IP's continued disruption[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved- 79.22.110.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 79.13.61.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Non stop disruptive overlinking. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Same editor as one I blocked a few days ago. Both IPs blocked, both articles semied. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanx
Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 20:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanx
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator blocking for no reason, deleting unblock requests[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is such behaviour acceptable? Reading policies and guidelines leads me to believe not. But it is happening, so perhaps the guidelines and policies are out of date and should be changed. Please advise.82.132.243.236 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give us examples or are you just this editor. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is the nice IP that left this [1] message. I think we know all that we need to asses your ability to participate here. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Chronus making personal attacks against me[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the user Chronus and the user DanielGSouza are the same guy, or they are working in meatpuppetry,Chronus send a message in Portuguese threatening me and saying "WE will work against you". "WE"?
I need to advice that this user Chronus is an dictator in the Portuguese Wiki (No exaggeration), he is known to all users of the Wiki-pt as rude and possessive, preventing all editing in articles where he touchs. Already quarreled with multiple users both Wiki-PT and even here, always wanting to impose his point of view. He is also known for extreme ideological bias (he is communist) and collusion with Wiki-PT administrators. You should kick this guy over here forever. Tamakukan (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tamakukan blocked one week per the below. --NeilN talk to me 23:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Serious personal attacks against me (again)[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor Tamakukan (see above, a sock puppet from Bazaira account - see previous request) again utter serious personal attacks against me in portuguese (see here, here, here, above and below). Chronus (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
And you are a dictator in Wiki-PT, wants to be a Hugo Chavez here too? You and your dictator friend Teles destroyed the Wiki-PT. You should shut up. Tamakukan (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
You are communist and have serioous mental problems, your "wiki pt team" decides everything out of the Wiki-PT place, in real life. You ban who you don't like, you don't follow any rule. Tamakukan (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, in Wiki-PT you're an big asshole because Teles and the administrators protect you like a baby. Tamakukan (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tamakukan blocked one week. Chronus, is Bazaira an alternate account of Tamakukan or are they two different people? --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator removing unblock requests[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was blocked earlier on today by an administrator who clearly violated the blocking policy, first by deleting my subsequent unblock request themselves, and then by threatening to block even talk page access if I removed certain threatening messages they had left me.Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings clearly allows anyone to remove messages that they have seen, and does not permit administrators to block anyone for removing messages from their talk page.
Despite this, the user made good on their threat, leaving an immature taunting message with their policy violating block.
I assume that other users would regard this behaviour as problematic. If that is indeed so, then what can be done about it? 195.69.54.210 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give us some context, please? Where were these messages, and who are you talking about here? -- The Anome (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can, but having seen that complaints about administrators always result in attacks and harassment from them and their friends that go on literally for years, I'm not going to until there has been some comment on the substance of what I've described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.54.210 (talk • contribs)
- @195.69.54.210: I am not an administrator, but I am interested in your case. However, there is not much else that can be said without knowing who you are talking about. Yes, editors are allowed to remove most content from their talkpage and it sounds like you are right there. Regarding your unblock request it completely depends on how it was written, or example if it contained some sort of personal attack or if you did not adress the reason for the block something. More information is required. Qed237 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Without further detail, it's impossible to verify what you're saying. For instance, removing messages from your talk page is allowed per WP:BLANKING, but that same page says removing declined unblock requests is not. Furthermore, talk page access can be revoked if there are numerous disruptive unblock requests. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Conflict[edit]
While I haven't been directly involved in many of the events that led to this filing, I'll try to give the short version. User:Kamel Tebaast made several edits in a short amount of time, possibly to be able to edit WP:30/500-protected articles. After several edits of his were reverted by two editors (User:Zero0000 and User:Sepsis II), one of them posted about it on his talk page. Kamel emailed me for help in the matter, but, because of the private nature of email, I'm not sure if mentioning that conversation's specifics would be considered outing or not. (I will say he didn't follow my advice, other than some bad advice about meatpuppetry that I gave him before I could dig further into the conversation.) Anyway, that conversation got nowhere (other than incivility) and, after a while, one editor posted on the Arbitration Enforcement talk page for 30/500 here. After that, Kamel made a rather uncivil edit to his user page titled "Wikiwashing". I'll admit that I haven't kept up with the other two editors as well as I have with Kamel. I am notifying all three editors via the required ANI template. What should be done? -- Gestrid (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Additional Comment: I just realized that Kamel knew about WP:30/500, as he made note of it on his talk page under the section July 2016. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like this belongs at AE to me. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Users have a fairly liberal free range on their own userpages. I view that userpage as a Wikipedia commentary, probably within the bounds of legitimate Wiki-criticism, and in my opinion not really to the level of WP:POLEMIC or a WP:CIVILity breach. It just looks like a personal opinion to me. On the other score, I recommend never engaging a new user via email -- always keep your advice and interactions on Wikipedia. There's really no reason for anyone to be emailing anyone anyway, unless it's just social. Looks like your other concern is being addressed at the AE link you provided. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll just let the AE play out, then. -- Gestrid (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This user's page is pretty much talking about me and other users. When he wroted "whitewash unfavorable views by redirecting, consolidating, deleting, and renaming articles...redirecting nearly all articles dealing with Israelis as victims of Palestinian terrorism to List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2016 2015, 2014, 2013…" He reffered to an AfD discussion I started. When he saw the discussion, he changed his user page and blamed those who disagree with him for what he calls "wikiwashing" which is his name for WP:CENSOR, WP:POV and probably WP:IDONTLIKEIT combined.
- He was also engaged is some edit conflicts in what is seen by me as his POV pushing, where he modified a legitimate sentence to remove information he didn't like and refered to what he changed as "Self-serving propaganda". After the edit was reverted by another user, he made the edit again some days later, without any explaination or making any discussion about it, and the edit was reverted again, until he made the edit again a day later, with a strong POV edit summery: "It's the Security Fence, not "separation barrier; no relevance to piece, propaganda". He then self reverted himself, probably because he realised he broke 1RR rule, only for making the same edit two days later.
- He was also involved in a similar debacle in Palestinian Liberation Organization article, there he made an edit, realised he broke 1RR and reverted himself, only to re-make the same edit two days later.
- All of these are from the last 1-2 weeks, I didn't go deeper into this user's contributions. He needs either a warning or a temporary block in my opinion, his behavior is completely unacceptable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll just let the AE play out, then. -- Gestrid (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Users have a fairly liberal free range on their own userpages. I view that userpage as a Wikipedia commentary, probably within the bounds of legitimate Wiki-criticism, and in my opinion not really to the level of WP:POLEMIC or a WP:CIVILity breach. It just looks like a personal opinion to me. On the other score, I recommend never engaging a new user via email -- always keep your advice and interactions on Wikipedia. There's really no reason for anyone to be emailing anyone anyway, unless it's just social. Looks like your other concern is being addressed at the AE link you provided. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Moves by User:Ykvach[edit]
Continued undiscussed moves of articles about Ukrainian cities though the moves are controversial. First, he moved Donbass cities remained by the Ukrainian parliament, though Ukraine has currently no authorities over these cities. I warned him twice. Today, he moved Kirovohrad, though this is a big city, and discussion is needed. A block would probably be in order. The user does not disagree that moves are controversial, he agrees and continues to move. I also had a similar incident with him on Wikidata, where he was changing English labels even though articles were not moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's bizarre. They are an experienced editor with years of tenure. Muffled Pocketed 13:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adding User:Yulia Romero to this request: He just moved it back providing the explanation that the city "was named by a regime which murdered millions of people" [2]. He is aware of the fact that this rationale is not based on our policies [3]. I am somehow starting feeling like in a mental institution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry that I care more about undoing the honouring of people (Sergey Kirov) who don't deserve this (by people who don't deserve us doing them favours (Stalin)) then Wikipedia policies. But in my mind this is not a bad thing.... Besides 1 only moved the page one time because I was angered by Ymblanter unwillingness to open a discussion on the talk page of the Wikipedia-page of the city about a name change. I would like to know why Ymblanter did not do so because it seems very logic to do so.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Quick question- what the heck has Stalin got to do with it??? Muffled Pocketed 14:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In 1934, after the assassination of Sergei Kirov the city was renamed to Kirovograd as part of a Stalin propaganda campaign. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent demonstration of applied history, cheers Yulia Romero. Muffled Pocketed 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is not my responsibility to open a move discussion. IMO, any person who wants to move the page should do it, like e.g. it was done in Talk:Dnipropetrovsk (which did not succeed) or Talk:Myrnohrad where it did.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wanted to open this discussion... Hence in my move my edit summary was "Pending discussion". But before I could do this I found my name on this Administrators' noticeboard.... I just did do make this request. "Pending discussion" I was intended to keep the page named Kropyvnytskyi because I care more about undoing a Stalin propaganda campaign then Wikipedia rules.... (I still do not see this (placing undoing a Stalin propaganda campaign above Wikipedia rules) a bad thing.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, Ymblanter! But could you explain me, please, what is the problem with this move? the city is renamed today. Whats the problem? What is the discussion need? You are trying to organasie same situation as with Dnipropetrovsk, when the title of the article is not connected to the current name of the city. I can find only one explanation: you just do not like these changes. But if you will entitle the articles cv the actual names of the cities, it is distructive policy. And this is a problem of yours, not mine! Because my changes is in accordance with currant names of the cities. Teh, I can agree with you in the case of cities on the territories, occupied by Russia, because Ukrainian law doesnt not force there. But, it is not related the city you call Kirovograd! In most of cases, when the city were renamed in Ukraine, the articles were renamed in wiki: Horishni Plavni, Varash, Chornomorsk, Podilsk. What's a problem with, particularly Kropyvnytskyi? --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- What you say has absolutely nothing to do with our policies. In addition, it is written in bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Honest question: if the city has been officially renamed, shouldn't it be a fairly open and shut issue of WP:COMMONNAME, and preference for post-name change sources per WP:NAMECHANGES? Why should a discussion really be needed? TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- We see that recently Dnipropetrovsk was not moved (I did not vote, for the record), because RM was closed as no consensus. Kirovohrad is a regional center as well, not exactly the same size as Dnipropetrovsk, but one can reasonably expect that there could be some objections to move it. It is much safer to wait for a week and move it as an RM result, that move it now without discussion and then get move warring between people who have strong opinions about the name of the city. We even run a RM for smaller cities, and they were moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I saw your changes in Dnipropetrovsk, so dont be surprised on bad faith! I also did not voited there. I am making accent on the fact, that my changes are not cv the rules of wiki. I also hate this stupid new name of this city, same as in the case of Dnipro. But this is not related to the names of the articles in wiki. Both cities have no traditional names in English. If anyone will say that Dnipropetrivsk or Kirovohrad, are traditional English names of these cities, I will laugh! So, I cannot find any explanation, why did you revert the name of the article to Kirovohrad! "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city" is not an explanation is the case of the article title. I cannot find in the wikirules "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city". The name of the article must be connected to official name of the city, this is mandatory! The strong opinion of people you can add in the text. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, you completely misunderstand the policies. First, if you do not assume good faith, you should not be editing Wikipedia but should enjoy an indefinite block. Second, we do not have a policy that the name of the article about the city should be an official name of the city. In fact, we have plenty of examples where the name does not correspond to the official name. Third, uncontroversial moves are ok as soon as nobody objects. If somebody objects, or if one can reasonably assume that there are users objecting, an RM should be filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I saw your changes in Dnipropetrovsk, so dont be surprised on bad faith! I also did not voited there. I am making accent on the fact, that my changes are not cv the rules of wiki. I also hate this stupid new name of this city, same as in the case of Dnipro. But this is not related to the names of the articles in wiki. Both cities have no traditional names in English. If anyone will say that Dnipropetrivsk or Kirovohrad, are traditional English names of these cities, I will laugh! So, I cannot find any explanation, why did you revert the name of the article to Kirovohrad! "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city" is not an explanation is the case of the article title. I cannot find in the wikirules "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city". The name of the article must be connected to official name of the city, this is mandatory! The strong opinion of people you can add in the text. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- We see that recently Dnipropetrovsk was not moved (I did not vote, for the record), because RM was closed as no consensus. Kirovohrad is a regional center as well, not exactly the same size as Dnipropetrovsk, but one can reasonably expect that there could be some objections to move it. It is much safer to wait for a week and move it as an RM result, that move it now without discussion and then get move warring between people who have strong opinions about the name of the city. We even run a RM for smaller cities, and they were moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Honest question: if the city has been officially renamed, shouldn't it be a fairly open and shut issue of WP:COMMONNAME, and preference for post-name change sources per WP:NAMECHANGES? Why should a discussion really be needed? TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ykvach and Yulia Romero, do you both now understand that controversial moves and contested moves require a WP:RM? If you do not understand this, you are facing a move-ban or a block. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes; and I learned my lesson. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive IP editor[edit]
- User_talk:79.113.133.11 -- Special:Contributions/79.113.133.11
Editing at: Black Sea campaigns (1941–44)
I also suspect that these IP addresses belong to the same editor who is avoiding a block:
- User_talk:79.113.133.80 --Special:Contributions/79.113.133.80
- User_talk:79.113.130.4 -- Special:Contributions/79.113.130.4
- User talk:82.79.47.192 -- Special:Contributions/82.79.47.192
- as well as
- Special:Contributions/79.119.91.223
- Special:Contributions/79.113.129.156
- Special:Contributions/82.79.46.80
- Special:Contributions/82.79.46.173
- Special:Contributions/86.123.121.21
- Special:Contributions/86.123.123.74
- Special:Contributions/79.113.130.255
Please also see discussion with the editor at: Talk:Black_Sea_campaigns_(1941–44)#IP_edits, where the editor would not answer my questions on whether they have been blocked, and whether these addresses belong to them. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging The ed17 and Sturmvogel 66, who have dealt with this person. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- What's also concerning is that some of these addresses have been creating articles on non-notable subjects. Some of them I've nominated for speedy deletion:
- Romanian gunboat V12
- Battle of the Chilia Branch
