provoke him, I simply reverted and pointed out the content was sourced already. This is a clear continued violation and he should not be immune to the policies here. -- Dane2007 talk 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you interact 'as little as possible' with him, why did you go to his page? Sure it wasn't deliberately provocative; but it could not have resulted in a totally unexpected response. Muffled Pocketed 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, Mr 2007, you reverted a contentious image which had bugger all to do with a "citation". The image was being used as a citation which is a clearly not right. But you've allowed your obsession to piss me off to queer your rational thought in terms of what is wrong. I won't respond further here as I have two reviews at FAC and I'm a nominator of one at the same venue. But you carry on here, Mr 2007, I don't really see you doing anything constructive anywhere anyway. CassiantoTalk 18:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- My response above was not triggered by Cass' words or actions, they were entirely expected and predictable. Rather, I am peeved when instead of taking the honest course of action, others instead pretend that action is unwarranted or worse still propose a retaliatory action. I accept that action in this case is worthless, I do not accept that action is unwarranted - Cass rarely shows civility towards editor's he doesn't like, but, I vehemently oppose any hint of retaliatory action against the OP because they would not sit silent when attacked. That is the only reason I posted above.
I'm guessing we're not far from a boomerang for stalking
<- this says it all.Smear campaigns are the easiest way out aren't they Schro?(Struck due overblown and factually incorrect rhetoric) I'll remind you - though you don't care - that serious allegations need serious evidence and that, as of right now, you're casting unfounded aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- Even if the aspersions being cast are accurate, I'm not seeing where on the WP:CIVIL page there's an exception regarding behavior like this. You're allowed to blatantly violate policy if the other editor is stalking or baiting you? There are instances when the civility rules don't apply, especially in this case when there was no reason for anybody to break them in the first place? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- There isn't, the methodology being employed here is to make one editor (Dane2007) appear more blame worthy than the other (Cass) and thus impose action against Dane while having any transgressions by Cass be overlooked as less problematic. Which concerns you more, a stalker? or a foul-mouth? - presumably the former. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you spout errant nonsense. When a matter is brought to ANI, it's not just an excuse to pile onto an individual just because the filing party wants it that way: all factors, including the steps taken by the opening party and their role in inflaming the situation are taken into account. That's all I've done here, and I'm sorry if it gets in the way of your tar and feather party. - Gavin (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You know, Schro, I wish I could believe that in the slightest. But. I can't. Sorry, but, I cannot believe that you had any intention of doing anything except turn the blame onto another editor. Yes, I am aware, all things should be taken into account. Cass was uncivil, Dane needlessly entered an edit-war. And yet, you call for a boomerang on stalking. At the very least, both editors should be treated evenly. Not one person here, even myself, has even made the slightest attempt at this. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thankfully I really don't care what you believe. I don't jump on bandwagons, as you seem to do, although well done for admitting that you have not even tried to treat cassianto evenly. - Gavin (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't jump on bandwagons
- hahaha... wow.have not even tried to treat cassianto evenly.
Oh, I haven't? go for a stroll through Cass' talk page history, the one where he tells me to fuck off for trying to avoid this. Then tell me I haven't treated him evenly. I stated my reason for posting here. It had nothing to do with Cass. Either read my comments or don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- I have obviously read your comments: perhaps they are just poorly written. When you write "
editors should be treated evenly. Not one person here, even myself, has even made the slightest attempt at this
", that is going to be taken by most people that you have not treated both parties equally. I'm sorry if that's not what you actually meant, but perhaps you could be more clear next time. or even better stop wasting time at ANI and find out how to write an article properly, including—pertinently in this case—what a citation is, how it should be used, and how edit warring to avoid using citations is crass idiocy. - Gavin (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- I won't pretend to use English perfectly, it's my third language after all. I did say precisely what you believed I had said, but, I meant it locally to this thread. Not to my actions prior to it coming here. I have no will or intent to lynch Cass, I merely refuse to accept a lynching of Dane for this mess. I won't pretend to have any FA experience either, I have some GA experience. I currently have three articles awaiting GA, one which is doing a GAR due to a poorly thought-out quickpass, one that has some GA comments that I'll get to ASAP but that isn't actually on review. Lastly, one that is awaiting review. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have obviously read your comments: perhaps they are just poorly written. When you write "
- Thankfully I really don't care what you believe. I don't jump on bandwagons, as you seem to do, although well done for admitting that you have not even tried to treat cassianto evenly. - Gavin (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Which I hope is a rhetorical question, hein? Muffled Pocketed 19:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- There isn't, the methodology being employed here is to make one editor (Dane2007) appear more blame worthy than the other (Cass) and thus impose action against Dane while having any transgressions by Cass be overlooked as less problematic. Which concerns you more, a stalker? or a foul-mouth? - presumably the former. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Even if the aspersions being cast are accurate, I'm not seeing where on the WP:CIVIL page there's an exception regarding behavior like this. You're allowed to blatantly violate policy if the other editor is stalking or baiting you? There are instances when the civility rules don't apply, especially in this case when there was no reason for anybody to break them in the first place? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I imposed said ban after his comments today on my talk page and I interact with Cassianto as little as possible. He chose to violate the civility policy after I reverted a mistake on a page we both were watching. I did not provoke him, I simply reverted and pointed out the content was sourced already. This is a clear continued violation and he should not be immune to the policies here. -- Dane2007 talk 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- ... Are you serious? - Dane, impose an page ban on Cass to stay off your userpage, that's about the best you can hope for in this climate. Or so I am yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Dane2007, Considering the mildly bad blood between the two of you from the Noel Coward page, I do wonder why you chose to follow him to the Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) page? You've never edited the page before, or discussed anything on the talk page, and yet you go straight into an edit war by reverting Cassianto; that's an awfully long way from interacting "as little as possible" with anyone, and raises some red flags about your behaviour. I'm guessing we're not far from a boomerang for stalking, baiting and jumping onto an edit war about which you know too little. - Gavin (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, This isn't a "smear campaign", or anything even close (the irony of you accusing me of starting such a campaign without any evidence may or may not be lost on you, but I'll be glad to see any evidence you bring here - and it'll need more than just one posting that points to Dane2007's highly suspicious baiting here). Dane2007 had followed Cassianto to a page in which he had previously shown no interest; he edit warred with Cassianto; he went to Cassianto's talk page to try and mix it up a bit; he comes running here. There's no "smear campaign" from me, no matter how hard you try to twist my words. Provide proof rnddude, or retract. - Gavin (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll bring you the evidence that you're running a smear campaign not a problem.
I do wonder why you chose to follow him
- demonstrate this as accurate otherwise it's smear.boomerang for stalking, baiting and jumping onto an edit war
- evidence please, or is it more smear?This isn't a "smear campaign"
- you want to guess what it looks like? a smear campaign? yeah, you're right, that's exactly what it looks like. That's about all the evidence I can give, why? I'm not following you around to dig dirt on you, you brought it on your clothes when you came in. At least make the effort to dust yourself off. Now, provide proof of yours or retract. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's no evidence at all. A "campaign" needs more than one posting, not your overblown rhetoric that's so deeply untrue you sound like a politician. Dane 2007 has mild bad blood with Cassianto and has stalked him, edit warred against policies and guidelines and baited him. I need retract nothing: your inability to use English properly with claims of a "campaign" is all I need. - Gavin (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's, for all intents and purposes, infinitely more than you have provided. Shall I repeat myself a fourth time? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, you were misguided enough on the first three attempts, and you're still miles off the mark with any sense. (You really should also invest in a dictionary, as your grasp of English is lamentable: you obviously don't know what "infinitely" would actually mean in this context...) - Gavin (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Due to our numerous comments all over this page, I'll cut this one short. Take 0 and add 0 to it repeatedly, it will forever remain 0. I gave at least the one, your claims of stalking. That's what I meant when I said infinitely more. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No: you have still failed to grasp what a "campaign" is. You accused me of conducting a "smear campaign". That was deeply untruthful and rather shameful of you. – Gavin (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're referring to another comment somewhere else. I believe I addressed that as well, I admitted to using overblown rhetoric. I know what a campaign is, and yes, one person with one comment =/= a campaign. At this point, and having discussed it separately with Cass, I'm off to bed. I've struck smear campaign from the record, and left the aspersions part in. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No: you have still failed to grasp what a "campaign" is. You accused me of conducting a "smear campaign". That was deeply untruthful and rather shameful of you. – Gavin (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Due to our numerous comments all over this page, I'll cut this one short. Take 0 and add 0 to it repeatedly, it will forever remain 0. I gave at least the one, your claims of stalking. That's what I meant when I said infinitely more. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, you were misguided enough on the first three attempts, and you're still miles off the mark with any sense. (You really should also invest in a dictionary, as your grasp of English is lamentable: you obviously don't know what "infinitely" would actually mean in this context...) - Gavin (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's, for all intents and purposes, infinitely more than you have provided. Shall I repeat myself a fourth time? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll bring you the evidence that you're running a smear campaign not a problem.
- SchroCat I started following the page in question when I joined Wikiproject Minnesota. I was reviewing the page after the changes appeared on my watchlist with tons of edits and reverts. So no, I have no desire to interact with Cassianto, but I also won't refrain from reverting a mistake of his to maintain the integrity of the article. -- Dane2007 talk 19:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a mistake: you reverted to a poorer version. No integrity to question. Muffled Pocketed 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just don't believe your reasons for being on the article, but that's neither here nor there. The more concerning point is that you jumped into an edit war without having the slightest clue about what you were doing, or the guidelines, or without the nouse to use the flaming talk page. To claim you want "as little as possible" to do with one editor, then follow him to an article, edit war with him and bait him on his talk page is a deeply flawed set of actions. - Gavin (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the fact that he ended up on my talk page first and was uncivil towards me. As he had previously been warned for this, I escalated it here as clearly he doesn't get the point that WP:CIVIL isn't optional and hiding behind FACs pending does not exempt him from the policies. Finally, if you read the edit summary for what he stated in his revert and what I stated in mine, it was a justified revert to maintain the article integrity. If you're going to accuse me of stalking or baiting, why don't you show more diffs? The fact that we happened to be on the same page once does not qualify. -- Dane2007 talk 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)And? You stalked him to another article and edit warred against the policy and guidelines. Why did you do that? Did you enjoy trying to get in a stab at revenge, even though it goes against our policies? Yours was not - in any way, shape or form - a "justified revert": it was a crap step to take and in violation of the citation guidelines and policies. I suggest that you try and read up them before wasting time with the ANI peanut gallery in future. - Gavin (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't read the edit summary for what I reverted:
if you want to add the fact the theatre is being demolished, cite it. A picture is not a reliable source.
The photo wasn't the citation. The source for this was in link #4, as I noted. -- Dane2007 talk 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- "The photo wasn't the citation". Really? . Do please answer that, Dane2007. CassiantoTalk 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Really. -- Dane2007 talk 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- This was your revert. Please don't try and pretend otherwise. CassiantoTalk 20:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- So you can't see the source that's straight above the photo that talks about the demolition that's pictured? -- Dane2007 talk 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The source isn't the issue, the image is. It was the image you reverted. More selective reading. CassiantoTalk 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You claimed the picture was the source, so the source was the problem. Your comment
"if you want to add the fact the theatre is being demolished, cite it. A picture is not a reliable source."
indicates that the content is attempting to be sourced by the photo, but the Star Tribune source was already present. If you look at the revision that appeared after your reverting this, you'll see that the Star Tribune was the source showing that the theater was being demolished and the photo taken by KIRTIS was showing the demolition that was sourced by the Star Tribune. Thus my edit summary of"Citation #4 supports the fact that the theater is currently being demolished."
This would've been a perfect time to assume good faith and ask for clarification rather than violate the civility policy on my talk page. -- Dane2007 talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- So you invested in an edit war to make your point? No, no, no, that's not how it works; the image was BOLD, I REVERTED, a DISCUSSION should've been had. Rather than to follow the BRD cycle, you assisted in an edit war and made no attempt to discuss the matter in hand. And you reverted a contentious image which was being used as a citation with no EV at all towards the article. And, as highlighted below, you've now supported the image of a broken wall as apparently, you think that has value. Your arguments are as ludicrous as your failure to understand the points of this discussion. CassiantoTalk 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion that i'm supposedly baiting you in simply by my participation? Clearly you aren't understanding that the image was not being used as a citation in the later set of edits (originally it was). Your opinion is not the deciding opinion. Anyway, I drop the stick here on arguing this fact. The problem with your civility remains. -- Dane2007 talk 22:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, so you want me to "drop the stick" now that you've been caught out? Curious. It's hilarious that you think you can go about and behave like a complete idiot and the moment someone calls you up on it, then that's the problem? It wasn't the matches that started the bush fire, it was the fire itself, eh? I'm off to bed. Shut the door on your way out. CassiantoTalk 22:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion that i'm supposedly baiting you in simply by my participation? Clearly you aren't understanding that the image was not being used as a citation in the later set of edits (originally it was). Your opinion is not the deciding opinion. Anyway, I drop the stick here on arguing this fact. The problem with your civility remains. -- Dane2007 talk 22:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- So you invested in an edit war to make your point? No, no, no, that's not how it works; the image was BOLD, I REVERTED, a DISCUSSION should've been had. Rather than to follow the BRD cycle, you assisted in an edit war and made no attempt to discuss the matter in hand. And you reverted a contentious image which was being used as a citation with no EV at all towards the article. And, as highlighted below, you've now supported the image of a broken wall as apparently, you think that has value. Your arguments are as ludicrous as your failure to understand the points of this discussion. CassiantoTalk 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You claimed the picture was the source, so the source was the problem. Your comment
- The source isn't the issue, the image is. It was the image you reverted. More selective reading. CassiantoTalk 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- So you can't see the source that's straight above the photo that talks about the demolition that's pictured? -- Dane2007 talk 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- This was your revert. Please don't try and pretend otherwise. CassiantoTalk 20:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Really. -- Dane2007 talk 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The photo wasn't the citation". Really? . Do please answer that, Dane2007. CassiantoTalk 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't read the edit summary for what I reverted:
- (edit conflict)And? You stalked him to another article and edit warred against the policy and guidelines. Why did you do that? Did you enjoy trying to get in a stab at revenge, even though it goes against our policies? Yours was not - in any way, shape or form - a "justified revert": it was a crap step to take and in violation of the citation guidelines and policies. I suggest that you try and read up them before wasting time with the ANI peanut gallery in future. - Gavin (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the fact that he ended up on my talk page first and was uncivil towards me. As he had previously been warned for this, I escalated it here as clearly he doesn't get the point that WP:CIVIL isn't optional and hiding behind FACs pending does not exempt him from the policies. Finally, if you read the edit summary for what he stated in his revert and what I stated in mine, it was a justified revert to maintain the article integrity. If you're going to accuse me of stalking or baiting, why don't you show more diffs? The fact that we happened to be on the same page once does not qualify. -- Dane2007 talk 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Just keep supporting my point about your lack of civility. You havent proven anything to call me out with. -- Dane2007 talk 22:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Bait him on his talk page? Cass went to Dane's talk page first, for fucks sake how is this lost on you?