- Battle of Sulina. There are possibly more. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- It may just be me, but non-notable does not meet WP:CSD. Perhaps an AfD nomination might be preferable. Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. The articles were created by an anon who has never been blocked and went through the WP:AfC procedure. It seems to me the onus probandi is on you to show that the above IP's are (probably) one and the same person. I suggest WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, the IPs are all socks of the indeffed user User:Romanian-and-proud. Ed, Sturmvogel, and I have been dealing with this individual for some time now (see for instance the threads here). Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me look into a rangeblock. Katietalk 13:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clear block evasion. These ranges all geolocate to the same Romanian city, have no contributions other than the blocked editor's since May 1, and have been blocked for one month:
- 82.79.46.0/24
- 86.123.120.0/22
- 79.113.133.0/24
- The two IPs outside these ranges, 79.113.130.4 and 79.113.130.255, make that last rangeblock too big and would catch too much collateral damage. They're stale right now, so they'll need to be blocked individually if they return. Katietalk 13:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drmies and KrakatoaKatie. We've been dealing with this IP for quite awhile. He or she unfortunately can't seem to get the points we're making. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Still socking, just blocked User:82.79.45.82. Doug Weller talk 05:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- By the way: Romanian-and-proud = Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GABgab 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Back again as User:86.123.126.231. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whois is coming back with "Romania Targu Jiu Rcs & Rds Residential" with all of these IPs, and in the same location (as KrakatoaKatie has already pointed out above). I agree that a rangeblock would be huge, in that many IPs would be caught in the net and become potential collateral damage. The connection with the ISP and the location (not to mention the articles created) definitely speak that there's a connection and that these IP edits are (very likely) the same person. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Back again as User:86.123.126.231. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- By the way: Romanian-and-proud = Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GABgab 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Still socking, just blocked User:82.79.45.82. Doug Weller talk 05:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drmies and KrakatoaKatie. We've been dealing with this IP for quite awhile. He or she unfortunately can't seem to get the points we're making. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said, the rangeblocks I placed had zero constructive edits in the last 60 days, which is unusual. I almost always find a few good edits in there, but not this time. The larger ranges, a /20 if I recall correctly, did have lots of edits about football and sports, so there's somebody else using that ISP who's here to contribute. If we give our sockmaster enough rope, he'll give us more info for a narrower block. Katietalk 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
For the past couple of months, this IP has been pestering me at Talk:Galați shipyard to move his drafts into the mainspace. I thought it strange he refused to get an account, and said so on several occasions, but grudgingly went along. Now that I've found out the true nature of the situation, I obviously have no intention to continue doing his bidding. The individual in question has taken to dumping drafts into the mainspace - see Galați shipyard and the page history. - Biruitorul Talk 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Recent edits as Special:Contributions/86.123.126.231. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, can I say something? First of: I'm not disruptive. I may be blocked, but the overwhelming majority of my edits are constructive. The fact that I'm blocked doesn't change it. Second of: Do you really think you'll get what you want if you keep destroying my work? Look, I get it that I'm banned. I don't intend to avoid it forever, it's just that I got some work to do. The sooner I finish, the sooner I will start my 6-months hiatus. I don't want stupid pointless wars, just let me do my part and I go. Finally, all I ask is to stop deleting my edits just because it's /me/ who makes them, because you deprive the Wiki of genuine informational value that I bet no one else is willing to provide, and please, just give me a week or so to finish my projects. Give me a few days, stop destroying my work, and I will take my block for all it's worth. 86.123.126.231 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked 86.123.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, Katie, Parsecboy, GAB, Ed, Doug Weller, Callanecc: Is this situation sufficiently resolved for the time being? My understanding is that this is block evasion. Is it sufficiently resolved at present for this thread to be closed? Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not so sure. He's pretty determined, and he may be back in another range, but others may feel differently. Katietalk 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not really familiar enough with the situation. But I agree with Katie, looks like this editor is very determined and won't give up, like another we had to range block a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Back as Special:Contributions/79.118.113.18. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked one week. --NeilN talk to me 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not so sure. He's pretty determined, and he may be back in another range, but others may feel differently. Katietalk 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Verbal abuse[edit]
User:Ambeinghari has made an extreme verbal abuse against User:Cyphoidbomb (diff) while editing on Kasaba (2016 film). The personal attack was without any provocative response from Cyphoidbomb or the result of an edit war. The user has not apologized or responded on the issue. Later, he again made a personal remark about Cyphoidbomb on Hammersoft's talk page (diff). This indicate that he has no regrets on his profanity. Behaviors like this is a bad influence on other editors. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. I came here from the Kasaba (2016 film) article; and would've lodged this if CT hadn't got here first. I
recommendPropose a short break from the project to alllow User:Ambeinghari the opportunity to calm down. Muffled Pocketed 18:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) - The user was previously implicated as a sock of WillShowU, a temperamental editor who was known for abusive ramblings. The CU results were confusing to me, ranging from unlikely to possible. Not sure what that's about, but this sort of antagonistic editing, jumping quickly to calling someone a "motherfucking idiot" is consistent with sockpuppetry. Mike V, Bbb23, any of you sockthumpers got any thoughts on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user for 48 hours for the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's not much to go on, since the technical evidence for WillShowU is stale. Based on the geolocation, it could be
Possible. I'd recommend any extended block be based upon behavior. Mike V • Talk 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Charles Turing, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, thanks, by the way, for being considerate of your fellow Wikipedians (i.e. me in this instance). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- A 48 block seems a little lenient for such clearly abusive behaviour and will not dissuade the individual in question from doing so again in future. Propose one month block on Ambeinghari (as a minimum). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
racist rant again[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
see posting at 19:36 17 July 2016 at History of African Americans in Los Angeles for a repeat of racist rant summary of 20:48 10 July 2016. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- All set. Also, the /64 IPv6 range received a much needed 3 month hard block. Mike V • Talk 04:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
VPP disruption[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Isn't intentionally hosting RFCs that you know will fail disruptive? I think a warning is needed to prevent further disruption here. Hiyahoo1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pandit Rathod[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Pandit Rathod continues to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for self promotion,[4][5][6][7][8] ignores warnings.[9][10] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strange spamming attack[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 123malikoki.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- mywikipediatravel.blogspot.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- wikitravelguidesnow.blogspot.hr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- mywikipediatravel.blogspot.jp: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- mywikipediatravel.blogspot.com.br: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- mywikipediatravel.blogspot.ca: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- mywikipediatravel.blogspot.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.kr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I've seen several spamlink additions by new users today to articles about travel destinations, all very similar format, all adding a link to wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com.xx (where xx varies - two cases of .br and one of .jp). The URLs redirect to www.123malikoki.info/, which doesn't actually include any of the article destinations spammed today, so it seems pretty incompetent. Two of the edit summaries are fakes of the form "Undid revision x by 2602:306:3357:BA0:8085:1A7D:CD7B:339B". They seem to make a few white space changes too, presumably to try to hide it. The three I have found and reverted are...
- This one by User:Napbihtre.
- This one by User:Stangradn.
- This one by User:Nezajivo.
Now that I've realized there's an organized spamming effort here, I've indef blocked all three. A Google search doesn't find any other occurrences, but there might be some that have not been indexed yet. Any thoughts? Blacklist wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com and the 123malikoki.info destination? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I caught this identical post from Davidmio the other day. Dawnseeker2000 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks - they look like they're one-off throwaway accounts, but I've indef blocked that one too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a sneaky one by Titpaveli (talk · contribs); there's no such edit being reverted. Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, they're mostly like that - the "reverts" are completely bogus. Thanks for the ones you've found and blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
A bit more Google-fu and I also found...
- This by User:Tankosava
- This by User:Themiloz
- This by User:Juzafriac
- This by User:Starikine
- This by User:Takicmil
- This by User:Jesamils
- This by User:Bokimrsa
- This by User:Letraket
- This by User:Pucerdom
- This by User:Sanacmoj
- This by User:Suocmigr
- This by User:Aguemilo
- This by User:Novipsopo
All single-use throwaway accounts, all now blocked (some by me, some by User:Mackensen). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- PS: I'm not posting ANI notices on all these dozens of user talks, for obvious reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) There's an insane amount of quacking, here. Could it be a duck farm? Seriously, this seems to scream for a sockpuppet investigation. Kleuske (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- They're obviously all socks, yes (and are all indef blocked), but I think the only benefit of an SPI would be to perhaps unearth any undiscovered sleepers - I'll probably start one soon. In the meantime, I'm hoping someone who knows how to do blacklists might be able to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- SPI started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tankosava. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) There's an insane amount of quacking, here. Could it be a duck farm? Seriously, this seems to scream for a sockpuppet investigation. Kleuske (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mllturro[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mllturro (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. S/he is not blocked directly; instead, the block was placed by Elockid (talk · contribs) on an IP address belonging to OVH, an ISP in France (I believe). Now, the particular IP address, 151.80.113.194, reverses to a block described as "Dedicated Servers". Mllturro believes s/he is not connecting through a dedicated server (for example, not connecting through a VPN), but it's certainly possible there's a problem with Mllturro's network configuration. Given the amount of spam I routinely get from OVH (I'm located in Canada, not France) and the complete unwillingness of their customer support and network administrators to fix that problem, it's quite plausible to me that OVH has their DNS records screwed up. That is, their netblock may not actually be used for dedicated servers after all. If so, we should soften the block on 151.80.0.0/17 to allow logged in users. Or perhaps, replace the single block with multiple blocks, if we can identify for ourselves which are dedicated servers and which are regular home users. I will inform both users of this discussion momentarily. Note that I may not have much access to the Internet for the next week, so I may have to leave it to other admins to take appropriate action here. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I see nothing wrong with the block; it's quite possible OVH has changed their configuration since the block was placed. And that's even assuming the IP address in question isn't actually a dedicated server. My point here is to figure out whether or not the block should be softened or tweaked. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested an IP block exemption request, and Mllturro (talk · contribs) has made that request, though admittedly not in the form prescribed for this. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, yes?
- So: IP block exemption? Any objections to this?
- Piet van Nieuw Holland aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor impersonating others / misusing templates[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- here they impersonate Theroadislong;
- and here they do the same under the guise of Nepali keto62.
A suspicion of socking has also been raised; but this behaviour alone, I suggest, is sufficiently abusive of, and disruptive to, the system to warrant an immediate block. Muffled Pocketed 12:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect the editor is initially just copy-pasting warnings given to them. I will reinforce the need to explain themselves here. --NeilN talk to me 12:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good explanation: it would at least mean it was accidentally disruptive rather than intentionally so... Muffled Pocketed 13:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti, which I opened before seeing this. Impersonation of Nepali keto62 was a feature of previous socks in that case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep: the SPI result will frame Neil's thoughts above. In the meantime, see here for a so-called asdmission that he also controls the Nepali account. Which is either a bizarre confession, or an attempt at implicating an innocent editor with whom he has already edit-warred. Muffled Pocketed 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note MasterPiece2016 now blocked by Boing! said Zebedee. Good block. Now just awaiting the SPI. Muffled Pocketed 13:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battleground editing and personal attacks by IP 62.168.13.98[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
62.168.13.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in battleground mentality and edit warring on the Czechs article. Moreover, he has made repeated personal attacks [11] [12] (I don't read Czech, but translate says he's calling me an idiot), asked or demanded I give my real name [13] (again in Czech, so a little unclear on the context), repeatedly called me a liar [14] [15] and "holy warrior" (not sure how to take that last one). He's been repeatedly warned, but persists in his behavior. Obviously I can't take an action of my own, as I seem to be his favorite target. Seems likely he is somebody's bad hand sock.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- * To idiot: I asked Mojo hand, why delete the word Czechia? If it's only lack of information or intention? He didn't answer.
- * To holy warior: Mojo Hand, Doremo, Yopie, Dan Polansky, Mewulwe, Khajidha, -jkb- and Cimmerian praetor systematically and more then 10 years translate Česko (=Czechia) wrong as "Czech Republic" (=Česká republika) or "Czech lands" (= České země) and they delete every mention about "Czechia". I think it is regular "Holy War against the word Czechia". So any lack of information, but phanatic intention.
- * To lie: Mojo hand again delete Czechia and wrote, that this word didn't exist in 1939. But here are sources http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia#panel=search&search=1 or here https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Czechia&year_start=1830&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCzechia%3B%2Cc0 So I think it's a standard lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yopie 2016:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Czech_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=715380003
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatra&diff=prev&oldid=719550028
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohemian-Moravian_Highlands&diff=prev&oldid=719550163
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opava_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=715379089
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borovany&diff=prev&oldid=715379024
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%A0koda&diff=prev&oldid=715378721
- ....
Doremo 2016
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europe&diff=prev&oldid=729333281
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Diplomatic_missions_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=723053348
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_Bud%C4%9Bjovice&diff=prev&oldid=723053213
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highways_in_the_Czech_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=723053035
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_the_Czech_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=723052897
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kin-Ball&diff=prev&oldid=723052758
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petr_Fiala&diff=prev&oldid=723053429
- ...
Dan Polansky
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Czech_Republic&diff=29082677&oldid=29081484
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%8F&diff=prev&oldid=32784698
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cehija&diff=prev&oldid=29099364
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cekija&diff=prev&oldid=29099363
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Tsjekkia&diff=prev&oldid=29099360
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Czechy&diff=prev&oldid=29099359
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Ch%C3%A9quia&diff=prev&oldid=29099358
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Cehia&diff=prev&oldid=29099357
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Ce%C5%A1ka&diff=prev&oldid=29099356
...