Or maybe you'll do what you do best and that's to fuck up the discussion process by not discussing it all and opening up an RfC
<- what the fuck do you call this Schro? I think that's called bait, but, perhaps you have a different interpretation of events. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- ooo... naughty words! Perhaps this is lost on you too. Perhaps you should take a step away to get some perspective. Perhaps some time working on an article or two may be a better thing to do. And for the record: "
Cass went to Dane's talk page first
": no, not at all. FIRST Dane stalked Cassianto and reverted him with an idiotic revert against out citation guidelines (Baiting, stalking, tendentious, disruptive editing, wp:competence issues - they're all in there, but you (and he) have your little grudge and won't rest up until the tar and feathering begins...) - Gavin (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- Was I barred from Dane's talk page? Is it called a talk page? Can I talk there? He joined an edit war and is notorious for not discussing matters, as per his foolish opening of an RfC on Noel Coward. CassiantoTalk 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently so, at least Dane says he barred you from his talk page. Which, as I recall, is the only case where an editor can bar you for whatever reason they so choose and without community input. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, yes Schro, I use the "colourful" portion of the English language too...
FIRST Dane stalked Cassianto
thrice I have asked for evidence, thrice you have denied to bring any. Yet you continue to presume bad faith. You insist that Dane's intention could only have been malicious. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- No bad faith: just a tendentious duck that baits and quacks. - Gavin (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It appears Dane's selective reading is now rubbing off on you. I wasn't "barred" until after I went there. CassiantoTalk 19:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly a miscommunication, but from Dane's comment it appeared to have taken place before rather than after the fact. Ah well. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The user has form for not engaging when spoken to. Maybe I should've just kept reverting him and been taken to 3RR instead? Either way, I was doomed. CassiantoTalk 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- See, there's where many editors forget one available recourse. Ping the editor on the article's talk page. If they ban you on their page, they cannot ban you from the article's talk page. If one editor doesn't use it then the other should step up. If that fails, guess who'll get the blame at 3RR, the silent will not communicate one. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- In this situation, I wasn't "banned" from the talk page. CassiantoTalk 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I meant that as a general proposition if such a situation arises. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- In this situation, I wasn't "banned" from the talk page. CassiantoTalk 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- See, there's where many editors forget one available recourse. Ping the editor on the article's talk page. If they ban you on their page, they cannot ban you from the article's talk page. If one editor doesn't use it then the other should step up. If that fails, guess who'll get the blame at 3RR, the silent will not communicate one. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The user has form for not engaging when spoken to. Maybe I should've just kept reverting him and been taken to 3RR instead? Either way, I was doomed. CassiantoTalk 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly a miscommunication, but from Dane's comment it appeared to have taken place before rather than after the fact. Ah well. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I openly admit that I disagree with Cassiantos actions and behaviors but in the same post acknowledge and defend his contributions as I have done in the past. This isn't some witch hunt to bait or get Cassianto, it's to address ongoing harmful behavior that he is engaging in as evidenced at his talk page. His incivility has always been an issue - it's just coming back up again because it has continued despite warnings given to him to follow the policy. -- Dane2007 talk 21:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence, if any were needed, that this user is clearly trying to bait me. Inappropriate? Much. CassiantoTalk 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm actually adding to the attempt to build consensus and discuss the content in question. -- Dane2007 talk 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's inappropriate for you to be adding there whilst this pantomime is underway. How coincidental, though, that you should disagree with me there about the source...er....picture...er, no...source....er...picture? CassiantoTalk 22:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm actually adding to the attempt to build consensus and discuss the content in question. -- Dane2007 talk 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence, if any were needed, that this user is clearly trying to bait me. Inappropriate? Much. CassiantoTalk 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Was I barred from Dane's talk page? Is it called a talk page? Can I talk there? He joined an edit war and is notorious for not discussing matters, as per his foolish opening of an RfC on Noel Coward. CassiantoTalk 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- ooo... naughty words! Perhaps this is lost on you too. Perhaps you should take a step away to get some perspective. Perhaps some time working on an article or two may be a better thing to do. And for the record: "
- (edit conflict) Bait him on his talk page? Cass went to Dane's talk page first, for fucks sake how is this lost on you?
Everyone here has at least a toe out of line. Dane2007; reverting another user who you do not get along with is a clear way to invite trouble, and very unwise. It would have been much better to start out with a talkpage discussion. Cassianto; regardless of the history between you and another editor there is no excuse to say anything rude to or about another editor. SchroCat; your comments are also uncivil and bait-like. They are also just as inexcusable. Mr rnddude; you may have been trying to help, but really that was mostly just more fuel to the fire. Now, with that out of the way, let's take a look at the underlying issue. I believe it can be summed up to this. The inclusion of an image into an article adding 'value' to the article. The idea that the image was used as sourcing is clearly BS given cite-note-4. Of course, the issue about an image being included is clearly not something ANI worthy. So why is the behaviour? Ehh? Now please walk in your own separate directions to your own separate interests and keep interaction to a nonexistence. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 23:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can someone please explain these three points:
- How is Cassianto's behaviour here not part of an ongoing breach of CIVIL?
- How some behaviour by another editor, Dane2007 in this case, excuses this and causes CIVIL to be suspended?
- How Cassianto got his "Get out of jail free" card for this behaviour?
- This is not a novel occurrence with Cassianto (and yes, I've been on the end of it too). I can see no excuse for this other than a view that the rules are not to be applied equally to all editors. I do not believe we support such behaviour, I do not believe that Cassianto's behaviour is acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not encourage the nonsense shown in this section where Dane2007 is following Cassianto and poking them. If someone wants to help improve Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) they can find something constructive to do other than revert Cassianto because WP:CIVIL does not mention reverting opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: If you're going to make an allegation of Wikistalking (a.k.a. "Following Cassianto"), you should be prepared to cite diffs that prove that. -- Dane2007 talk 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course your single edit to the article I linked was just good-faith wikignoming! These ANI reports will continue to go nowhere when such blatant gotcha attempts are displayed. If you are seriously concerned about building the encyclopedia, make sure you do not accidentally revert another editor with whom you are in dispute. Is this all about the infobox war? Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- One diff does not equal wikistalking. The page in question is part of Wikiproject Minnesota which is how I stumbled upon it. The revert was, as described above in great detail, an attempt to correct a clearly incorrect revert. Allegations of "edit warring" are also incorrect, I made one revert and today participated in the discussion. The fault was that of Cassianto's by coming to my talk page to display incivility about the revert rather than to collaborate or inquire further (something he frequently does which I realized he had been warned recently about when I viewed his talk page after his comment on mine). No "gotcha" attempt is being made and this has absolutely nothing to do with the Noël Coward RfC - not sure why you even bothered to bring that into this as it has no relation to this article. -- Dane2007 talk 05:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- You may not understand the bitterness of the infobox wars. However, why not accept that there has been an enormous amount of fuss and that good editors have retired or greatly reduced their activity. Sure, that's because they are divas who attempt to OWN articles on the flimsy pretext that they worked hard with fellow collaborators to build featured articles. Nevertheless, anyone interested in improving the encyclopedia would recognize that many of the participants at the Noël Coward brawl are very edgy, and they should be avoided. If you accidentally revert an opponent because an article pops up from your wikiproject, and if the opponent leaves an unwanted message at your talk, the correct response would be to ignore the message or remove it and drop the matter. It's a fight. Why prolong it just because you are cooler than your opponent and he has more time and energy (and emotion) invested in it than you? The problem is that you got an unwanted message. The solution is to avoid your opponent. In your 3157 edits, 149 have been to ANI, and 110 to your talk. It would be easier to understand the situation if you had spent weeks working on building a featured article and then faced yet another battle over an infobox from people who do not build content. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Johnuniq is correct, the OP appears to be set on hounding/baiting Cassianto as well as inflaming an already bitter situation that has seen several experienced, productive editors retire. Dane2007, please back off, stop following Cassianto and find an article to improve rather than stirring the pot. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- You may not understand the bitterness of the infobox wars. However, why not accept that there has been an enormous amount of fuss and that good editors have retired or greatly reduced their activity. Sure, that's because they are divas who attempt to OWN articles on the flimsy pretext that they worked hard with fellow collaborators to build featured articles. Nevertheless, anyone interested in improving the encyclopedia would recognize that many of the participants at the Noël Coward brawl are very edgy, and they should be avoided. If you accidentally revert an opponent because an article pops up from your wikiproject, and if the opponent leaves an unwanted message at your talk, the correct response would be to ignore the message or remove it and drop the matter. It's a fight. Why prolong it just because you are cooler than your opponent and he has more time and energy (and emotion) invested in it than you? The problem is that you got an unwanted message. The solution is to avoid your opponent. In your 3157 edits, 149 have been to ANI, and 110 to your talk. It would be easier to understand the situation if you had spent weeks working on building a featured article and then faced yet another battle over an infobox from people who do not build content. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- One diff does not equal wikistalking. The page in question is part of Wikiproject Minnesota which is how I stumbled upon it. The revert was, as described above in great detail, an attempt to correct a clearly incorrect revert. Allegations of "edit warring" are also incorrect, I made one revert and today participated in the discussion. The fault was that of Cassianto's by coming to my talk page to display incivility about the revert rather than to collaborate or inquire further (something he frequently does which I realized he had been warned recently about when I viewed his talk page after his comment on mine). No "gotcha" attempt is being made and this has absolutely nothing to do with the Noël Coward RfC - not sure why you even bothered to bring that into this as it has no relation to this article. -- Dane2007 talk 05:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course your single edit to the article I linked was just good-faith wikignoming! These ANI reports will continue to go nowhere when such blatant gotcha attempts are displayed. If you are seriously concerned about building the encyclopedia, make sure you do not accidentally revert another editor with whom you are in dispute. Is this all about the infobox war? Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Point 2. Where is the WP policy that states, "CIVIL isn't applied if the target has been provoked"? This is not a valid defence for other editors, other than the hallowed handful. Also, Cassianto does this to a wide range of editors, even when not provoked (read their edit summary log). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- It would be quite reasonable to attempt a middle ground by agreeing that Dane2007 is out line and should stop pestering Cassianto, and then saying but hang on, that doesn't excuse the latter from saying "Fuck Off". Then we could have an adult discussion about what to do. However, these reports go nowhere while those wanting bad words punished are unable to address the underlying problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Rising to the bait" isn't permitted under CIVIL, although we should of course be sympathetic when it happens. But Cassianto is way beyond this - they simply seem to have, or to think they have, carte blanche to behave how they like. Whatever sanction might be deserving for Dane2007, there's an underlying problem. Other editors do not get to respond like this, and when they're do they're punished for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: If you're going to make an allegation of Wikistalking (a.k.a. "Following Cassianto"), you should be prepared to cite diffs that prove that. -- Dane2007 talk 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is the warning given to him by Jimbo Wales on on 17 August 2016:
If you tell people to "fuck off" you should be blocked for it immediately, and banned if you continue. Stop it now, it's not right. I am making no comment on whatever sequence of events led up to the incident, as there is no justification for it. A single time, in a moment of passion, and quickly apologized for? No big deal. Establishing it as a somehow proper way to deal with a problem - no way. We need to continue to be a better community than that. If you want to curse at people to try to modify their behavior, you should know that it seldom works -and you should know that there are thousands of message boards who tolerate it and are more than welcome there. --Jimbo Wales on 17 August 2016
Cassianto's response was: "for the future? Well, I shall continue to tell those coming to prod me to fuck off; this joke of a thread will have no bearing on my future conduct. He then followed with these:
- You're not worth the time and effort to war with over the retard box you are so eager to patronise our readers with, so you can keep it - the article's shit anyway. The edit summary you gave with regards to "unsourced information" relates to the body of the article. Do please try and read the reverts before you leave such a cock-sure edit summary. I won't respond, just FYI. on September 19, 2016
- bullshit request on September 20, 2016
- I'm clearly conversing with an idiot here on September 21, 2016
- Why don't the two of you just fuck off? enabled by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi who rationalizes it with response from the heart, not only acceptable but - rather expectable, actually. on September 21, 2016. This is his banning offense according to Wales.
- please stop with your bullshit analysis of others. I've reinserted the image of which you speak as it appeared to have become lost in the edit screen, so I do apologise. Now, take your threats, and your character assassinations, and bugger off on September 21, 2016 (
- I suggest @Jimbo Wales: be brought back into the conversation, since it was his decision to give Cassianto one more chance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Widr, excessive blocking and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Widr (talk · contribs) passed an RfA this year. I opposed this nomination because of communication problems, and sadly it looks like my oppose might have been justified.
I sometimes edit logged out as an IP when in a public location such as a library, Yesterday, I could not improve several articles using offline sources via this mechanism because Widr had blocked my local library for two years. However, the library's public computer policy is that terminals can only be used for an hour at a time, so it is guaranteed that any block longer than an hour will affect somebody else and be punitive. Despite warning him of the problems of blocking, and a follow-up conversation at User talk:Ritchie333#The war on IPs continues he has not responded. Therefore I would like to ask the community what to do next. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Log in? Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, because this is a bad idea for administrators, per WP:ADMIN#Security. Public computers can easily be password scraped and I would be emergency desysopped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes collateral damage can occur with an IP block but the benefits far outweigh the possible bad consequences. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is. Each successive block was for an increased length of time which I believe to be SOP. My 2 cents. Aloha27 talk 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- How about creating an alternate account? Favonian (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, because this is a bad idea for administrators, per WP:ADMIN#Security. Public computers can easily be password scraped and I would be emergency desysopped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any concerns. The IP was blocked for sufficient vandalism that spans over a wide time. It's anon-only, so anyone who logs in to his or her account should be able to edit uninterrupted. Affected users are more than welcome to create an account from home or request an account through the account creation process. If you are concerned about account security, you can create an alternate account for the sole purposes of editing in public spaces. I would not fault Widr for not responding to the "follow-up conversation" as it appears Widr was not informed about it via a ping or a message on his or her talk page. In future instances, I would recommend that you discuss it directly with Widr on their talk page. Mike V • Talk 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Favonian - an alternate account might help you. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x4 I'm sorry if this seems like a dumb idea (I'm probably missing something) but why not create an alt account? I have one Treknerd. I haven't used it much lately due to wonky library hours in my area. Another administrator Jpgordon upheld the block (I'm also notifying them since this somewhat tangentially involves them). Speaking as an every day editor I see Widr as a net positive as an admin. Widr is extremely active at WP:AIV and does a great job in anti-vandalism patrolling. Out of curiosity why didn't you try discussing this with Widr first? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did - no reply. Any old idiot can clear the backlog at AIV, not too many people seem to want to review Burke and Hare's FAC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Ritchie I seemed to have missed it looking though his user page. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did - no reply. Any old idiot can clear the backlog at AIV, not too many people seem to want to review Burke and Hare's FAC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x4 I'm sorry if this seems like a dumb idea (I'm probably missing something) but why not create an alt account? I have one Treknerd. I haven't used it much lately due to wonky library hours in my area. Another administrator Jpgordon upheld the block (I'm also notifying them since this somewhat tangentially involves them). Speaking as an every day editor I see Widr as a net positive as an admin. Widr is extremely active at WP:AIV and does a great job in anti-vandalism patrolling. Out of curiosity why didn't you try discussing this with Widr first? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Favonian - an alternate account might help you. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I may, you lot seem to have missed the point. This isn't about Ritchie333 being unable to access Wikipedia due to an inconvenient block. It's the fact that a 2 year block was placed on a public library where any one person can only be active for a few hours at a time. It's the absolute overkill in the action that Widr took in handing out the block. That said, just reverse the block. Seems far a more convenient approach. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. It is perfectly legitimate to block (say) a library IP, if there is persistent vandalism from it, even if the vandalism is coming from many different people. What is the difference between many vandals at an IP and a single, persistent one, in practice? It is completely standard practice to make escalating blocks in such cases. Now it can be questioned whether the amount of vandalism compared to positive edits in this case merited a block, but framing this issue in terms of a "war against IPs" is false and inflammatory. BethNaught (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... I see, it's not the only long block the IP has been subjected to. Perhaps I am mistaken in that case. To me it seems overkill, others may disagree. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ritchie333: It's only been 12 hours since you wrote them that message. They might be busy. Maybe wait a bit longer?