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That Poppy: Info being deleted w/o explanation[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user by the name of GabrielMarx89 has been removing a large amount of information from the page That Poppy without much explanation, and when users have reverted his edits, explaining why he must explain the removal of content, he simply does it again. I have tried to start a discussion with him on the talk page of the article but he has not responded, and a myriad of editors who reverted his edits (Adog104, Sro23, C.Fred) have tried t discuss the matter with him on his talk page, but he has not responded to any of them. On top of this, the only edits he has made throughout the entirety of being on Wikipedia have been removals of content on the same exact page; that is, the That Poppy page. If someone could handle this situation accordingly, that would be much obliged. Benmite (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gave them an edit warring warning. We'll see what they do. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Undisclosed paid editing[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was recently involved in an AfD discussion in which I'm Tony Ahn seemed extremely distraught with the fact he would have to refund his client for a failed discussion resulting in deletion. I subsequently went through some of his contributions and found this undisclosed paid edit promoting that same individual - there are plenty more dubious edits with no disclosures but this one's confirmed. I am of course assuming good faith, but given the recent history of paid editing gone awry on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if this user turns out to have a much more extensive history of such behaviour. Now, I couldn't find any disclosure as to who's paying for what: not on the articles' talk pages, edit summaries, or the user's own page. I'd be relieved to be pointed in the right direction, otherwise an extensive review of this user's practices seems to be in prompt order. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Extremely distraught? Why? Because I asked you not to ridicule the subject of the article in the AfD, as she was following the discussion and found some of your remarks hurtful? I'm in no way distraught. She was a bit unhappy but that was partly because she didn't understand why this was happening after the article had been up for so long. Given her lack of understanding and feeling attacked (which she isn't, but your comments made it harder to see that), it is not surprising that calling part of her bio a "howler" and alleging she made false statements might be hurtful. I don't get distraught over Wikipedia. I've been editing for 11 years, sometimes on contentious articles. Never been blocked, banned, or anything else. Anyway, FoCuS somehow missed the disclosure, which is prominently displayed at the top of my talk page, and has been for years. I have reproduced it here:
It clearly states that all edits made from that account are PR related. As I told you before, the Zimbardo edit was not a paid edit. However the edit did benefit a client, so alleging it was a WP:COI would be accurate. Mea culpa, sorry about that. The person who put Template:Uw-paid1 on my talk page said Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Tenner prompted this inquiry. when in fact there are no mainspace edits save my adding of a picture, which isn't possible in userspace. I am happy to answer any questions that editors may have about my work or my process. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:82.132.214.82 sock of recently blocked editor from the same IP range[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pending matters can be seen here and here. The editor involved has returned with an IP from the same range, attacking the same type of pages, but now in an accelerated speed (on orders of knighthood and honours) and since he has been reported has been wreaking havoc on several pages as can be seen here. We are dealing with an ongoing matter of massive block evasion at this point by an IP hopping edit warrior, who is the sockpuppet of the presently blocked User:82.132.231.181 who will not stop, whatever happens. Problem is that the above matters have only caused ONE of his IP alter ego's to be blocked, and one of the others isn't taking that very well. This is notably at the moment User:82.132.214.82. This matter is accompanied by snarky edit summaries like this one Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Who's the charming fellow who is editing from the 82.132.192.0/18 range? [16] Anyone know? --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't seem to access that link... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gerard von Hebel, it might take a while to come up, depending on your browser and computer speed. --NeilN talk to me 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can see it now, NeilN, I may not be any good at this but I can't see the actual range you mention above. I can see some familiar edits from the past few days and earlier, and a disconcerting lot of foul language in the (sometimes very recent) edit summaries provided. But apart from that there's nothing familiar I was involved in. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- All of the IPs are likely sockpuppets of Qais13 (much like this one). The last IP mentioned by Hebel has recently been blocked, but given the history of pages like Juliana of the Netherlands and the fact that this user is still around I doubt that it will be very long before they're back on a new sockpuppet. The problem is that the only consistency in their edits is (1) something to do with orders or honours, and (2) that the IP is something along the lines of 82.132.2xx.xxx - at least, the ones that have been used recently.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That is also what User:DrKay seems to think, but there seem to be some difficulties establishing that. Which is a pity because it would be helpful if further incidents with the same characteristics could be traced back to a blocked user. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know. There may be more than one block evader. There's also IPs like this --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's the problem: a rangeblock might be justified if this IP range was only used by the edit warring vandal, but the edits from that other IP don't look as if they were made by Qais13 or whoever else is behind all this - although neither of them is particularly civil.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. I noticed earlier that one of the IP's I mentioned in my filings had an earlier edit history about unrelated matters and about two years ago. One had vandalised an article about pizza...... But we have seen similar attacks on pages about royalty and chivalric orders. Sometimes by IP editors, sometimes by named editors recently. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's the problem: a rangeblock might be justified if this IP range was only used by the edit warring vandal, but the edits from that other IP don't look as if they were made by Qais13 or whoever else is behind all this - although neither of them is particularly civil.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know. There may be more than one block evader. There's also IPs like this --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've anon-only blocked the /18 range for one month. If the problems persist after the block expires, I'm willing to extend the duration of the block. Mike V • Talk 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK thanks, I'll be keeping an eye on the articles involved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two parties have for several years now been fighting over the authenticity of a Ferrari chassi, using Ferrari P, both the article itself and its talk page, as the arena for their endless bickering, with the current SPAs in that fight being Miurasvjota from Italy and IP 71.167.174.211 from the US, the latter with occasional help from other American IPs. After seeing the latest wall of text posted on the talk page today I tired of it, hatted the discussions there, which are almost unreadable and full of insults and accusations of lying, from both sides...) for being blatant misuse of the talk page as a forum ([17], you'll need to check the hatted section on the talk page to see the size of it...), and also removed a wall of irrelevant and utterly unencyclopaedic text from the article ([18]), but the American side refuses to give up, and keeps reverting the text back in again. So since I can't revert any more without risking violating 3RR I would appreciate if an admin or other experienced editor would take a look at the article, and do what needs to be done. Or trout me if you feel that I shouldn't have removed it... Thomas.W talk 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Since noone has commented here, or done anything to the problems I see in the article, it's obvious that I am the only one here who feels that unencyclopaedic bickering in articles, with multiple inline links to external websites and all, is a problem. Which is good to know, because then I won't have to bother with similar problems in other articles, but can just leave it... Thomas.W talk 10:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban removal request[edit]
A request by @Septate: for a removal of a topic ban is taking place at AN. Mentioning it here, because the original ban took place here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting cluster of similarly-named new accounts[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A series of new accounts with similar names have been created recently in a very short period of time: seven of them
- Semenputih (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenitem (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenmasturbasi (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenkering (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenbecek (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenwangi (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenbau (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
all at 08:41, and another seven
- Semenempatroda (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenduaroda (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semensaturoda (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semengresik (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenbersih (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenjorok (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Semenabuabu (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
between 09:01 and 09:04. This seems unusual enough to bring here. Sockpuppet farm? School project? Something else? -- The Anome (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @The Anome: just as a matter of curiousity, how'd you come across these? -- samtar talk or stalk 11:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Via Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. -- The Anome (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, this (SUL) suggests they all have one edit to id.wikipedia.org -- samtar talk or stalk 12:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sampling a few of those edits at random strongly suggests these are likely to be either the same person, or a group of people acting in concert. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of admins on idwiki? -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @The Anome: one has been blocked as "LTA mengenai Indonesia", assuming the rest will follow. Does that mean we should block here? -- samtar talk or stalk 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Why only one edit on each account? That's odd for me. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 12:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @The Anome: one has been blocked as "LTA mengenai Indonesia", assuming the rest will follow. Does that mean we should block here? -- samtar talk or stalk 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sampling a few of those edits at random strongly suggests these are likely to be either the same person, or a group of people acting in concert. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of admins on idwiki? -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@The Anome: No worries :) For what its worth, the local blocking admin has suggested we block the accounts -- samtar talk or stalk 12:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've blocked them all. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't normally edit a closed thread but I don't see any reason to open it again yet thought this is worth mentioning in case it comes up again. Even ignoring the apparent socking, the editors would likely qualify on username blocks alone. Semenmasturbasi was blocked early on for this reason (masturbation semen) but most of the other ones aren't much better. They appear to be stuff like white semen (Semenputih), dry semen (Semenkering), sweet smelling semen (Semenwangi), four wheel/ed semen (semen empat roda), clean semen (semenbersih).... Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Like Bennylin (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)- I've locked those fourteen globally, and also another nine. Bennylin (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Background: Some highschooler who lashes his ex-high school because he was dropped-out after caught cheating. Info on checkuser wiki Bennylin (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't normally edit a closed thread but I don't see any reason to open it again yet thought this is worth mentioning in case it comes up again. Even ignoring the apparent socking, the editors would likely qualify on username blocks alone. Semenmasturbasi was blocked early on for this reason (masturbation semen) but most of the other ones aren't much better. They appear to be stuff like white semen (Semenputih), dry semen (Semenkering), sweet smelling semen (Semenwangi), four wheel/ed semen (semen empat roda), clean semen (semenbersih).... Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've blocked them all. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Italia2006[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Italia2006 (talk · contribs) has been ignoring WP:NOTBROKEN and is edit warring on List of Primeira Liga hat-tricks – user even edited while logged-out. Italia2006 is also being WP:UNCIVIL to me on its talk page. SLBedit (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The editor above keeps reverting a correction I made to the (wrong) previous version. (2) Additionally, I have not edited anything while logged out. (3) I admit to the incivility, but feel I was provoked by the above editor's refusal to admit his mistake. Italia2006 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- (1) You did not make any correction, you simply removed a redirect when it's not necessary, even after my explanations. (2) 69.125.240.56 (talk · contribs) made exactly the same edit after I reverted you, so I assumed it was you. (3) You haven't apologised for the personal attack. You did not assume WP:GOODFAITH and you ignored all of my comments about guidelines. SLBedit (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, you reverted Sro23 (talk · contribs) with a false pretext: "persistent vandalism". SLBedit (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Italia2006, it is not acceptable to revert someone's edit, which is not vandalism, while claiming that it is. Edit warring over this is nonsensical. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. However, I see correcting F.C. Porto to FC Porto as nothing but correct. And if "NOTBROKEN" were applied in every single case like this, there'd be thousands of reverts a day. Lastly, I posed a question to "SLBedit" as to why, when all the hyper links for FC Porto were being corrected following the moving of that article from F.C. Porto, why he did not also claim "NOTBROKEN" for these other instances. Why is this one correction bothering him so much? It felt obnoxious from the start, hence my unwillingness to act civil as I know I should have. Italia2006 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's a poor excuse to be uncivilized. You only changed [[F.C. Porto|Porto]] to [[FC Porto|Porto]]; you did not change the visible text. You know that but you keep lying about it. I will revert you if I see another useless edit like that. SLBedit (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Useless edits? You mean like your revert to an incorrect form of the hyperlink? Stop trying to sound like an administrator when you're not, btw. "If I see another useless edit like that I'll revert it" — sure, and I'll revert your revert. Italia2006 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, you have now called me a wannabe admin. You are really abusive. SLBedit (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @SLBedit: If you ignore the guideline and think about common sense, what is wrong about linking to the correct page? Also WP:NOTBROKEN is when the redirect is not piped and the redirect is displayed in the article, i.e.
[[redirect]]replaced with[[target|redirect]]. Then there is no reason to insert a pipe to the "correct" article, but now we have[[redirect|pipe]]replaced with[[target|pipe]]. Even though there is no need to edit war and use bad language over this, I can not see how it is a bad edit, I would support edits like that all day. Qed237 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)- It's not nice to open the watchlist and see needless edits like this all the time. SLBedit (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's an extremely poor excuse for being wrong. Italia2006 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Even if you were right – you are not – that's not an excuse to edit war and ignore WP:NOTBROKEN. SLBedit (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're the one reverting to an incorrect hyperlink. You are objectively wrong. I'm not sure what else is required to make you DTS. Italia2006 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll make a note of that though and add it to the Wikipedia rulebook: when editing, make sure to take stock of whether this edit will hurt SLBedit's feelings before hitting the "save" button. Italia2006 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep trolling. From what I understood, if I were an admin you wouldn't be doing this. SLBedit (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever that means. Italia2006 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep trolling. From what I understood, if I were an admin you wouldn't be doing this. SLBedit (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Even if you were right – you are not – that's not an excuse to edit war and ignore WP:NOTBROKEN. SLBedit (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's an extremely poor excuse for being wrong. Italia2006 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not nice to open the watchlist and see needless edits like this all the time. SLBedit (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Useless edits? You mean like your revert to an incorrect form of the hyperlink? Stop trying to sound like an administrator when you're not, btw. "If I see another useless edit like that I'll revert it" — sure, and I'll revert your revert. Italia2006 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's a poor excuse to be uncivilized. You only changed [[F.C. Porto|Porto]] to [[FC Porto|Porto]]; you did not change the visible text. You know that but you keep lying about it. I will revert you if I see another useless edit like that. SLBedit (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. However, I see correcting F.C. Porto to FC Porto as nothing but correct. And if "NOTBROKEN" were applied in every single case like this, there'd be thousands of reverts a day. Lastly, I posed a question to "SLBedit" as to why, when all the hyper links for FC Porto were being corrected following the moving of that article from F.C. Porto, why he did not also claim "NOTBROKEN" for these other instances. Why is this one correction bothering him so much? It felt obnoxious from the start, hence my unwillingness to act civil as I know I should have. Italia2006 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Italia2006, it is not acceptable to revert someone's edit, which is not vandalism, while claiming that it is. Edit warring over this is nonsensical. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The edits certainly don't seem all that "useless" but both of you have pretty much stated that you'll keep reverting each other to your preferred version which is Edit Warring plain and simple, and as such could be interpreted as not being here to build an encyclopedia, or disruptive editing. Italia2006 calling something vandalism when it obviously isn't, is unacceptable. SLBedit We have Ignore All Rules for a reason, if something makes the project better do it. To me it appears as though Italia2006 thinks they are improving the article, personally I'd prefer to have the actual target instead of a redirect unless the redirect is how you actually want it to appear in the article. Now both of you need to remain civil and discuss this like adults. ANI has a way of back firing and will look at all editors involved. If you two keep up this kind of behavior someone will probably propose a two way interaction ban or blocks for the both of you. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. I am willing to relent if SLBedit does the same, and we can resolve this (rather ridiculous, to be honest) affair. Italia2006 (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to add this though: it's not my "preferred version", it is the correct version. The article for the link is FC Porto, not F.C. Porto. I can't understand how I am wrong in this matter. Italia2006 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JohnLloydScharf and Ramadan Bombathon[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2016 Ramadan attacks
- JohnLloydScharf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JohnLloydScharf has repeatedly added a polemic image to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2016 Ramadan attacks. The image (right) is POV and references a anti-Islam source that doesn't even approach RS. The user has been reverted repeatedly but insists on putting the image back, all after the afd was closed. Diffs at [19], [20], and [21]. User was reverted by me, Ianmacm, and Ansh666. Note that Ianmacm warned the user in this edit summary ([22]) and the user acknowledged it in the following edit ([23]).
Text with image include "The pretense that these attacks were not related to Ramadan is political. Acts of the "Faithful" are given more credence during Ramadan."
Sorry to file another ANI, but this behavior is disruptive (WP:POINT at this point). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted this on one occasion, because people can soapbox to their heart's content on web space that they have paid for themselves. The image is on Commons and I believe that it fails project scope there because it is just being used to soapbox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- The image is nominated for deletion on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked for one week, and would suggest rapid escalation should anything similar happen after the block expires - there should be no place for religious hatred here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mass changes of England, Wales, etc to United Kingdom[edit]
124.106.242.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making a host of changes of England, Wales, etc, to United Kingdom. I am pretty sure this behaviour has been seen before (but can't remember details). Thought admins might want to take a look. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I remember something about this too, but I can't place it. Wasn't there an ArbCom case way back when about the British Isles? Katietalk 00:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie - That does ring a bell, but I can't place it either... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I tried to do a search for Arb requests with a "United Kingdom" parameter but couldn't find any clear connections with previously-acting editors...will keep poking around as it is ringing a (very) vague bell for me as well. Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Found it! The case you were looking for, I believe... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- No...don't think that's it. I've had to deal with a lot of WP:TROUBLES crap in the last couple of months and this doesn't really fit that pattern. Maybe it was an AN thread, a topic ban or something. At any rate, he's moved on to adding unsourced content and changing dates and genres, so I've given him a final warning. Katietalk 09:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it was an Arbcom thing, I think it was someone with an account making lots of these changes, then going on to edit as an IP after a block or ban. Would we be justified in going through the contributions and rollbacking them on sight? DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- No...don't think that's it. I've had to deal with a lot of WP:TROUBLES crap in the last couple of months and this doesn't really fit that pattern. Maybe it was an AN thread, a topic ban or something. At any rate, he's moved on to adding unsourced content and changing dates and genres, so I've given him a final warning. Katietalk 09:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie - That does ring a bell, but I can't place it either... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log are the sanctions KrakatoaKatie is referring to, but seem to be narrower in scope.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, good find, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
England, UK or just England? is related. There was a follow-up at England, UK versus England; on mass changes. An IP hopper kept adding UK and wouldn't talk about it. I reverted lots of his edits to drag him to a discussion, but it didn't get very far. Last I looked he simply carried on doing it. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- PS. Also discussed at ANI. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
[edit]
- Baron d'Holbach II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First, pardon my brevity as I'm reporting from my phone. Baron d'Holbach II has been casting aspersions on the article's talk, making unsourced claims of conspiracy theories in violation of BDP, and editing against consensus or while discussion is ongoing. User keeps talking about ISIL paying the Nice attacker, intentional suppression of that info by newspapers, and that it would disrupt Obama's narrative. Some diffs: [24] [25] [26]
User has been disruptive in related areas too [27] [28]
When addressed on their talk page, they have a severe case of IDHT and puerile behavior (eg [29] [30])
User's pov appears to make them unable to constructively edit in Islamist terrorism related articles. I think this falls under the WP:GS/ISIL too. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a conspriacy theory, it is official policy at the highest levels. EvergreenFir falsely accused me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- At least now your reaction to me mentioning divorce makes a bit more sense. You don't think I'm "the liberal media", you think I'm Barack Obama. That's a relief. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I encourage anyone reviewing this to look at the user's contributions. I'm unable to link all relevant diffs from my phone. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I encourage everyone to review EvergreenFir's false claims of "vandalism" against me on my talk page. He filed this report after I asked him to apologize. The issue that EvergreenFir strangely refers to as a "conspiracy", namely the whitewashing of radical Islam as administration policy, is widely covered on Wikipedia, with the article on the 2009 Fort Hood shooting summarizing it quite nicely in the introductory section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say anything about InedibleHulk being Barack Obama. Coincidence? TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The lede only mentions that a lawsuit has been filed. There has been no proof of whitewashing whatsoever. Looks like this is an editor who does not understand WP:NOTADVOCATE. MarnetteD|Talk 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I encourage anyone reviewing this to look at the user's contributions. I'm unable to link all relevant diffs from my phone. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- At least now your reaction to me mentioning divorce makes a bit more sense. You don't think I'm "the liberal media", you think I'm Barack Obama. That's a relief. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I thinkEvergreenmightbe talking about the "ISIS pays truck driver" sort of conspiracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)- (edit conflict) To be clear, the conspiracy part was referring primarily to the alleged payments. But it does include alleged suppression. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm tired of explaining myself. I'm tired of false accusations. And I'm tired of Wikipedia. Please close my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I reviewed this user's list of contributions yesterday after they were called a WP:SPA at Talk:2016 Nice attack and I can only agree with that assesssment, plus, add that they're not the good type of SPA, for the rare cases where that happens. Mainly just gratuitously inflamatory and verging on WP:NPA on talk pages. LjL (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
IP edits to Don't Hug Me I'm Scared[edit]
- User:97.103.64.104 has made many WP:OR edits to Don't Hug Me I'm Scared and has not responded to requests or warnings on talk page or in edit summaries. A request to semi-protect was declined with a suggestion to post here instead. Please consider taking action to prevent edits from this IP to this page. Thanks. Dubbinu | t | c 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Slow-speed edit war[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Contaldo80 has been engaged in a slow-speed edit war spread over weeks at Robert Sarah, repeatedly reinstating controversial edits without WP:CON. Here are the diffs in reverse-chronological order:
There may be more, but these are the ones I'm aware of. This user has a history of strongly anti-Catholic bias as evidenced by the talk page discussions, and continues to push his POV without regard for WP:CON or WP:EDITWAR.