@Mr rnddude: I don't know a lot about how the blocking of public IPs works, but what is the typical length of an IP block for e.g. a library? I see school IPs blocked for around a year. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- Unless there's constant disruptive editing, usually 24/31/48 hours or a week at most. This may be an exception due to a long line of abuses stretching back three years. I don't see the value in blocking a library for two years, but, if no constructive edits are coming out of it then it does less harm than the IP does good. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It may or may not be overkill, but as Mr rnddude said, if no constructive edits are being made by the IP, it isn't a big deal. This is just one block, it's overkill to take an admin to ANI for one block. (Also, in the past 5 months, Widr has made 12,189 blocks. It's expected that you'll make at least one mistake with that many blocks, or his margin of error for blocking users would be infinitesimal) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unless there's constant disruptive editing, usually 24/31/48 hours or a week at most. This may be an exception due to a long line of abuses stretching back three years. I don't see the value in blocking a library for two years, but, if no constructive edits are coming out of it then it does less harm than the IP does good. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ritchie333: It's only been 12 hours since you wrote them that message. They might be busy. Maybe wait a bit longer?
- Hmm... I see, it's not the only long block the IP has been subjected to. Perhaps I am mistaken in that case. To me it seems overkill, others may disagree. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. It is perfectly legitimate to block (say) a library IP, if there is persistent vandalism from it, even if the vandalism is coming from many different people. What is the difference between many vandals at an IP and a single, persistent one, in practice? It is completely standard practice to make escalating blocks in such cases. Now it can be questioned whether the amount of vandalism compared to positive edits in this case merited a block, but framing this issue in terms of a "war against IPs" is false and inflammatory. BethNaught (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Six blocks for that IP, the previous one being up to a year already. So I say thanks to Widr for their efforts in preventing any more of it. Ritchie - create an alt acount and log in. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you do get an alt account, you can file a request for permissions for that alt account, such as for the
confirmed
orextendedconfirmed
flags. If it's not against policy, you could then change the permissions on your alt account yourself. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you do get an alt account, you can file a request for permissions for that alt account, such as for the
- Do the rope test - unblock the IP and see how long it is before they're reported for vandalism. We can have a sweepstake too! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I sometimes come across Widr's blocks, and I haven't seen one that I wouldn't have blocked too, nor do I see any problem with his/her actions here, it's just like a schoolblock with escalating whacks. Let's leave the good guys alone and go for real vandals Jimfbleak (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's not much left for me to add. The length of the block was indeed based on previous blocks and disruption from this IP, and it only prevents anonymous editing. I'm not interested in pointy remarks, thinly veiled personal attacks and generally unpleasent attitude that I have seen too much of lately, and I think I am within my rights when I choose to ignore pings from such users. Widr (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is Widr, this is the first actual piece of communication I've got out of you, if you had replied to previous messages we wouldn't need this ANI thread. You don't seem to understand my point of view, which is - you have prevented any casual or new person visiting the Ashford Library from using Wikipedia for two years, simply because of (probably) a handful of one-off events. I can pinpoint which edits caused the block, and I can probably get the library staff to sanction whoever it was for misuse of computer equipment if necessary. Disagreeing with you is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, nor is it a personal attack (as you can see above, the community can't get a consensus for whether "fuck off" in an edit summary is sanctionable). As Auntie Gerda says - talk before you block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie, just to calibrate your nice-o-meter, if you talked about me the way you talked about Widr at the beginning of the thread, I'd probably be tempted to ignore you too; just because it isn't "fuck off" doesn't mean it's not snarky. Anyway, this is easy. There are a lot of edits from that IP. Someone look thru them.
- If they're mostly vandalism, then the escalating blocks are well within our SOP; you have to balance the slim possibility that someone wants to make a productive edit from a place that almost always just vandalizes, and prioritize the known, significant hassle of constantly reverting them with the potential hassle to the person who has to make an account.
- If they're mostly good edits with some occasional vandalism thrown in, or even worse than that but still not "mostly vandalism", then someone unblock, with an unblock note along the lines of "these aren't all bad edits from this IP, so please make blocks short", and future blocking admins will see the note in the block log when blocking. You're as capable of unblocking as anyone else, Ritchie.
- I've seen Widr block several IPs at AIV that I was in the middle of looking at too, and so far haven't seen him do anything I wouldn't do. So even if this IP should be unblocked, I haven't seen a pattern, and don't see any evidence of one presented here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I guess the "someone" above is me. About 50% vandalism and 50% not (probably mostly Ritchie). Unblocked with a note in the block log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) In general, the problem with Widr has been more that blocks have been over-long and I have admin-conflicted with him when he wanted to block for 2 weeks and I wanted 3 hours (as an example). The problem I have with unilaterally unblocking somebody because you disagree with it, is too often I have seen the blocking admin take exception and complain, leading to things like things like this. Given threads like that, I don't think I can really be blamed for not wanting to reverse an unblock! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie, just to calibrate your nice-o-meter, if you talked about me the way you talked about Widr at the beginning of the thread, I'd probably be tempted to ignore you too; just because it isn't "fuck off" doesn't mean it's not snarky. Anyway, this is easy. There are a lot of edits from that IP. Someone look thru them.
- The problem is Widr, this is the first actual piece of communication I've got out of you, if you had replied to previous messages we wouldn't need this ANI thread. You don't seem to understand my point of view, which is - you have prevented any casual or new person visiting the Ashford Library from using Wikipedia for two years, simply because of (probably) a handful of one-off events. I can pinpoint which edits caused the block, and I can probably get the library staff to sanction whoever it was for misuse of computer equipment if necessary. Disagreeing with you is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, nor is it a personal attack (as you can see above, the community can't get a consensus for whether "fuck off" in an edit summary is sanctionable). As Auntie Gerda says - talk before you block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
IP's in a range edit warring
Looking for relief from the following behavior: diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- People disagreeing with you isn't actionable behavior. I looked for a discussion on the talk page and found none. I suggest you discuss the matter and gain consensus. Kleuske (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum: the IP's were reverted by several other editors, which suggests an implicit consensus, but still, 3RR wasn't broken given the slow-motion nature of this editwar. Kleuske (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The IP's have been reverting about once a day Sep 22, 24, 25. How long do you think that should be allowed to continue? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon me. I just noticed that you are not an administrator, although I appreciate your comments. So if an administrator could answer my above question, I would appreciate it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- My reasoning was that if you gain (explicit) consensus on the talk-page, the issue shifts from a slow-motion edit-war in which no actual rules were broken to editing against consensus, which is generally considered disruptive. Also consider the anon might actually have a point. Kleuske (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Still waiting for an administrator to answer my question. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you that mentioning ethnicity in the lead sentence is useful in giving context to the article. But this is a content dispute, not (presently) one requiring admin tools. Kleuske's suggestion is a good one - ask for community views on the article talkpage - if there's a consensus for any one version then there's a good basis for resolving the current slow-moving edit war. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm no longer seeking any immediate action, just information. Suppose these IP's continue making the same revert about once a day, when would it be time to take action? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you that mentioning ethnicity in the lead sentence is useful in giving context to the article. But this is a content dispute, not (presently) one requiring admin tools. Kleuske's suggestion is a good one - ask for community views on the article talkpage - if there's a consensus for any one version then there's a good basis for resolving the current slow-moving edit war. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Still waiting for an administrator to answer my question. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- My reasoning was that if you gain (explicit) consensus on the talk-page, the issue shifts from a slow-motion edit-war in which no actual rules were broken to editing against consensus, which is generally considered disruptive. Also consider the anon might actually have a point. Kleuske (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there was talkpage consensus to include the ethnicity in the lead sentence, and others (IP editors or not) simply refused to abide by it, they could (would) be blocked for disruptive editing (or in this context, the page could be semi-protected). How quickly kind of depends - fairly fast if it's obviously the same person just ignoring others' views; longer if it seems like new good-faith contributors not understanding how to propose a controversial change.