(He has also violated WP:TPOC twice on his personal talk page, removing without my permission a message I sent him. See here and [[31]].)
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't yet looked at the diffs, but he is allowed to remove comments from his user talk page at any time. Katietalk 18:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:TPOC does not apply to user talk pages, he can remove whatever he wants. You characterise his edits as a slow-speed edit-war, well simply put it takes two to edit-war, so you are involved as well. His edits may be contentious, but they are sourced and they don't violate WP:BLP. This is a content dispute, but when I look at the talk page, I see lots of comments from Contaldo80 stretching back to last year, but I see just one from you complaining about his edits. And now you come to ANI on the basis of that. Perhaps you ought to try discussing at the talk page, as Contaldo80 has done, rather than running to ANI expecting an admin to do something for you. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Minor nitpick, but TPOC does apply to user talk pages. It just explicitly allows such removals on own talk pages. "Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details." I think this is an important distinction since it serves as a reminder that if you're doing stuff citing some guideline, you really should read that guideline carefully before doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- My bad - I meant to say that TPOC doesn't apply to what Contaldo80 is doing with his talk page. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Way to put words in my mouth. Contaldo is the one avoiding seeking consensus, disruptively reverting to suit his POV. I didn't come to ANI on the basis of the talk page, I simply mentioned it to give some context. The basis for my complaint is his repeated reversions in defiance of WP:CON.
- Whatever with the talk page; not my real concern. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- And as Black Kite said, you're the one who isn't discussing. That talk page has several comments from Contaldo80 – where are yours? Consensus can change – it says so right there on that page you keep linking to. You're as much a participant in this as he is, so again, why did you run here instead of engaging in discussion? Katietalk 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Minor nitpick, but TPOC does apply to user talk pages. It just explicitly allows such removals on own talk pages. "Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details." I think this is an important distinction since it serves as a reminder that if you're doing stuff citing some guideline, you really should read that guideline carefully before doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jujutsuan, I don't see how you can complain of someone violating CON when I see no consensus on the talk page for anything, and I certainly don't see you actively participating in any consensus building there. "Whatever with the talk page; not my real concern"--well, you're here at ANI, asking for administrative intervention, and it is our concern, as three admins have already told you. In plain English, you are incorrect. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Poodleboy edit-warring on Scientific opinion on climate change[edit]
Slow edit-war but after I warned them about discretionary sanctions today they still reverted.
There is a discussion at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Where they keep giving their thoughts but the main impetus seems to be they want to say it is only the IPCC rather than a consensus. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- From Poddleboy's talk page, they were warned of edit-warring on 3 July 2016,[37] and at 10:00, 4 July 2016, notified of discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, per decision here.[38] . . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't an edit war, when a good faith edit is reverted once by a fly by. Note the dates. And note that Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports, so merely repeats wikilawyer language.Poodleboy (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also repeatedly pointed them at WP:OR and following sources rather than doing their own analysis, in particular they should look at secondary sources for interpretation. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fly by? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AE? They seem to have ignored the DS alert I gave them. And resorting to personal attacks.... Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, "Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports" is not the sort of language that promotes harmonious editing. Comments like this, and frequent accusations of others being "flybys", are par for the course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect, the parsing comment was on this page where personal attacks are allowed. After all, accusations of violating the rules, and wikilawyering are personal attacks, many of those here end up being unjustified and/or by those in the actual heat of the warring. For them it is just another part of the war when they aren't succeeding on the merits. Look at all the references to "them" up above, yet I'm the only listed here, because they can't address my proposals on the merits. Poodleboy (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, "Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports" is not the sort of language that promotes harmonious editing. Comments like this, and frequent accusations of others being "flybys", are par for the course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AE? They seem to have ignored the DS alert I gave them. And resorting to personal attacks.... Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that Poddle removed a comment on that article's talkpage, which is a BIG no-no.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is that policy or an unwritten rule that is part of the culture? Because WPA specifically stated that any editor could remove personal attacks, the edit the anonymous one mentioned, removed a personal attack against me and one I regretted following that up. Poodleboy (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The edit I linked to wasn't you removing a personal attack. It was you removing a perfectly valid comment.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is that policy or an unwritten rule that is part of the culture? Because WPA specifically stated that any editor could remove personal attacks, the edit the anonymous one mentioned, removed a personal attack against me and one I regretted following that up. Poodleboy (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks and failure to collaborate in capital punishment[edit]
- An earlier archiving of this thread seems to have been an error [39], so I restored it. Urutine32 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have seen earlier in this page a discussion involving Signedzzz about Talk:Elizabeth Dilling.
I am currently in a similar dispute with Signedzzz. We engaged there is one month in edit war in Capital punishment for which I was blocked. I recognize that my behavior before the block was wrong and I apologize for that.
But since the end of block, I believe to have patiently and obediently tried to follow a proper dispute resolution process as administrator Richwales recommended to me (see here). I first tried for third-opinion and after the DNR, but both times Signedzzz gave very few explanations for issuing important deletions, and the two process only resulted in what the neutral moderator called "personal attacks" (see here and here). More I tried to find a compromise, more Signedzzz reverted other contributions coming from me, just a way to say "renounce, or I will make your life a nightmare".
In Capital punishment in the United States, for example, he even re-created a section whose almost all infos are already in another section of the same article, the History one (see here).
I don’t want him to be blocked (that would solve nothing), in fact I don’t know what to do. I would like to engage with him in a formal mediation for all content on which we disagree, but he will likely decline it, or engage in it in the same way he engaged third-opinion and DNR. Maybe someone of persuasive can convince him to engage in it seriously?
Urutine32 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You just closed the RFC at Capital punishment in the United States, before anyone could respond. If you think anyone might possibly agree with you about your edits, that would be a way to find out. zzz (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Urutine32 Explain this edit you proposed recently at Talk:Capital Punishment (hidden in the middle of a long list of inconsequential edits):
- "Most countries having abolished the death penalty have done so "in spite of public opinion rather than because of it""
The source says
- "Many European countries, for example, abolished the death penalty in spite of public opinion rather than because of it" zzz (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm glad you are now beginning to discuss but you can have done so in Talk:Capital Punishment: I created the list (at the express request of the editor coming for third-opinion) for this very purpose. If you want I replace "Most" by "Many European" there is no problem. (You say the other edits are inconsequential, but in the talk page you said that "none of this is going in the article"). Urutine32 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- If I made some mistakes I ask only to be corrected: but the content you restored by reverting my edits include many completely unsourced materials, and I will not here ask you to explain about them because that's not the purpose of this board. Urutine32 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a typical response. zzz (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe, to the contrary, this response is helpful to understand the issue. Urutine32 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note that this was not the only bad, POV edit (see [40]) in that list, about which Urutine32 said: "I agree some changes I made previously to the contemporary era section were badly sourced, and I thank Vanamonde93 for having explained that to me here and in his talk page. That’s why I have worked to a better version." (my emphasis) zzz (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe, to the contrary, this response is helpful to understand the issue. Urutine32 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a typical response. zzz (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The thread is called Personal attacks and failure to collaborate, but no evidence is offered either of personal attacks or bad behaviour. This thread (and much of the talk page) is people talking past each other in a way that is incomprehensible to an incomer. IF this is a content dispute (or even a series of content disputes, which appears to be the case), the way forward is RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Nobody is going to wade through an ocean of bickering. User:Pincrete16:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope this will not deter an administrator to scrutinize the issue. "Personal attacks" is what was said by the DNR official moderator (who deleted it for this reason). Failure to give explanations other than superficial is obvious in Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion and in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.. Urutine32 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for botched signing. I see no PA's on the linked DRN, merely standard reminders to both parties to avoid them and a single 'redacted', which I presume was unconstructive at least. At present that DRN is still open, it is waiting for you and zzz to indicate that you wish to proceed. Technically starting an ANI is not a good idea while DRN is hardly opened yet. As far as I can see you are both 'sniping' on talk, there and here. It may seem unjust, but you need 'clean hands' at an ANI, nobody is going to spend hours working out who is more 'snipy', or who started it. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, "personal attacks" is what the moderator said, not me, and I believe my hands are clean. I just ask someone to convince Signedzzz to engage in formal mediation. At DNR, the moderator two times asked Signedzzz why he opposed my edits (at 22:30, 11 July 2016 and 20:07, 12 July 2016), and he just answered he opposed them or nothing at all. Urutine32 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I have seen zzz launch very aggressive personal attacks against myself on another page, and they have been blocked for personal attacks in the past, so this would be keeping with their wider pattern of behaviour, but it would be best if you could provide specific examples of what constitutes a "personal attack" in your encounters with them? Can you give us specific quotations; clear evidence will be useful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the diff where the DNR moderator redact "personal attack". It is the first sentence Signedzzz wrote at DNR, and he used it as "summary of the dispute". It was just a reiteration of his last sentence at third-opinion, see here. Urutine32 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm more frustrated personally by the failure to collaborate than by the personal attack, but the PA is part of the failure. Urutine32 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I have seen zzz launch very aggressive personal attacks against myself on another page, and they have been blocked for personal attacks in the past, so this would be keeping with their wider pattern of behaviour, but it would be best if you could provide specific examples of what constitutes a "personal attack" in your encounters with them? Can you give us specific quotations; clear evidence will be useful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, "personal attacks" is what the moderator said, not me, and I believe my hands are clean. I just ask someone to convince Signedzzz to engage in formal mediation. At DNR, the moderator two times asked Signedzzz why he opposed my edits (at 22:30, 11 July 2016 and 20:07, 12 July 2016), and he just answered he opposed them or nothing at all. Urutine32 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for botched signing. I see no PA's on the linked DRN, merely standard reminders to both parties to avoid them and a single 'redacted', which I presume was unconstructive at least. At present that DRN is still open, it is waiting for you and zzz to indicate that you wish to proceed. Technically starting an ANI is not a good idea while DRN is hardly opened yet. As far as I can see you are both 'sniping' on talk, there and here. It may seem unjust, but you need 'clean hands' at an ANI, nobody is going to spend hours working out who is more 'snipy', or who started it. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope this will not deter an administrator to scrutinize the issue. "Personal attacks" is what was said by the DNR official moderator (who deleted it for this reason). Failure to give explanations other than superficial is obvious in Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion and in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.. Urutine32 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Aggressive and hostile response at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling[edit]
As an editor with a longstanding interest in political biography here at Wikipedia, I thought that it was great to see the Elizabeth Dilling article awarded GA status. There were, however, a number of areas where I felt that the article could be improved, and so I made some properly referenced additions. User:Signedzzz repeatedly removed any and all of my edits (even in an instance where I appended an academic reference to a direct quote that lacked a citation, although they subsequently relented on this point). Repeatedly they provided no explanation for their actions in their edit summaries. I believe that they are motivated by their own sense of personal Ownership over the article. I tried reaching out to them at the Talk Page, and despite my frustration I tried to be conciliatory and friendly, but instead have received aggressive and demeaning responses such as:
- "Because you, nevertheless, think it is so obviously shit that it suddenly needs a massive rewrite. So the whole GA and DYK process is a complete fucking waste of time, because you can come along and say they all got it totally wrong and the article has to be rewritten by you. You couldn't wait til it was off the main page: it was so fucking shit that you had to rewrite it immediately. Why is there a GA and DYK process, do you think? Do you think they should be discontinued? Or do you just think the reviewers in my case should be sanctioned for doing such a shit job?" This was then immediately followed with: you have zero respect for other editors or their opinions, yet you talk about "collaborative effort". It is a disgrace"
This use of aggressive and hostile language – a clear contravention of Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and possibly Wikipedia:Harassment – should not be tolerated here at Wikipedia and frankly I'm not really sure how to proceed when this is what I'm up against. Any attempt that I make to present a reasoned argument for changes and/or additions on the Talk Page are met with this kind of response. I thus feel that this is probably an issue that should be brought to the attention of administrators or others who may be in a position where they are capable of intervening. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm being unfair in bringing this up, but according to Signedzzz's block log, they were given a temporary block for a similar edit last September. Over the past two years they have also received three further blocks for other inappropriate behaviour. Clearly, this isn't an isolated incident. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Totally independently of the issues raised here, Signedzzz has also been brought before the administrators' noticeboard for personal attacks that they have made against another user in a separate article, see here. We are clearly seeing a pattern of behaviour. Unless administrative action is taken to put a stop to this, it will continue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Signedzzz's behavior continues. An RfC was opened several days ago to discuss the proposed changes to the article (all of which Signedzzz opposes). At least two uninvolved editors, User:TonyTheTiger and User:Pincrete have come along and given their opinions, and in most cases they have endorsed those changes. Rather than responding to their comments, Signedzzz has now closed the RfC in an attempt to stifle debate, declaring "it was clearly biased". Signedzzz is displaying very severe ownership issues over this article, is militantly deleting any and all additions to it by others, is abusing those who do so on the talk page, and now is unilaterally shutting down an RfC that is showing that most contributors disagree with them. Administrators will be aware that this is unacceptable behavior, and measures should be taken accordingly; an article or topic ban, perhaps?. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)-
- nb, I have reinstated the RfC, which was not closed, simply deleted. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- And again the RfC has been deleted by zzz despite GRuban having also expressed agreement with many proposed edits. It seems that not only is no one allowed to edit the article, they aren't allowed to edit an RfC on the talk page unless zzz says so.Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Signedzzz has now deleted the RfC a total of four times, edit warring in order to so (4 reverts over the course of 24 hours: 00:54, 19:40, 22:30, and 22:53 on 15 July). Administrators, please step in and do something. The personal attacks alone should surely have been enough for a sanction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Signedzzz is now preventing any of the changes agreed upon in the RfC from being incorporated into the article itself (see here). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- And surprise surprise here's some more edit warring from Signedzzz, refusing to accept the legitimacy of the RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Signedzzz is now preventing any of the changes agreed upon in the RfC from being incorporated into the article itself (see here). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Signedzzz has now deleted the RfC a total of four times, edit warring in order to so (4 reverts over the course of 24 hours: 00:54, 19:40, 22:30, and 22:53 on 15 July). Administrators, please step in and do something. The personal attacks alone should surely have been enough for a sanction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Very severe ownership issues" - no, I just reverted your rewrite, which was of course full of factual errors, while it was on the Main page in DYK. I would have done this on any article, as adding factual errors en masse to the Main page makes a mockery of the encyclopedia, and the efforts of volunteers to maintain any standards of accuracy.