- A talkpage consensus also provides a useful record if the issue arises again in the future - better at any rate than ANI threads which can be hard to find and rely on people remembering that it was raised here at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- A talkpage consensus also provides a useful record if the issue arises again in the future - better at any rate than ANI threads which can be hard to find and rely on people remembering that it was raised here at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
question re top-level categories
I have been trying to add Category:Concepts to Category:Main topic classifications. this is very logical; since the Concepts cat is already part of the cat Category:Fundamental categories, and the "Main topics" cat should include everything that is in the "Fundamental" cat, plus other main classifications which are of major significance.
however, someone seems to keep removing the "concepts" cat from the "Main Topics" cat. is there any way to preserve the Concepts cat as being a member of both larger categories? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Your addition was reverted by an anonymous editor. Your question seems to be more appropriate for the WP:Village pump. Have you considered discussing the matter on the talk page? Kleuske (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's probably Gregbard (talk · contribs) engaging in block evasion. He removed the category in 2014 and has done a bit more editing there. 2602:306:8034:c990:a964:95d0:6058:5dac (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the category a few days ago. IP editors from this range, 2602:306:8034:C990::/64, have also shown an interest in other articles that Gregbard has edited, such as Bob Duff (2602, Gregbard), Chico, California (2602, Gregbard), Logical consequence (2602, Gregbard), and Apocalypticism (2602, Gregbard). I could take this to SPI if it's necessary (and post even more overlapping edits), but I think it'd be easier for an admin to just do a range block on 2602:306:8034:C990::/64 for block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Long-term abuse vandal
Can an admin please take care of 71.185.250.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They are are currently block-evading (see 2607:FB90:2B0A:A31D:4FC:98EE:1B9C:B9B4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and they are apparently a long-term abuse case. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked and beefed up some protection, will look around for more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: I've filed an SPI (per instructions on the LTA page), and I've requested that a CU look into it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Kwiecinski. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown and Gestrid: Spun up the temporary vandalism filter to track these additions for a while, but a dedicated filter could be worked on if this continues -- samtar talk or stalk 09:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Extensive, sneaky vandalism
On the Lazytown article, an IPV6 editor recently added this. Most of the info is good, however, the change of "Emily Decola" to "Emily Fukola" is vandalism. I reverted this, and they added more seemingly legit changes, but re-introduced the vandalism. Turns out, the article history is littered with IPV6-editors doing these kinds of edits. Same on the List of LazyTown episodes article, and an editor catches on to the vandalism in this edit. Looking through the contributions of the varying IPV6 addresses, I'm finding many other such edits such as this one. Same with the Turner Broadcasting System article, and the Nick Jr. article; Lots of number changes, mixed in with seemingly valid edits, all by IPV6 adresses, all on kids' TV-related articles. Sorry to submit such a scattershot report, but there's definitely a pattern here. Eik Corell (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You may want to try filing an SPI report and requesting a CheckUser look into it IF you have clear evidence linking all the IPs (and possibly some accounts) together. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- If it's all IP's then there's not a lot that can be done. However, if all the IP addresses come from not-too-large range, then a range block would be possible. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can't make heads or tails of IPV6 addresses, so I'm no help there. I noticed however that @Geraldo Perez: seems to have caught on to this vandal and has been dealing with their edits for a while. Maybe they can be of some help. Eik Corell (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- For IPv6 addresses the 2602:301:77B4:EBD0: part generally identifies a single person. That is confirmed by similar edit patterns. A range block on 2602:301:77B4:EBD0::/64 is pretty much necessary if a block is needed. There won't be any collateral damage with that range block. I note from this that that range has been blocked in the past for 3 months. Looks like time to block it again. Full set of edits using this Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can't make heads or tails of IPV6 addresses, so I'm no help there. I noticed however that @Geraldo Perez: seems to have caught on to this vandal and has been dealing with their edits for a while. Maybe they can be of some help. Eik Corell (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- If it's all IP's then there's not a lot that can be done. However, if all the IP addresses come from not-too-large range, then a range block would be possible. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Request G5 speedy delete
Addressed. NW (Talk) 02:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I sent this article, Social class in the Muslim world , to AfD and at the discussion the first delete Ivote pointed out this is a G5 candidate. This person said, "I was about to nominate this for WP:G5 speedy deletion, when I found out that this page is actually the result of a cut-and-paste move from Social class among Muslims. In any case, delete per one big heap of WP:SYNTHESIS [83] So I am requesting an Admin speedy delete this article. I have placed a speedy delete tag on top of the AfD tag, in case there is any confusion. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC) |
Sockpuppetry by JayJasper
Based on suspicious accounts editing at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 I performed a CheckUser and came across a number of accounts which were being operated across a number of different IP addresses and useragents. CheckUser and a behavioural investigation indicated that User:JayJasper, a user with around 47000 edits, had been operating these accounts. After performing my own investigation I asked User:Bbb23 to do an independent check, and his results confirmed my own. The following accounts are CheckUser Confirmed as being used by JayJasper (talk · contribs):
|
|
These accounts have edited topics related to contemporary US politics, particularly regarding the US election, some of them over a number of years (the oldest account was created more than 6 years ago). The deceitfulness and avoidance of scrutiny from JayJasper is highly disruptive and contrary to the nature of the project. Some of the accounts listed below were used as vandalism only accounts and therefore used with the intention of disrupting the project, other have been used for good-hand/bad-hand editing. It is extremely likely, given that the sock puppetry from JayJasper has occurred over a number of years, that there are a large number of accounts which have not been used recently and so were not detected by Bbb23's and my investigation.
As a brief clarification, I am acting here as a CheckUser not as an arbitrator and I haven't discussed this matter with the Arbitration Committee.
Due to the long-term and insidious use of other accounts I have blocked JayJasper indefinitely. I've decided to make this a normal administrative block (as opposed to a checkuser block) so if the community decides here to modify it an admin wouldn't need to go through the CheckUser team.
On behalf of Bbb23 and I, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Predident [sic] Trump is going to build a wall to keep sockpuppets like this out. EEng 04:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- And Mexico is going to pay for it?Humour aside, I must commend Callanecc and Bbb23's efforts here. I say go straight for an indefinite site ban. Blackmane (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you'll add waterboarding then I'm on board. EEng 06:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- And Mexico is going to pay for it?Humour aside, I must commend Callanecc and Bbb23's efforts here. I say go straight for an indefinite site ban. Blackmane (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- JayJasper is a great editor. I find these allegations very hard to believe. Nevertheless, even if they are true, the indefinite block should be decreased so that Jay can continue making great edits as the US election draws closer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hell, no. This is inexcusable behavior, giving the finger to the entire community behind its back for years. No number of "great edits" can counterweigh this. Goodbye forever, JJ, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. EEng 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- See the reference to good hand/bad hand above. In cases like these there will always be a 'good editor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. That's seriously some heavy-duty gaming going on. If there's a site ban proposed, I support it fully. Also, great work investigating and confirming this by the CU's. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Have to agree with all 3 above me (RickinBaltimore, Only in death, EEng). There's no excuse for this sort of extreme sockpuppetry, and I'd be reluctant to let the editor return to editing after just a year away and definitely not within the next month and a bit. I don't recognise JayJasper or any of the socks by name so this has nothing to do with that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion requested
I would Like my userpage to be deleted. I did not create my userpage. It was created by a trolling sockpuppet who was banned after 5-6 edits. All of his/her edits were the same, i.e. he posted the possible sockpuppet template on anyone and everyone who had ever been involved in an SPI. As this was just a trolling created page, I would like to get back to my red page and request speedy deletion of my userpage. TouristerMan (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted per U1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit Reverts and Threats on Sri Chinmoy Article Page. Request for Intervention and Help.