- "is militantly deleting any and all additions to it by others": no, the only edits I have ever deleted on that article are yours, and one other edit by an IP while it was on the main page. (There have been some very helpful edits made by several users, both before and during the Main page slot. And 1 last night.) This is therefore another blatant lie. It is a mystery to me why it is ok for for some users to blatantly lie about others like this. zzz (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
I think protecting this on the m:Wrong version for a few days would help. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see the page protected. What I want is constructive dialogue on the Talk Page, not edit wars, nor abuse. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this user can't see that rewriting an article while it's on the main page is unacceptable. The user's actions were worse than vandalism, as the factual inaccuracies added appear to be genuine, and remained for several hours. Thousands of readers were obviously let down by this. zzz (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC) This was done after zero communication, and the user had never edited the article previously. Instead of discussing on talk when I reverted, they immediately opened an RFC, while the article was still on the main page, where they attacked both me and the article. zzz (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- signedzzz, looking at the talk page, you clearly have ownership issues with it. The level of accusations you're flinging and the tone of your writing, not good enough. There's a long set of questions you haven't responded to either. Midnightblueowl, you performed an extensive set of changes, while any article is open to edit and many of your changes are quite minor, some of them appear unnecessary, creating sections with one sentence in them for example and the change in citation style. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm totally willing to acknowledge that changing the citation style was quite unnecessary of me; the sections I created which contained only a single sentence were something that I was working on creating and building until Signedzzz undid each and every one of my edits. I'm not necessarily here to argue over how to improve the article (although I opened an RfC at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling where other opinions on the content additions would be most welcome). In this space, I just want to ask for advice on how to deal with Signedzzz' responses to me, which have been consistently un-civil and subsequently quite aggressively hostile. It's very difficult to even have reasoned discussions about content on the talk page when these are the sorts of responses that I am receiving. The impression I'm being given is that my opinions and contributions to the article are completely unwelcome (despite the fact that I am a Wikipedia veteran with over 80 GAs and 10 FAs under my belt) and that there is an attempt to effectively bully and demean me to such an extent that I will just go away and leave the article under the sole proprietorship of Signezzz – and that's not okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Midnightblueowl, I fully agree, my comment about your contributions was more directed to the edit-warring. As far as WP:CIVIL is concerned, Signedzzz, you crossed the line with your comments, but, thank you for seeing a little sense and removing them. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so I answered the questions, and the one which was a factual error, I replied: "From an encyclopedic gender neutral perspective, it is not at all clear that this is "valuable information". More importantly, what you added is factually wrong. The cite states "He soon acquired two new mistresses, and the Dillings separated twice before divorcing in 1943." And you omitted the mother's role in the break-in." Mid has now repeated the same question in the RFC section below, stating "I don't know why they would want to omit this information from the article, although its omission might suggest a desire to avoid mention of incidents which paint Dilling in a less-favourable light, in which case we have a neutrality issue at play". zzz (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- None of this is at all relevant here. This is a section to discuss your abusive behaviour. Content dispute is being dealt with at the RfC on the article Talk Page here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering whether it's ok to civilly suggest I am a Nazi-sympathizer, or whether that is a personal attack. zzz (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was also pointing out that I gave a response, and then you pretended that I hadn't given one. (And used that as evidence of my fascist POV). zzz (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's just silly and hyperbolic. Nowhere did I suggest that you were a Nazi sympathizer. I merely pointed out (on the RfC) that deliberately omitting one aspect of Dilling's life (particularly that which casts something of a negative light on her) raises neutrality issues. How did you jump from that to "Nazi sympathizer"? My position is being completely and utterly misrepresented here, in what I believe is an attempt to switch attention away from Signedzzz's own clearly abusive behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You pretended that I hadn't given a reason, and then presented that as the evidence of my pro-whatever POV. zzz (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- What? You repeatedly gave no explanation for your reverts in your edit summaries. Moreover your reasons at the talk page were at times vague, unsubstantial, and lacking in any argumentation; there are still arguments on that talk page that you haven't addressed at all. But anyway, that's not the point here. This section is about your abusive behaviour. Stop trying to change the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You pretended that I hadn't given a reason, and presented that as the evidence of my POV: "I don't know why they would want to omit this information from the article, although its omission might suggest a desire to avoid mention of incidents which paint Dilling in a less-favourable light, in which case we have a neutrality issue at play". Do you admit that? (Of course, I had already pointed out that the material was factually inaccurate, among other things). zzz (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- What? You repeatedly gave no explanation for your reverts in your edit summaries. Moreover your reasons at the talk page were at times vague, unsubstantial, and lacking in any argumentation; there are still arguments on that talk page that you haven't addressed at all. But anyway, that's not the point here. This section is about your abusive behaviour. Stop trying to change the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I thought RFCs were supposed to be neutral? zzz (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You pretended that I hadn't given a reason, and then presented that as the evidence of my pro-whatever POV. zzz (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway, as frustrated as I may be at your abusive, hostile, and belittling behaviour, I will take the opportunity to apologise that my comments ever gave the impression that I was accusing you of being a Nazi sympathiser. I still think that that's a bit of a stretch from what I wrote, but if that's the impression that you gained from my words then I'm sorry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. - Not done, opened within minutes of discussion starting. And apparently they are supposed to be "neutral and brief"zzz (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- We're really not here to discuss whether I was too hasty in initiating RfC or not (and even if I was, it's hardly a big deal, is it?). Stop derailing the topic of this section: we're here to discuss your abusive behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The RFC is totally illegitimate, as is completely obvious to anyone. zzz (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sabotaging a GA by rewriting it while on the main page with false information throughout is definitely "abusive behaviour", as is opening a biased RFC after no discussion. I hope "abusive behaviour" does get discussed at some point. Meanwhile, there's a RFC I'm excluded from, containing personal attacks against me, opened within minutes of "discussion" starting, about how best to provide a desperately needed rewrite for the article that just passed GA review after months of work - because I dared to revert this user's 5-minute rewrite while the article was on the main page - "ownership issues". Can an admin please do something about this? zzz (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- zzz, the RfC was complex, and therefore difficult to answer, I fail to see how it was 'biased' or 'illegitimate'. Even if it were biased, isn't it a bit irrational to insist on discussion and simultaneously unilaterally delete an RfC discussion? How were you excluded from putting your arguments at the RfC? Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC) … … nb I have restored the RfC, which was deleted rather than closed, so that others can judge whether it was 'biased' or 'illegitimate'. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete, I have removed it. Bias is fundamentally obvious: mbo claiming I have ownership isssues because I reverted her errors off the main page, claiming I clearly refuse to discuss - after 1 hour, in which I had already begun answering questions. Removed again. Please don't restore personal attacks. Thanks. zzz (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- zzz, MBO makes a few complaints about 'ownership' among a lot of calmly argued proposals. Asking her to strike them out might be justified, deleting the whole RfC, twice is outrageous. I have never known anybody on WP go to such lengths to stifle the opinions of others, others who like myself have no emotional investment one way or the other, but simply come to an RfC to judge the arguments made. Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The RFC is obviously inappropriately worded. What zzz should have done to minimize drama was to approach an admin or veteran editor and ask them to close it and help to formulate neutral wording. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Edit conflict. MBO added a load of errors onto the main page, I removed them. End of story. RFC should say that. zzz (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Anyone who wishes to investigate this allegation will soon be able to find that this isn't actually in any way true. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
- I already mentioned a couple of factual errors on article talk. Significantly perhaps, you got the article subject's name wrong, in the first sentence of the lead section. In the lead section you also added that she was born "to a highly religious Episcopalian family", which you also just made up. Why, I wonder? zzz (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- "You got the article subject's name wrong"? What - where on earth did I do this? I see no evidence for this claim whatsoever. "to a highly religious Episcopalian family"; the sources make it clear that she was born to an Episcopolian family and that she was highly religious. Okay, granted, my wording slightly misrepresents the sources and I would have been happy for you to change the wording with a brief explanation in your edit summary as to why you are doing so (but of course, that's not what you did). By making claims that I added a "load of errors onto the main page" you are deliberately misrepresenting my contributions to the article, knowing full well that almost all of my proposed additions have received support from three uninvolved editors at the RfC. Given that you have been unable to convince people at the RfC that my edits are somehow bad, you have resulted to making outright falsities about them here at the incident noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I already mentioned a couple of factual errors on article talk. Significantly perhaps, you got the article subject's name wrong, in the first sentence of the lead section. In the lead section you also added that she was born "to a highly religious Episcopalian family", which you also just made up. Why, I wonder? zzz (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Anyone who wishes to investigate this allegation will soon be able to find that this isn't actually in any way true. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC))
- MBO thought her 5-minute rewrite is clearly better than the version I spent months writing, and had been passed at GA and DYK, which is why it was on the main page, which is why she even saw it. This is the most insulting and childish behaviour i have ever encountered, and shows a complete disregard for Wikipedia's readers and other editors (e.g., me, the GA reviewer, the DYK reviewer, etc, etc) zzz (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see why I should be insulted endlessly because I removed a bunch of ERRORS off the MAIN PAGE! zzz (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "A bunch of ERRORS"... erm no. I used the term "Soviet war heroes" when the source used "Soviet heroes". An error yes, not a horrifically colossal one. Rather you removed anything and everything that had been added to the article by myself; the vast majority of these proposed changes have since been supported by impartial observers at the RfC - at which you decided to simply delete the RfC because the impartial opinions weren't concurring with your personal attitudes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, I had pointed all this out here on the admins noticeboard, multiple times, I even said "Can an admin please do something about this", but nothing happened. No one (except Pincrete, apparently) can claim it's not completely illegitimate, with personal attacks, bias, etc. zzz (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You want a RFC, User:Pincrete, about changing a newly promoted GA, because it's not up to your standards? Do you not want to discuss any of your changes first with the article's author, first? Why not? zzz (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest Pincrete and MBO start a Good Article Reassessment. See if the GA reviewer fucked up, and the article is actually shit, like they are saying. zzz (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Since no one has said the article is 'shit' your comment is pointless. Hyperbole is no answer for why specific sourced info, which three incoming RfC-ers think should be included, is excluded. Because you say so? You even delete the RfC, twice. MBO made a point of saying several times that most of your work on the article is very constructive, but no one is it seems is allowed to dare to suggest it might be improved. Maybe we're wrong, but the only reason offered is you say so. I've asked for what the supposed errors/bias/PA's are here and on talk, no answer to date. If you want to own your masterpiece, don't work on a collaborative project like WP. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously she thinks it's shit, or she wouldn't have done a massive panic rewrite while it was on the main page. And then launched a biased RFC immediately, attacking the article and me personally. Either that, or she enjoys vandalising the main page. Or she hates me personally. Have I missed anything out? zzz (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Obviously she thinks it's shit"? "A massive panic rewrite"? "She enjoys vandalising the main page... or she hates me personally"? What the dickens are you talking about... this is complete and utter poppycock. It really is. It's hyperbolic nonsense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why did you rewrite this GA, and in doing so, add a load of errors to the Main page, then, Midnightblueowl? And why the "obviously inappropriately worded" (NeilN, above) RFC one hour after your errors were reverted? zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see you've taken up my suggestion of discussion. See Talk:Elizabeth_Dilling#Comment_on_RFC for Pincrete's idea of "discussion". zzz (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Have I missed anything out? Errr yes, the possibility that 4 other editors (3 neutral) might think that in whole or in part MBO's suggestions might be an improvement. Perhaps we're wrong, then argue that at the RfC, or agree a rephrase of the RfC as actually advised by an Admin here. Deleting an RfC 4 times speaks volumes about your inability to imagine that the article might be improvable. Pincrete (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- {Signedzzz you appear to have been edit-warring (4 reverts in the space of 24 hours; 00:54, 19:40, 22:30, and 22:53 on the 15th of July) to keep the (admittedly invalid) RfC off the article talk page. A inappropriately worded RfC needs a re-word, not complete dismissal. Stop, edit-warring. Can I point out, that NeilN's actual comment quite clearly states "What zzz should have done ... was to approach an admin or veteran editor and ask them to close it and help to formulate neutral wording". In other words, don't remove it yourself, get an experienced editor or admin to reword it or restart it, whichever is the more suitable. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, see [41] zzz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Really? Pincrete, you clearly did not warn them. You took them straight to ANEW without warning them. ANEW is not a warning, you take people to ANEW after you warn them. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)I see on further inspection that you want them to receive a warning about edit-warring. You can do this yourself, warning template for edit warring is; {{subst:uw-ew}} . Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)- "get an experienced editor or admin to reword it or restart it, whichever is the more suitable" - or just delete it, as I did, since, per WP:RFC, "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." Barely any discussion has taken place, so deletion is "more suitable". However, I have restored the obviously inappropriate RFC as advised per 3rr complaint. zzz (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, thankyou for the strike-thru. I was most concerned with getting the RfC reinstated and felt, still feel, that removing it constituted a blatant attempt to suppress, not improve, discussion and a blatant attempt to 'tamper with the evidence', which any warning from me would not cause zzz to reinstate. It was restored by zzz only when EdJohnson gave him the choice of restoring or being blocked, so I believe I acted properly. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- "a blatant attempt to 'tamper with the evidence'" -explain. This is the edit in question. Blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. That is a serious personal attack. zzz (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do regard anyone deleting an entire RfC as blatant tampering with the evidence. Partially mis-quoting ANI advice as an edit reason, doesn't change that. No involved party gets to close an RfC. No editor gets to delete an RfC ONCE, doing it 4 times is outrageous. If an editor chooses to do it when the input is going against them, it inevitably leads one to think they don't want discussion, don't want others' input, can't be bothered to put the other side of the case, but simply 'delete' what they don't want to read. What you don't seem to want to read, but only take umbrage about is that I and other RfC-ers think many suggestions in the RfC would be improvements to what is a pretty good, but improvable article. Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright Pincrete, but what's the evidence? the evidence that other editors want to participate and make changes to the article? I ask because "tampering with the evidence" has unusual implications attached to it, we're not exactly discussing a federal crime here, but, a content dispute on the article talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, three RfC-ers (inc myself) responded to what I agree is a very poorly formed, but IMO sincerely phrased RfC. Most of us agreed with zzz about one point, all of us broadly agreed with MBO about many other points. Maybe we all missed something, maybe zzz is right, but he made no attempt to put his case at the RfC, or elsewhere on talk. The 'evidence' is that others are trying to work toward a constructive outcome, while zzz deletes anything s/he doesn't want to deal with. Since the issue here is 'ownership', that evidence is relevant. 'Destroy' might have been better than 'tamper with'.Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pincrete I was merely referring to the accepted connotation that "tampering with the evidence" invokes (a federal crime in the US for example). The RfC won't be removed again, or, if it is, it'll be met with a block. That's been clarified at AN/EW as I recall. Destroying is in fact no better than tampering in this sense, since the evidence cannot be destroyed only removed (or in some sense hidden). Unless you have the ability to rev-del, it's still accessible to anybody. If needed, diffs can be provided though that will likely not be needed. My main concern now is, since we've dealt with the issue of edit-warring (AN/EW issued a warning) and the RfC has been re-instated until or unless an admin or veteran editor goes over and fixes it, the issue of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Does action need to be taken or is action being requested? outside of ensuring that a discussion happens at the RfC and the content dispute is resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Short answer, I don't know and I am not the prime mover here. Since zzz clearly knows the subject, it would be a dreadful shame to exclude them from the article, but in my short experience s/he has classic 'ownership' problems. I leave it to others to judge outcome. In the end I'm just an RfC-er who got sucked into a wholly unnec. drama. DRN might be better than an RfC Mark 2. Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pincrete I was merely referring to the accepted connotation that "tampering with the evidence" invokes (a federal crime in the US for example). The RfC won't be removed again, or, if it is, it'll be met with a block. That's been clarified at AN/EW as I recall. Destroying is in fact no better than tampering in this sense, since the evidence cannot be destroyed only removed (or in some sense hidden). Unless you have the ability to rev-del, it's still accessible to anybody. If needed, diffs can be provided though that will likely not be needed. My main concern now is, since we've dealt with the issue of edit-warring (AN/EW issued a warning) and the RfC has been re-instated until or unless an admin or veteran editor goes over and fixes it, the issue of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Does action need to be taken or is action being requested? outside of ensuring that a discussion happens at the RfC and the content dispute is resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, three RfC-ers (inc myself) responded to what I agree is a very poorly formed, but IMO sincerely phrased RfC. Most of us agreed with zzz about one point, all of us broadly agreed with MBO about many other points. Maybe we all missed something, maybe zzz is right, but he made no attempt to put his case at the RfC, or elsewhere on talk. The 'evidence' is that others are trying to work toward a constructive outcome, while zzz deletes anything s/he doesn't want to deal with. Since the issue here is 'ownership', that evidence is relevant. 'Destroy' might have been better than 'tamper with'.Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright Pincrete, but what's the evidence? the evidence that other editors want to participate and make changes to the article? I ask because "tampering with the evidence" has unusual implications attached to it, we're not exactly discussing a federal crime here, but, a content dispute on the article talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do regard anyone deleting an entire RfC as blatant tampering with the evidence. Partially mis-quoting ANI advice as an edit reason, doesn't change that. No involved party gets to close an RfC. No editor gets to delete an RfC ONCE, doing it 4 times is outrageous. If an editor chooses to do it when the input is going against them, it inevitably leads one to think they don't want discussion, don't want others' input, can't be bothered to put the other side of the case, but simply 'delete' what they don't want to read. What you don't seem to want to read, but only take umbrage about is that I and other RfC-ers think many suggestions in the RfC would be improvements to what is a pretty good, but improvable article. Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- "a blatant attempt to 'tamper with the evidence'" -explain. This is the edit in question. Blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. That is a serious personal attack. zzz (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, thankyou for the strike-thru. I was most concerned with getting the RfC reinstated and felt, still feel, that removing it constituted a blatant attempt to suppress, not improve, discussion and a blatant attempt to 'tamper with the evidence', which any warning from me would not cause zzz to reinstate. It was restored by zzz only when EdJohnson gave him the choice of restoring or being blocked, so I believe I acted properly. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- "get an experienced editor or admin to reword it or restart it, whichever is the more suitable" - or just delete it, as I did, since, per WP:RFC, "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." Barely any discussion has taken place, so deletion is "more suitable". However, I have restored the obviously inappropriate RFC as advised per 3rr complaint. zzz (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, see [41] zzz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- {Signedzzz you appear to have been edit-warring (4 reverts in the space of 24 hours; 00:54, 19:40, 22:30, and 22:53 on the 15th of July) to keep the (admittedly invalid) RfC off the article talk page. A inappropriately worded RfC needs a re-word, not complete dismissal. Stop, edit-warring. Can I point out, that NeilN's actual comment quite clearly states "What zzz should have done ... was to approach an admin or veteran editor and ask them to close it and help to formulate neutral wording". In other words, don't remove it yourself, get an experienced editor or admin to reword it or restart it, whichever is the more suitable. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Have I missed anything out? Errr yes, the possibility that 4 other editors (3 neutral) might think that in whole or in part MBO's suggestions might be an improvement. Perhaps we're wrong, then argue that at the RfC, or agree a rephrase of the RfC as actually advised by an Admin here. Deleting an RfC 4 times speaks volumes about your inability to imagine that the article might be improvable. Pincrete (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete:
- So removing this rambling PA by MBO - which I "claim" was done so that further users don't turn up and get the full POV anti-me speech - is "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence"?. What "evidence"? Evidence of what? "Tamper" how exactly? Since this is a particularly strong personal attack, I demand an explanation. Because, for one thing, I still have no idea what you are talking about. zzz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- In no way, shape, or form does that constitute a "a particularly strong personal attack". Indeed, it praises you on several points wile raising concerns about some of your actions in an even-handed manner. Moreover, Pincrete is right, you are clearly deleting the RfC because it is producing a result with which you disagree; the term "tampering with evidence" is perhaps not the most accurate description of the situation but the point being made is still quite valid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Pincrete:So removing this rambling PA by MBO - which I "claim" was done so that further users don't turn up and get the full POV anti-me speech - is "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence"?. What "evidence"? Evidence of what? "Tamper" how exactly? Since this is a particularly strong personal attack, I demand an explanation. Because, for one thing, I still have no idea what you are talking about. zzz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- No answer. So can an admin look at this decide if I was "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence" by removing this, and whether Pincrete (or any one else) could reasonably state here that I was blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. zzz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- First, my comments in opening the RfC very clearly do not constitute a personal attack as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks so that accusation is totally and utterly fallacious; compare them to your own expletive laden attacks on me which very clearly are personal attacks according to Wikipedia policy. Second, you know all too well that Pincrete's use of "tamper with the evidence" was a reference to the fact that when the RfC wasn't going your way, you deleted it four times, edit warring in order to do so, and only stopped when User:EdJohnston threatened you with blocking, so please quit trying to play the innocent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- No answer. So can an admin look at this decide if I was "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence" by removing this, and whether Pincrete (or any one else) could reasonably state here that I was blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. Because from where I am sitting, the answer is that I "blatantly" was not. zzz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I just gave you an answer, in plain English. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can an admin determine if I was "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence" by removing this, and whether Pincrete (or any one else) could reasonably state here that I was blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence. zzz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- zzz, people come to an RfC to give good faith responses to questions. Most of us aren't stupid, we try to ignore any 'bad blood' on the talk page between editors unless it is SO extreme that it becomes impossible to see the question. There are a few 'snipes' by MBO, but nothing that I would characterise as an attempt to invite anyone to 'hate you', no mention of 'shit', 'Nazi' or the other gratuitous terms which have all been introduced by you. We RFC-ers don't know if our opinion is going to be followed, but we do expect that the discussion will be closed and ultimately archived in order that a permanent record is kept. Deleting an RfC, even a flawed one, by-passes that process. It would never occur to me to go to a talk history to see how many RfCs, or other opinions have been deleted from the record. It doesn't happen, EVER and it especially isn't done by an involved party. That is destroying, rather than tampering with the record, as I correct above. You show not the slightest contrition about sabotaging the discussion process. You restored only under threat of a block. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- So you now claim that I was also "sabotaging the discussion process" by deleting this text, is that because users obviously couldn't discuss any more without that comment on the page, and the section heading? Well, that is another interesting theory, but I still want an admin to determine if I was blatantly tampering with the evidence. zzz (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- zzz, people come to an RfC to give good faith responses to questions. Most of us aren't stupid, we try to ignore any 'bad blood' on the talk page between editors unless it is SO extreme that it becomes impossible to see the question. There are a few 'snipes' by MBO, but nothing that I would characterise as an attempt to invite anyone to 'hate you', no mention of 'shit', 'Nazi' or the other gratuitous terms which have all been introduced by you. We RFC-ers don't know if our opinion is going to be followed, but we do expect that the discussion will be closed and ultimately archived in order that a permanent record is kept. Deleting an RfC, even a flawed one, by-passes that process. It would never occur to me to go to a talk history to see how many RfCs, or other opinions have been deleted from the record. It doesn't happen, EVER and it especially isn't done by an involved party. That is destroying, rather than tampering with the record, as I correct above. You show not the slightest contrition about sabotaging the discussion process. You restored only under threat of a block. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- So removing this rambling PA by MBO - which I "claim" was done so that further users don't turn up and get the full POV anti-me speech - is "blatantly attempting to tamper with the evidence"?. What "evidence"? Evidence of what? "Tamper" how exactly? Since this is a particularly strong personal attack, I demand an explanation. Because, for one thing, I still have no idea what you are talking about. zzz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
What we have on that talk page, is a "Checklist" of questions, which I answered, before the questions were repeated below, so that users reading the biased RFC could discover immediately that it is not worth trying to discuss anything with me, and then not notice or ignore my answers. Pincrete states "I don't even know which text you actually object to, nor specifically why." (although I had just restated most of my objections), and the above two users proceed to again added factually wrong material based on a misreading of the source, which I had already explained, stating "You appear to not object to these additions on talk". zzz (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposal[edit]
Given that I was responsible for initiating this post on the incident board, I am not the right editor to put forward suggestions for how to deal with Signedzzz's behaviour. However, we now have clear evidence that not only have they launched an expletive-filled nasty WP:Personal attack ([42] and [43]"), posted false accusations ([44]) and behaved in a generally aggressive and hyperbolic manner toward various editors throughout the debate ([45], [46], [47] etc), they have also deleted an RfC a total of four times, edit warring in order to do so ([48], [49], [50], [51]; it is noteworthy that they only decided to delete the RfC after the responses to it began supporting proposed article changes with which they disagreed. Their deletions were an attempt to shut down debate). There are very clear and troubling WP:Ownership issues at play here. It would be appreciated if uninvolved editors or administrators could propose a sanction appropriate to the situation; in doing so I would hope that they take into account the fact that Signedzzz has been blocked four times over the past few years for a range of other offences, among them personal attacks and edit warring. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've been following this tangentially, and all I've seen so far is people going back and forth at each other – some who are trying to be civil, and one who needs to calm. the hell. down. I don't know how Signedzzz got it in his head that once a GA is a GA that it's somehow sacrosanct and gets magic GA Immunity from Editing. It. Does. Not.
- The content of the article is irrelevant, and further rehashing of the edits in question is not part of this problem. This is about Signedzzz's behavior. I don't think we're to the level of a block yet, but I want Signedzzz to tell us he understands WP:OWN and that he's way, way over the line here. Katietalk 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded. Emphasis on "yet".142.105.159.60 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes: I understand WP:OWN and that I'm way, way over the line here, with the tone of the comments. zzz (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- And yet there's no apologies for the use of language used or the personal attacks, and you have continued to edit war on the page to prevent the RfC conclusions from being implemented in the article? Even if you understand WP:OWN you are not taking the concerns it expresses on board. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Random date insertion, nationality changes etc.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP.124.106.247.19 disrupts large numbers of random biographies by adding unsourced birth/death dates (example) and changing English/Welsh/Scottish in British, as well as England/Wales/Scotland in United Kingdom (example). I wrote here without trying to discuss with the IP since it is obviously the same person of IP.124.106.246.131 who was blocked few days ago for the same reasons, after ignoring every messages and warnings on his/her talk page. Khruner (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked one week. @Khruner: You can undo/revert their edits as necessary. Start keeping a list of the IPs they use so we can look into a rangeblock if it comes to that. Katietalk 14:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moving pages[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Filpro: recently moved several pages on "animal welfare in country X" to "animal welfare and rights in country X" - these can be seen on their Contributions page. I contacted them on their Talk page and they agreed this had been done without consensus. I am posting here to ask that an admin or other editor move the pages back - I do not feel comfortable about re-opening pages, redirects, etc. I am not asking for any action against the editor. DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: I have moved them back. I should have gained consensus in the talk page before moving the pages. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lo! -the blind did see and the lame did leap like deer!
Coppertothecrows[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone kindly block talk page access per this? I'll notify user, for whatever that's worth. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also sent a request to WP:RFPP for that same reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Six of one, half-dozen of another. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
chris troutman's disrespectful comments[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
here is the message an editor chris troutman left which was unnecessary and childish "Coverage about the court appearance falls under our rule that being famous for one thing doesn't make you notable. The subject hasn't charted or sold gold so they otherwise don't qualify. Also, name-dropping is a cognitive disorder." the comment name dropping is a cognitive disorder was made to insult the writer of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.193.145 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Editor notified since the OP failed to do so. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I have to agree that this is an egregious comment by Chris troutman and that he should possibly be topic-banned from AFC reviews if this is the level of his reviewing. (Not to mention which, the article's subject had potential and the article probably simply needed cleaning up and proper formatting.) On the other hand, afterwards the OP left a comment on Chris troutman's talk page that was grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, and both it and the edit summary had to be revdelled. I think the OP should be directed to the WP:TEAHOUSE for article-creation help and advised that more vulgarity will result in a block, and Chris troutman should be warned about his reviewing or topic-banned from reviewing, and reminded that AfC is not AfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're floating "topic-banned from AFC reviews" on the basis of this single comment? Or perhaps "if this is the level of his reviewing"? Is it the level of his reviewing? I haven't checked yet. Have you? You criticised folks in a recent thread for not fully investigating when they opposed sanctions, yet now here it feels like you're putting forward possible sanctions on the strength of one comment, without waiting for any response, or showing some kind of pattern, even? Begoon talk 10:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I said "possibly ... if this is the level of his reviewing." I did not outright propose anything. He certainly needs a wake-up call -- there was nothing wrong with the article except formatting, but he made several incorrect calls about it and added a major mental-health insult (to a brand-new editor) as well. (And yes, no one should oppose a proposed sanction when they have not fully investigated the 250,000-byte thread that supports it plus the behaviors that spread across an entire article[s] and its talk page and several archives.) Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agreed with you in the previous thread about a need to thoroughly investigate, and it ended well. That's why I'm disappointed in what I see as premature floating of sanctions whilst adding no evidence to a thread which has hardly been responded to. My apologies if that upsets you in any way - it's just how I am. As an aside, did you underline "oppose" because you feel there's some kind of difference in the burden for opposing or supporting sanctions? I'm just curious, and it's probably unimportant. Begoon talk 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat -- I did not propose anything. But when someone makes multiple erroneous calls in the same AfC review, and adds a vicious insult on top of that, that's a major problem. The supporting evidence is in the review I linked. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually you said "Chris troutman should be warned about his reviewing or topic-banned from reviewing", which some might see as a proposal. I didn't, but some might. I like to rush to judgement less quickly, and at least wait for the "accused" to comment, or for some analysis - but we're all different. As I say, it's just how I am, and I certainly don't want to fall out over it. Life's too short. Begoon talk 12:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat -- I did not propose anything. But when someone makes multiple erroneous calls in the same AfC review, and adds a vicious insult on top of that, that's a major problem. The supporting evidence is in the review I linked. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agreed with you in the previous thread about a need to thoroughly investigate, and it ended well. That's why I'm disappointed in what I see as premature floating of sanctions whilst adding no evidence to a thread which has hardly been responded to. My apologies if that upsets you in any way - it's just how I am. As an aside, did you underline "oppose" because you feel there's some kind of difference in the burden for opposing or supporting sanctions? I'm just curious, and it's probably unimportant. Begoon talk 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I said "possibly ... if this is the level of his reviewing." I did not outright propose anything. He certainly needs a wake-up call -- there was nothing wrong with the article except formatting, but he made several incorrect calls about it and added a major mental-health insult (to a brand-new editor) as well. (And yes, no one should oppose a proposed sanction when they have not fully investigated the 250,000-byte thread that supports it plus the behaviors that spread across an entire article[s] and its talk page and several archives.) Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
−
- (edit conflict)Before commenting on and criticising some of our most industrious and experiefced editors such as chris troutman, I suggest more vigilance over the children and 500-edit wonders who patroll at AfC would be far more appropriate. Close this please, someone - no admin intervention necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Kauffner request for unblock per WP:STANDARDOFFER[edit]
Definitely not happening. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all
I have received the following email from banned user User:Kauffner. I have no opinion on this, I'm simply relaying the request here. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Wiki Admins!
- I have been banned from Wikipedia for nearly four years now, but explaining why will take some time. As near as I can tell, the driving force behind my ban is User:Favonian. He and I don’t have any editing interests in common. In fact, there is only one incident that comes to mind as a possible motive.
- Back in June 2011, I added sort keys to Category:English monarchs and to Category:Presidents of the United States so that these categories would sort chronologically instead of alphabetically. Both methods are common on Wikipedia. There is nothing in any guideline that suggests one method is to be preferred over the other. Favonian responded with this diff.
- I got my first block ever on 31 July 2012. This was after I had spent seven years on Wikipedia and had made tens of thousands of edits. Is it reasonable to think that I didn’t know the rules at that point? There wasn’t even an attempt to connect this block to any recent activity on my part. This was right after User:GoodDay had been topic banned over diacritics. I was also interested in diacritics, so someone who already wanted me blocked may have viewed this moment as an opportunity. I was almost immediately unblocked by User:Jenks24.
- After Jenks24 took a break from editing a few months later, the campaign against me resumed. I was again blocked on 8 July 2013 and 11 July 2013. These blocks were in response to reverts I had made to “Han-Nom,” a full-length article on Vietnamese writing that I was the primary author of. This article is about an obscure subject, one that I am sure would have been entirely uncontroversial were it not for my involvement. I never exceeded three reverts in a 24 hour period. Even if I had, the revert of a page blanking is listed in WP:3RRNO as an exception to the 3RR rule. The same people were involved in this incident and in the one the previous year, so I assume it represents payback.
- At the banning discussion in August 2013, a large number of editors with whom I am not otherwise familiar participated. Perhaps they were recruited for the occasion. There are no diffs in the discussion and the only link is to an earlier discussion where the consensus was not to sanction me. Several posts are cookie cutter accusations you could cut and paste into any ban discussion. The closest thing to a specific accusation is a post that accuses me of multiple voting in RMs. No actual RM is mentioned.
- --Kauffner
- No. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. Although the above fails to mention that the block supported by multiple editors was actually not so much for the content of the edits as Kauffner is implying, but for unrepentant, extended sockpuppetry. Without any attempt to address the actual reason why they were community banned, I feel this is doomed to failure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- "It's all a conspiracy among evil editors against poor innocent me, who has never put a foot wrong here"? Erm, No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. (Don't need another "Moonlight Sonata" move discussion, 2012 and not forgotten.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No I got as far as "the campaign against me resumed" relatively unharmed. "Perhaps they were recruited for the occasion." followed, and I weathered that. By the time I reached "the only link is to an earlier discussion where the consensus was not to sanction me", with no mention of this, I'm embarrassed to confess I gave up. Sorry. Begoon talk 11:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely no That was more or less the least acceptable unblock request I've ever seen. 1. Blames everyone involved but takes no personal responsibility 2. Doesn't address the reason they were blocked. 3. Doesn't address the sockpuppetry 4. Doesn't declare used socks. Forget it, throw away the key. Blackmane (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No that is one of the longest sockpuppet threads in existence, and not a single mention of sockpuppetry in their unblock request. Sorry, but it's a no from me and will be until Kauffner at least acknowledges the sockpuppet problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No That's an incredible SPI archive and he didn't even mention it. Nope. Katietalk 12:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. No remorse shown for past socking. No stated intention to refrain from socking in the future. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No - Nearly 55 sections-worth of socking (on the SPI page) and not one mention of it nor is there any mention of stopping, If you're not going to address the issues then quite honestly being blocked is the best thing here. –Davey2010Talk 12:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hell to the no This is almost trolling in how it's written. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Lol (Non-administrator comment) I just discover the case, but the total and complete lack of any shadow of a sign of understanding why they got banned kills it right now. (One could less charitably say they know precisely what they are doing, but if my first stop is WP:AGF, my second is Hanlon's razor.) Notice that in the banning discussion, User:PublicAmpersand commented
I'd urge the admins not to close this thread until it's had a decent amount of participation, lest he rationalize this with the old "just a bad day at AN" line.
- which seems rather prescient, considering the cabal mentality in the recent request. (And of course, the line about "I have been there for long, of course I know the rules" makes the case worse, not better.) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC) - No (edit conflict) simply just no. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No On Kauffner's talk page, there's a quote from three years ago from User:The Bushranger that still applies:
Kauffner, forgive me for being blunt, but your best option for ever returning to editing in any form is to stop digging the hole you're in deeper. Looking at this the only conclusions I can draw are that you're either not understanding the issues editors have with you, or you're deliberately choosing not to, and even if your original block had been vindictive your conduct since it has destroyed any chance of it being lifted short of the WP:STANDARDOFFER.
Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ouch. This unblock request completely misrepresents the facts of why Kauffner was banned in the first place. Since I was the admin who first extended his block (at that time not yet a ban) to indefinite, I'll just stay neutral on this (no doubt I'm part of the conspiracy alluded to above), but let it be said for the record: The original reason for blocking Kauffner was edit warring on his part. The reason the ban was repeatedly extended, eventually to indefinite, and why he was ultimately community banned, was sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. Though I decline the honor of being the "driving force" behind the ban, the present request confirms my belief in Kauffner's deeply rooted shortcomings as a contributor to a collaborative enterprise. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User: Julianno79—COI, failed notability, and legal threats[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user, Julianno79, has made a musician page for himself, Jul Baldovin, that I subsequently and successfully nominated for deletion as there was a conflict of interest and he simply is not notable. I could tell there was a COI when he said on the page's talk page it should not be deleted because he's making "his" page. Now, he has taken to my talk page with this inane response:
| “ | Mister "whatever" is your name. I think that is at least bellow my level to explain you personal my reasons of creating a page on wikipedia. Since 24 years ago i was preocupied with my work, my creation and i think that i can make a difference between commercial and a informative note. If you continue acting like this, i can move far than this, and i can convince my lawyer that we have something to win because of your unsure reasons to delete my borning page. I repeat, i just started this page with minimal information, only because i gather all that i need in next few days to complete it. So whatever your name is, don't bring that on you 'cause you don't have the guts to make this personal. If you do, i can make your keyboard unhappy. If you don't care about what i say, you will hear by a lot of legal things. What you do is a censure, and i will not allow you to do that. Make sure what your response is next, because i will use that. So, be healthy and hope to hear from you in a different point of view. Bye! ;) | ” |
This is patent evidence of conflict of interest, failure to establish our notability guideline, and addition of original research. He also shows intent of recreating the rightfully deleted page.
Also, with every source you can find through search engines, I have an intimation that, as an artist, he has been making these pages online to boost his notability, further boosting his popularity and, as an obvious result, getting more money. The Colour in Anything (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is obviously a single-purpose account, as his only contributions are to the pages he created (one of which had a capitalization error and both of which are now deleted) and to both his and The Colour in Anything's talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Every user has the right to attempt to nominate an article for good article status, and it's up to the reviewer to decide whether or not the article will pass. However, Curly Turkey, who has made no contributions to discussing the content of the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, has been doing nothing whatsoever on the article's talk page except unilaterally edit warring to delete my nomination.[52][53][54][55] Deleting the nomination would be unacceptable under any circumstances, but I think every single Wikipedia editor should be able to agree that deleting a nomination without even bothering to give a single reason on the talk page is completely unacceptable. Curly Turkey has never stated any specific reason why the article is not good article status, or stated anything else for that matter, on the article talk page. Curly Turkey has never sought to gain any consensus for his unilateral actions, and he is in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith because he keeps going around telling me and other users outright that I'm not editing in good faith.[56][57] For a long time now, he's been making hostile comments against me wherever I go.[58][59] I've been working hard on improving the article and Curly Turkey has given no evidence that any of my work on this article was done in bad faith. However, I could work collaboratively with Curly Turkey if he was capable of speaking to me in any way except threats and insults. What's more, Curly Turkey has already been banned three times for edit warring, and edit warring to delete talk page comments is especially bad. In fact, Curly Turkey seems to be in the habit of deleting my talk page comments, because he's done it before. This sort of behavior is obviously harassment.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well; it was obviously of import enough for you to edit war over. Muffled Pocketed
- From what I can see, CT is saying you need consensus to remove those tags and you are saying you don't. Given that all of this occurred three days ago, might it not be wise for you to see if you can compromise the matter? I understand you feel you've been hard done by. I would ask CT if they are of the view that the problems mentioned in the tags still persist in the article. I realize to some extent this is content, but let's see if there's common ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- And out in the open, of course. Muffled Pocketed 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're claim of edit-warring is misleading at best, just look at the dates of your own diffs. That said, there are currently no tags on the article and my question is who removed them? If you removed them then that is a problem, if somebody uninvolved removed them I'd like to know their reasoning if they provided it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is also of concern; It seems that you removed the POV tags without getting consensus to do so. [60][61], the first removal of the tag was reverted with the edit summary of "That was sneaky. Do not remove this again without talk page consensus." I agree with that assessment given your own edit summary was "Added more bibliography". More importantly then that I'd also add this into the discussion for consideration if only for the summary [62]. Note that only a few edits were made after this and that they were nearly all minor (at least two of the major edits were reverted over consensus issues). I have my doubts about the above report. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- If someone is going to revert a nomination, shouldn't they at least say what's wrong with the article so that I can fix it? CurlyTurkey has never mentioned any reason on the article talk page, and even when I asked him on my own talk page he did not.[63] I have already dealt with all outstanding issues concerning the article, but his edit warring has been going on for months.TH1980 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes of course you are correct they should, I do not condone their actions, however I also do not condone your own. I would take less of an issue with your removal of the POV tag if other edits after your removal of the tag hadn't quoted POV issues in their edit summary. Clearly, other editors, who are not involved here, believe that the changes had not removed the POV issue. I have taken a second look at your report and find that there is an astounding amount of assume bad faith on Curley Turkey's part, however, I will wait to give them a chance to respond here first before passing on any judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- If someone is going to revert a nomination, shouldn't they at least say what's wrong with the article so that I can fix it? CurlyTurkey has never mentioned any reason on the article talk page, and even when I asked him on my own talk page he did not.[63] I have already dealt with all outstanding issues concerning the article, but his edit warring has been going on for months.TH1980 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is also of concern; It seems that you removed the POV tags without getting consensus to do so. [60][61], the first removal of the tag was reverted with the edit summary of "That was sneaky. Do not remove this again without talk page consensus." I agree with that assessment given your own edit summary was "Added more bibliography". More importantly then that I'd also add this into the discussion for consideration if only for the summary [62]. Note that only a few edits were made after this and that they were nearly all minor (at least two of the major edits were reverted over consensus issues). I have my doubts about the above report. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- From what I can see, CT is saying you need consensus to remove those tags and you are saying you don't. Given that all of this occurred three days ago, might it not be wise for you to see if you can compromise the matter? I understand you feel you've been hard done by. I would ask CT if they are of the view that the problems mentioned in the tags still persist in the article. I realize to some extent this is content, but let's see if there's common ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like some of the conflict here is the same as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, which TH1980 was a party to (along with several of the many ANI threads leading to that case). It also looks like nearly the same exchange happened with CT and CurtisNaito just a few months ago. Guess we need CT to weigh in to add context/justification. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Especially since CT mentions CurtisNalto in an edit summary. Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are longstanding issues with TH1980 and CurtisNaito at History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture (and other articles, for all I know) regarding their misrepresentation and choices of sources, etc. As a result, the consensus is that they must seek a consensus from the other contributors to these articles before nominating them for GA (note: I am not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture, aside form copyediting). CurtisNaito was blocked for editwarring to nominate History of Japan without seeking a consensus he knew he needed, and TH1980 was a contributor to the editwarring (but didn't get blocked).
- With regard to the Korean influence article, the issues are extrememly controversial, and several editors have disputed TH1980 and CurtisNaito's handling of the article (particularly their choice of sources). User:I JethroBT told them "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months after disputed sources were removed, the two added them back in, and CurtisNaito told TH1980 the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations"—meaning the disputed citations "which were already part of previous versions of the article". Immediately afterwards they nommed it for GA (from which TH1980 got my first warning). Then out of the blue, without even the pretense of seeking the consensus to nom that he knows is required of him, he nominates the article again. With no edit summary. Something he's done before in the hopes of just slipping this through. We've been through this pattern with him enough times that AingGF is no longer credible.