Hello Administrators, I need to make a formal complaint about the Status of editing on the 'Sri Chinmoy' article page. Since I started editing a few weeks ago an editor: Softlavender has been very often, within hours reverting edits of mine that are with good distinction and have formal 'content' type intelligent reasons for the edit clearly stated. If I have edited anywhere near the so called 'critical' paragraph about Sri Chinmoy my edits are reverted with NO reasons, and no discussion on the Talk page within hours. In the last dismal chapter of this editing war, I begged to at least have some discussion about the actual content of information in the critical paragraph (as there is a repetition of information), on the Talk Page only to be finally replied to in a rather rude and obnoxious tone after two further reverts to my editing. At the end of her/his rude reply was the comment and I quote: " Any further attempts to remove the material will result in loss of the ability to edit the article." WHY?? That is very threatening! Softlavender reverted my editing without reasons and proper open discussion THREE times within hours! Only a threatening tone and terrible tone was finally given on the Talk page. Does Softlavender have the AUTHORITY to make these kinds of open biased threats on the Talk page to an editor who only wants to discuss content not to 'remove' material? Can an experienced Administrator please examine the scenario and decide if you want editors doing very normal intelligent academic type editing in a dignified way as I have been, or do you just want someone like Softlavender squashing every attempt to newer editors to try? Softlavender does no contributing editing at all on the Sri Chinmoy page at all, nothing productive!
Perhaps someone else should 'watch' over the Sri Chinmoy article (if that is in fact what Softlavender is doing), who actually cares to have proper friendly open discussions on the Talk page about overall content on the article, because right now Softlavender only reverts edits of those who try, with rudeness and callousness to say the least, as well as even accusing some editors as "followers of Sri Chinmoy" and to "go and edit somewhere else" calling any normal editing "promotional", "peacockery" and "puffery" just because it is simply 'good' factual writing from proper references. Anyone who adds anything so called 'good' to the article is immediately accused of being a follower of Sri Chinmoy who is attempting to add "promotion". Check the edits from the last few months and you will see that they are just 'normal' edits, not for goodness gracious me "promotional". So NO if Softlavender is in such a foul mood with the particular article 'Sri Chinmoy' and literally any edits that happen on it and if she/he would rather watch a different article or two and allow someone else to take over or just leave it for those who care to discuss properly on the Talk Page maybe that would be a good idea?? This article needs help from an administrator whom can SEE through the callous approach of Softlavender who could not care less unfortunately about the actual tone, flow or content of the article and only ticks off mechanically the edits or protects information that has a reference but obviously a good article needs more than just referenced information, it needs an eye for tone, style, and CONTENT properness! Right now editors cannot actually get past an editor who is ticking off, changing, reverting and editing other peoples edits without adding anything of her/his own research and whom does not acre at all for content or flow and only complains bitterly or is utterly rude if she/he is asked to discuss anything.
Is Softlavender assigned with authority by Wikipedia to revert any edits (without giving reason) on the Sri Chinmoy article page? Even reverting three edits like yesterday? Does she have the RIGHT to accuse anyone, even IP address editors of being 'promotional' even though she knows them not? And if Softlavender feels she/he has to 'fix' the editing of others does Softlavender have the authority right to claim the article in an ownership way and squash in both approach and messages on the Talk page those who may want to actually edit in the proper way according to Wikipedia standards? I do not believe so. I believe it needs looking into. Do you want bigoted editors squashing those who actually are the editors of the page accused of all manner of things that are utterly not true and univestigated to say the least? Please can an advanced administrator look into the 'squashing' discriminatory nature of things over the last few weeks/months - possibly years, on the Sri Chinmoy page, especially on the Talk page. It NEEDS investigation. Thank you in advance> 123.100.82.186 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- IP - provide (concisely) specific diffs where the editor in question violated specific policies please. No one is going to read your Great Wall of Text. Life's too short. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi John from Idegon, basically the last 3 edits on the Sri Chinmoy page were reverted unnecessarily by Softlavender who gave no reasons at all for the revert edits even though I was basically begging for discussion on the Talk Page. Softlavender believes there is removal of material but there is not it is content editing with intelligence. That is it in a nutshell, the details are above - you might need them. I believe Softlavender may be breaking a few policies in behaving like that in such rude callous editing but that would be for you to decide. Thank you. 121.90.227.208 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's been a large amount of socking on that article - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victory Clarion/Archive. Also, from what I've seen, Softlavender removes both positive and negative poorly sourced additions to the article so your claims of bigotry are unfounded. This is, in essence, a content dispute. --NeilN talk to me 13:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-admin, non-involved note) "Begging for discussion" in this case being not so much starting a discussion by addressing any actual issues, but rather an announcement of intent to edit war the edit in. "Until a proper discussion is started with intelligence and dignity I will replace my previous edit." Complaining editor should read WP:BRD; it calls on the reverted editor to actually start a discussion and then await consensus before redoing the edit, not demand that because someone else has not started a discussion to their terms, the edit remain. The question of sockpuppetry here is also of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on RSN, there has been discussion on the talk page anyway and in nearly all WP:Content disputes ultimately it's not helpful to argue over who should initiate discussion, or even whether material should stay in or out while discussion is going on. Far better to concentrate on the discussion and properly establishing whether the material should stay in or out rather than worry about the interim. In this case the first issue is moot once discussion has been started anyway and the second one strongly leans on the material staying in while discussion is ongoing. In other words, no way this belongs on ANI except for a WP:boomerang due to possible sockpuppetry and unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee
I'm requesting an indefinie block from editing User:Springee for several forms of Disruptive editing, including:
- Forum shopping
- [84] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee
- Starts RfC instead of letting it go
- Canvassing [85][86]
- Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process
- Refactoring others' talk page comments: [87][88][89]
- Gaming the system
- Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor.
- After a back-and-forth [90][91] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month.
- And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text.
- At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [92][93][94][95]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose.
- More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [96] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above)
- Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins.
- Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go?
- Bad-faith wikilawyering: At Talk:Chrysler, Springee argued that a proposed addition had to be rejected because the text had flaws, and would never be allowed to be fixed. Meaning, no RfC could ever support adding any text to Wikipedia because, Springee claims here, the addition could never be edited again.
- Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy.
- Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy,
- Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy:
- citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware
- Citing WP:NOTNEWS as reason to delete entire sections of articles because some of the content cites newspapers and magazines!? WP:NOTNEWS deals with creating new articles about news events, not deleting paragraphs describing events related to a topic merely because they cite news sources. Springee knows this, but has repeatedly made up new rules and new interpretations of policy as needed.
- Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over.
- Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet.
- A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch
- Removing a large addition for a minor error. [97][98][99]
I can't go on; it's too much work for one person. I haven't even gotten to "Mischaracterizing other editors", "Borderlining", "Retribution" and "Playing victim". The number of blockable offenses goes on and on. Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times, and has accused others may times. Often the boomerang went one way or the other. Many of Springee's rivals were themselves violating rules, but what is the common denominator in this years-long record of conflict? The common denominator is stonewalling, bad faith, and gaming the system. Springee has been warned many times, has tried voluntary topic bans, interaction bans, 1RR sanctions, and has had every opportunity to become intimately familiar with what sorts of behavior are not allowed.
This is never going to stop. A topic ban or temporary block are pointless. An indefinite block is necessary to stop this disruption.
If you review Springee's previous AN/I cases, what will follow is his counterattack on me, in the form of a wall of text. This AN/I discussion will grow to thousands of words. Look at each of the past RfCs, and AN/I threads. They grow so large they're unreadable. What is the common denominator in all of them? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Several of your diffs have nothing to do with Springee and several of your claims of misconduct have no evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of canvassing. I would not consider this refactoring, but it does appear to putting one's thumb on the scale. I think it is very unlikely that ANI will resolve this. If
"Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times,..."
is true then I suggest you whittle this down to 10-15 clear, compelling, obvious instances of disruptive editing and request an Arbcom case at WP:ARCA. - MrX 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)- I demur on the CANVASS bit - neither Arthur Rubin nor I are predisposed in any way to do anything more than express our own fully independent opinions, and anyone who thinks they can count on us to support their opinions is apt to be disappointed. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Both of canvassed editors had previously expressed strong agreement with Springee's interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Predictably, both of you went on to say you supported Springee's interpretation of that policy in this case. You also share Springee's habit of nuking large blocks of content for one flaw, rather than fix it, tag it or removing only part. You don't acknowledge the existence of the WP:PRESERVE policy. Like Springee, you are relentless. Nobody has said you're not independent. The fact is, drawing you into any discussion means an ally for Springee. You proved it by doing exactly what the canvassing policy says not to do when canvassed. Arthur Rubin had the sense to stay out of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mr. X, I also have to insist that this is never OK. An editor may choose to comment on an article talk page, but that doesn't obligate them to be drawn in, against their will, to a larger debate on a WikiProject RfD, or AN/I or any other protracted debate. We must always respect both the content and the context of an editor's words, and not change them or move them unasked. When I objected, Springee, as always, was deaf to it and reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I demur on the CANVASS bit - neither Arthur Rubin nor I are predisposed in any way to do anything more than express our own fully independent opinions, and anyone who thinks they can count on us to support their opinions is apt to be disappointed. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Edits like this and this stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- MrX 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- MrX, I would suggest you need to review the Chrysler edits in context before deciding. That material was the subject of a long RfC and with quite a few editor's weighing in. If Dennis (or anyone else) felt the final edits were wrong they should have voiced concern at the time (or now on the Chrysler talk page). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do.
This is not Springee's first rodeo at ANI, and I've lost count of the number of times he has been brought here (and brought others here) over similar conflicts. Some examples: [100][101][102]. There are a number of 3RR and AE threads that show a history of problematic behavior as well: [103][104][105] Previous long-running conflicts with HughD and Scoobydunk were particularly disruptive, I outlined some of the most problematic behavior in their interactions with HughD here.
Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- talk, I would ask that you review the recent interactions related to the recent RfC[[106]] and understand this issue before dragging out old issues. Please look at the way Dennis attacked me with accusations of bad faith almost from the word go[[107]]. Please also review the conversation that followed before assuming this is an issue with me vs Dennis (who also has black marks on his record). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are you another sock of the blocked KochTruth IP editor? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Reply from Springee: I don't currently have time for a point by point refutation of the accusations made by Dennis but I strongly disagree with the accusations he has made. Dennis seems to have read all my actions in the worst light ever since throwing down an accusation of bad faith after I realized the material we were discussing was outside of the scope of the F-650 article (the F-700 in question was a 1993 truck, the article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar). Because I realized this issue after we were already in discussion (note that no one else noticed this sooner), I was accused of bad faith negotiations [[108]]. I was concerned about the nasty accusations and asked Arthur Rubin for suggestions (unrelated to asking about the content dispute) [[109]]. I have worked very hard to avoid counter accusations of bad faith or personal attacks. Please note Dennis's first post on the RfC was as much an attack on me as anything [[110]]. I'm very frustrated that Dennis isn't willing to discuss these issues or offer any sort of benefit of the doubt [[111]], [[112]].
Dennis has a number of errors in his presentation of the facts. Please note that the RfC was started on Sept 9th. Many of his claims that I was ignoring RfC results predate the RfC! He also seems to confuse the limited conversations that occurred on the article talk pages for the longer discussion (involving all the same editors) on the Automotive Project page. The Chrysler material Dennis refers to was extensively discussed by a large number of editors. I think he is grossly misrepresenting things, including claiming the material that was the subject of the RfC wasn't added to the article (it was). Unfortunately something Dennis did get right is the wall of text from Springee. He has posted so many accusations and to answer each with context would require a lot of text. One final note, despite Dennis's claims that I was misreading WEIGHT and other policies/guidelines etc the current RfC favors removing the material in question by something like 15:5. Dennis is one of the five. Is this an editor issue with me or an attempt by Dennis to use an ANI to block an editor he doesn't agree with? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Constant POV pushing by deliberately contradicting the sources in the Ganja, Azerbaijan article and also cross-wiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Historicalcity2016 is constantly POV pushing the population numbers of the city of Ganja, Azerbaijan and is deliberately contradicting the official sources. And he has constantly previously done so under changing IP numbers starting with 217.168. ... as can be seen in the revision history of the Ganja article. And he is doing this POV pushing cross-wiki on the Ganja city articles either through changing IP numbers or through these accounts Azerbaijanhistory2016wiki, Huseyn200021, Abbaszade656.
Artoxx (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Abusive "POV" flagging and edit-warring about it by 213.74.186.109
The IP address 213.74.186.109 - 213.74.186.109 (talk) - is constantly putting up an obviously abusive "POV" flag on the Syrian Democratic Forces article, without offering any reason other than that the article would be "in favor of" its topic, and sabotages the attempt to delete the abusive flag by edit-warring undoing (also in breach of the 1RR for Syrian Civil War related articles). Does not answer any more on the talk page of the article, where there is a section for discussing exactly this problem. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Sikhism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page on Sikhism appears to have been vandalized by an anonymous user Upon opening the page, near the top, it says assholes. I can't edit the page to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.246.73 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Already addressed. Problem edits were up for about 15 minutes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Editor spamming Talk pages with invitations to join an "Association"
Editor TheStrayDog has begun posting invitations, apparently randomly, on the Talk pages of other editors to become members of the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia (AWWDCCW)", an organization which TheStrayDog has apparently just created. This seems to me like a misuse of WMF facilities for activities not directly related to the project, but that may just be me. Posting here for consideration and discussion by other editors and admins. General Ization Talk 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Is he just pinging randos, or is there some rhyme or reason to the people he's pinging? If it's the latter, I don't see why he can't keep doing it. Also, have you talked to him enough to know if it's the former or latter, @General Ization:? I think you may have been too quick to take this to ANI. pbp 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @General Ization: hello dear! I didn't know about that rule . I will stop it right now also so sorry for this fault .thanks for mentioning me. best wishes. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, I haven't talked with him or her about it; some of us are actually supposed to be working during the working day. It may be perfectly fine; I simply thought some other eyes should take a look at this before he or she got too far into the effort. General Ization Talk 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @General Ization: Hello again! I was wonder to ask if it's illegal to ask users to join ? asking is not illegal I thought? but if you talking about a massive invitation I think may be ! can you tell me more or send me the exact rule? tell me more.The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @TheStrayDog: Being unsure if your activity is appropriate, I brought the question here for discussion. I will point out that WP:TALK contains these statements of policy: "[T]he purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Perhaps you could explain how you feel your messages and/or the association you have created will improve the encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- As a point of information, the Talk page messages are being posted using a newly created template at Template:Join AWWDCCW. General Ization Talk 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @General Ization: Yes. not a social network but I didn't say happy birthday to users or didn't poke them or invite them to a cafe! I know you are an American an I am an Iranian our politics are not on the right way but we are people and must be human and don't judge as a politician. It seems you are republican and hates Iranians no? want to make a frame-up against me to stop my peaceful stuff . but i don't think so . so amuse as a good faith and don't have any complaint against you [kidding]. happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
This new account has made repeated personal attacks on me and other editors: "Removed anti-Semitic rant violated WP:BLP restored by anti-Semitic communist propagandist RolandR", " a certain "Marxist" and "supporter of the Fourth International" "anti-Zionist" Wikipedian atheist claiming Jewish heritage who supports the "Palestinian" "right" of "return" ", "BDS and its supporters are not liberals. They are far-left fanatics, Islamists, and even far-right neo-Nazis". The talk page on which this is taking place is for an article covered by an arbitration ruling that in any case disallows them from editing this page. The editor has also removed my warning on their own talk page (as they are of course entitled to do) with the edit summary "I do not communicate with communists". There should be no place for this type of righting-all-wrongs abusive non-collaborative editor here, and certainly not editing in the fraught Israel/Palestine topic area. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)