- These problems have been going on nearly a year since I first got involved, and from the sounds of things they've been going on much longer than that at other articles as well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - looking at CT's involvement with Korean influence on Japanese culture, it seems he has vested at least enough in building this article for a seat at the talk page to collaborate on certain matters, like putting it forward for peer review. It seems contrary, to me, to suggest otherwise.--John Cline (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources, and try to stay away from contributing to politically charged articles like this one. Take a look at the talk page to see how much is in dispute, including in the three archives that have built up, and the AFD. Remember, this is but one article where these issues keep coming up with TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since you are "not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture", I don't see why you should prevent nomination. I fixed all the problems from the talk page, but maybe you didn't notice that because you were not participating in those discussions for some reason. I asked you what parts of the article you disagreed with on my own talk page, but you never said anything. You can block a nomination because there is a problem with an article, but you can't block a nomination because you, who isn't even "a contributor", want some sort of vague "consensus". If you know of any specific problems, tell me what sentences you object to, and I'll deal with it. If you assume good faith, I'll work with you and other editors, but you can't keep edit warring without being "a contributor" to the discussion. Remember that IJethrobot never accused me of disruption. Actually, he said the exact opposite and he expressed concern that you were exercising a degree of page ownership over various other articles.TH1980 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources, and try to stay away from contributing to politically charged articles like this one. Take a look at the talk page to see how much is in dispute, including in the three archives that have built up, and the AFD. Remember, this is but one article where these issues keep coming up with TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- CurlyTurkey just said "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". Is that the reason why he won't tell me what his problem with the article is? Apparently, he won't tell me because he hasn't even looked into the article content yet. CurlyTurkey should think up a reason for preventing nomination before preventing nomination, not the other way around.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Notice the game TH1980's playing here—a behavioural pattern. Notice how he never acknowledges—let alone addresses—the fact the he makes not even the slightest pretence of finding out if there's anything like a consensus for the nomination on the page. Expect him to continue playing this game—this won't be the last nom, and I doubt it'll be the last time he brings it to ANI. More eyes on his editing would be most welcome. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I do plan on nominating it again as soon as I deal with any concerns you have with the article's content. You never got consensus to revert the nomination and you haven't posted a single concern about the article's current content on the talk page. Since you haven't yet told me what specific parts of the article you dispute (and you even stated above that you have no knowledge of the article's content), I see no reason why I shouldn't just renominate it right away.TH1980 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- And there we have it folks. Could we get a few more people to watchlist the page? Particularly some admins to watch the talk page? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't know enough about the sources to edit the article, I told you that I could make the changes myself if you tell me which sentences currently need changing. You haven't said a word about that. All I want is for you to take a collaborative attitude and discuss things on the talk page rather than just reverting. If you have nothing at all to say on the talk page about the article's content, no one will criticize me for nominating the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- This endless WP:IDHT is another part of the game. Enough editors have been driven away out of exasperation from the pages CurtisNaito and TH1980 tagteam on. Look how dead Talk:History of Japan has become. We've all run out of energy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can be out of energy from doing nothing whatsoever but unilateral reverting without discussion. When I ask you to tell me if you have any problem with the article's current content, and you say nothing, obviously I'm not the one not listening. If this were on the talk page, it might just be a content issue. The reason why it might not be a content issue is because of the lack of willingness by other editors to discuss content or anything else for that matter.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- For anyone falling for these word games, take a look at Talk:History of Japan and its numerous archives—a dozen of which are from the last year alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I already linked above, IJethrobot told you that I wasn't being disruptive in that discussion. Are you reverting me only because you think I was being disruptive in a discussion that took place many months ago? You were already told that I never did anything disruptive there.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- You know why you were reverted, and we're all sick to death of these games. As long as you refuse to get consensus you will continue to be reverted. Thanks for drawing more eyes to the problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are the only one reverting, so how do I get consensus with you when you will not tell me why you oppose the current nomination and will not say anything on the talk page? According to Wikipedia rules, you can revert only if you discuss. I have been discussing the article and dealt with outstanding issues, but you have not been doing that. You cannot revert unilaterally, without consensus, unless you plan on explaining your reasons.TH1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- You know why you were reverted, and we're all sick to death of these games. As long as you refuse to get consensus you will continue to be reverted. Thanks for drawing more eyes to the problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I already linked above, IJethrobot told you that I wasn't being disruptive in that discussion. Are you reverting me only because you think I was being disruptive in a discussion that took place many months ago? You were already told that I never did anything disruptive there.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- For anyone falling for these word games, take a look at Talk:History of Japan and its numerous archives—a dozen of which are from the last year alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can be out of energy from doing nothing whatsoever but unilateral reverting without discussion. When I ask you to tell me if you have any problem with the article's current content, and you say nothing, obviously I'm not the one not listening. If this were on the talk page, it might just be a content issue. The reason why it might not be a content issue is because of the lack of willingness by other editors to discuss content or anything else for that matter.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- This endless WP:IDHT is another part of the game. Enough editors have been driven away out of exasperation from the pages CurtisNaito and TH1980 tagteam on. Look how dead Talk:History of Japan has become. We've all run out of energy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't know enough about the sources to edit the article, I told you that I could make the changes myself if you tell me which sentences currently need changing. You haven't said a word about that. All I want is for you to take a collaborative attitude and discuss things on the talk page rather than just reverting. If you have nothing at all to say on the talk page about the article's content, no one will criticize me for nominating the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- And there we have it folks. Could we get a few more people to watchlist the page? Particularly some admins to watch the talk page? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I do plan on nominating it again as soon as I deal with any concerns you have with the article's content. You never got consensus to revert the nomination and you haven't posted a single concern about the article's current content on the talk page. Since you haven't yet told me what specific parts of the article you dispute (and you even stated above that you have no knowledge of the article's content), I see no reason why I shouldn't just renominate it right away.TH1980 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Notice the game TH1980's playing here—a behavioural pattern. Notice how he never acknowledges—let alone addresses—the fact the he makes not even the slightest pretence of finding out if there's anything like a consensus for the nomination on the page. Expect him to continue playing this game—this won't be the last nom, and I doubt it'll be the last time he brings it to ANI. More eyes on his editing would be most welcome. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - The deletion of talk page comments is definitely wrong and sanctionable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the substance of this dispute, but FWIW Curly Turkey has a history of deleting other peoples' talk page comments if he's angered by them. Reyk YO! 14:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Editing others comments is not inherently disallowed, except when the meaning of the original comment is changed WP:TALKO However, I would not recommend editing other peoples comments for any reason. If the comment is bad enough that it needs to be edited, it's bad enough to be outright reverted and the editor warned. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Questions and comments: (A) I'm not familiar with GA nomination procedures. Can someone point me to the relevant guideline or policy which indicates that an article cannot be (re)nominated for GA without some sort of consensus (and where and how that alleged consensus is to be achieved or denied)? (B) In terms of the maintenance tags at the top of the article, CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [64]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [65], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [66], [67]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. (C) If there are problems with the article, what are they? Could those opposing the GA nomination please indicate the problems? (D) I myself would be extremely skeptical about sourcing such an article. Any source which derived from Korea or from anyone of Korean descent would have an obvious COI and be suspect, in my mind. Therefore it would be most important to find unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- (A) "If an editor finds and contributes to an article and they believe that it meets the good article criteria, they may nominate the article" "Anyone may nominate an article". Therefore, technically no consensus is required. (B) There is no question that the problems that originally caused the article to be tagged were fully and completely dealt with before the tags were removed. It was only many days after the tags were removed that concerns were raised on the talk page that were unrelated to the original tagging. I and other users dealt with those subsequent concerns, and I waited several weeks after that to make sure no one would raise any further objections. Only then did I renominate. (C) CurlyTurkey has not yet said what objections he has to the article's content. Instead, he said above, "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". (D) There's nothing wrong with including sources from neutral Korean scholars. Excluding all scholars even "of Korean descent" is definitely too extreme. Still, the majority of the sources cited are not written exclusively by people of Korean descent. William Wayne Farris is American and so is C. Melvin Aikens who co-wrote a peer-reviewed article on the subject.TH1980 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender: There is no requirement to find consensus under normal circumstances. TH1980's and CurtisNaito's are not normal circumstances. Here's an abbreviated version of the exasperatingly long story (notice how long it is even when abbreviated):
I used to copyedit CurtisNaito's GANs when I saw them on the GAN listings—he edits Japan-related articles, as do I. Sometimes his articles seemed a little funny: Iwane Matsui, for example, which he brought to FAC with some strange omissions. I AGFed, because he seemed to be doing an awful lot of work for WP:JAPAN.
In August, CurtisNaito, who had never touched the History of Japan article before, made two edits to it and nominated it for GA the same day. It passed a week later with an extraordinarily superficial review. The listing immediately drew a number of editors disputing it. I showed up to copyedit, and didn't really follow the disputes at first. Over the months of dispute that followed, I eventually took a look at the actual sources—and discovered the disputants weren't just being dispuatious. Missing key figures and events, trivial detail in abundance, organizational issues, and the sources cited didn't support the text. In short, the worst hatchet job I'd come across on Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, TH1980 mysteriously and suddenly showed up on the page and began removing tags. Discussions on the talk page went nowhere as CurtisNaito tried to drown them in text and TH1980 would interject bizarre non sequiturs to derail them. Attempts to fix the article were blocked with the excuse that it was already a GA, so hands off! It was taken to GAR, and after 15kB more of this endless nonsense was finally delisted—and CurtisNaito relisted it twelve minutes later, and an edit war ensued. This happened more than one, sometimes with TH1980 participating in the edit warring, with bizarre comments like GA is a valid topic to discuss, (in an edit where he adds the GAN but does not discuss anything) and then responds to an actual discussion "We should just find out if the good article reviewer thinks that the article is at good article status yet, not start a poll." These are typical of the mind games TH1980 has played throughout the dispute. Here's an example of CurtisNaito sneaking in the GAN banner under the guise of adding a comment—notice a pattern? They've both GANed the "Korean influence ..." article in similar sneaky ways. A result is that these pair are now required to seek consensus on the talk page before nominating articles they know are disputed. Of course, they never do, and continue to try to nominate these article on the sly.
Then these disputes continued endlessly on the History of Japan talk page, editor after editor eventually giving up under CurtisNaito and TH1980's war of attrition. The discussions eventually came to an end around Christmas, and the article remains a mess that this pair refuses to allow to be improved. They've turned to Korean influence on Japanese culture, an article with far fewer editors watchlisting it. It is an extremely politicized topic, and it has been pointed out that some of the sources are by nationalists. Disputes ensued (I wasn't involved) and some of these sources were removed. User:I JethroBT told the pair "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months later, CurtisNaito suddenly declared to TH1980 that the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations ... which were already part of previous versions of the article" (meaning the disputed citations that were removed).
This is an explicit declaration of Bad Faith. I've brought it up already, too—why do so many of the commenters here refuse to address it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a standing order or sanction or some such similar that states that TH1980 and CurtisNaito must seek consensus before nominating for GA? This is just an immediate question I have, I will take a look at these articles, edits and talk pages. Will reply sometime later today. For the time being, perhaps both parties are at least somewhat guilty in the ABF department. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- An official ANI-style sanction? No. This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page. Consensus doesn't require official sanctions. Please keep in mind the disruption these two caused by getting the History of Japan article GA-ed, using the certification to block improvements to the article—this is not a trivial issue, which is why consensus to nom is critical. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, I'll be looking at the pages for History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture, specifically I'll try to review the history and talk pages and come to better grips with the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- My first impression is, both talk pages are just walls of text, currently on Korean influence on Japanese culture I notice that three editors are continuously in dispute over the quality and validity of sources. I think, it may be useful to get the third person's opinion here (the other two are already here), @Nishidani: would you care to comment on this thread about the issue? as you seem to be a recently involved party. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Others involved in that page's disputes with CurtisNaito and TH1980 are Shii, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, and Hijiri88, though Hijiri88 won't be able to comment here as he and TH1980 have an interaction ban. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- "This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page." Can you provide the link to that consensus? Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well @Softlavender:, I have something even better. [68] How about this for some sleuthing, there is AN/I consensus that CurtisNaito is not to propose a GAN until consensus is formed. Read the entire closing statement, its in Archive906. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are absolutely beautiful, Mr rnddude, and I want ot have your babies. There are so many threads on so many different forums about this stuff that it's impossible to remember where all this is anymore. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- That applies to a completely different article (and a different editor). I would like to see the consensus that Curly Turkey referred to regarding Korean influence on Japanese culture by "the other contributors to the page". Softlavender (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's the same behaviour by the same two editors on a closely related and similarly highly disputed article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, there is no "consensus among the other contributors to the page" that Korean influence on Japanese culture cannot be (re)nominated for GA without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Softlavender: in other words, you have no qualms allowing such meatpuppetry to become a precedent? IJethroBT was explicit that "Both editors are well aware of how contentious [the History of Japan renomination is", and that applies to the closely-related "Korean influence" article which is disputed for the same severe sourcing issues. The bad faith and obfuscation on the part of both editors has been established, and the reasons for the nomination have been laid clear—to obstruct. We're dealing with a serious ongoing problem here, and your response is WikiLawyering. Will you take responsibility for the damage? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have the feeling we'll have one on this thread if the people that have been pinged have the time (or will) to reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, there is no "consensus among the other contributors to the page" that Korean influence on Japanese culture cannot be (re)nominated for GA without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's the same behaviour by the same two editors on a closely related and similarly highly disputed article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this may be worth glancing at as well, its indicative of the sort of issues on the page. [69] Mr rnddude (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well @Softlavender:, I have something even better. [68] How about this for some sleuthing, there is AN/I consensus that CurtisNaito is not to propose a GAN until consensus is formed. Read the entire closing statement, its in Archive906. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- An official ANI-style sanction? No. This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page. Consensus doesn't require official sanctions. Please keep in mind the disruption these two caused by getting the History of Japan article GA-ed, using the certification to block improvements to the article—this is not a trivial issue, which is why consensus to nom is critical. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely no one except CurlyTurkey has ever told me, in any manner, that I need "consensus" before nominating the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, or for that manner any article, for good article status. CurlyTurkey cannot provide any diff that would show any other user telling me this, because that never happened. Even so, I'm absolutely willing to seek a consensus with CurlyTurkey on this matter. What I need to know is how I can reach a consensus with him when he has never stated anywhere on the talk page what his objections to the current text of the article are. My main goal in being here is to convince CurlyTurkey to tell me what he objects to about the content of the article so that I can deal with it before nominating. He still hasn't said anything. As CurlyTurkey points out, I did edit the article History of Japan, but I was not the one who nominated it for good article status. CurlyTurkey seems to mistakenly believe that my edits to that article were disruptive, but the admin IJethrobot explicitly told CurlyTurkey that my edits there were not disruptive. Another user says that CurlyTurkey has a history of deleting the talk page comments of people he is angry at.[70] Either CurlyTurkey is keeping his objections to the article a carefully-guarded secret, or else maybe he is just deleting the nomination because he doesn't like me personally.TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any. Here [71] he eloquently laid out some serious concerns, which he can repeat during the GA discussions, if they happen. Or, he can post those concerns preemptively on the article's talk page right now. I personally have no opinion on the merits of this article, although Curly Turkey's statements there are indeed worrisome, especially when noted alongside TH1980 and CurtisNaito's repeated removal of maintenance tags with diversionary misleading edit summaries, and I agree that sourcing such an article must be done very very carefully to avoid Korean-COI POV. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm open to having a discussion concerning the article. I think all editors can participate and lay down any remaining problems that they have with the article. Remember that I didn't try to nominate the article until weeks after I had dealt with all outstanding concerns on the talk page. Once discussion restarts, I will not nominate again until I or another user has edited away any remaining trouble points. A talk page discussion with CurlyTurkey and all other users was all I was asking for anyway, and if all users agree that we should discuss the supposed problems with the article, then this thread can be closed.TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm open to having a discussion—then open one, as you've been told countless times. But we know from experience that will never happen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- SoftLavender said, "If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions". I agree, and I don't think you've done that yet. Also, Mrrnddude seemed to indicate, I think, that one possible option to solve the problem is "The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails." I didn't nominate the Korean influence article until weeks after talk page discussion had reached its conclusion, so I wasn't trying to obstruct anything. I'm willing open a new discussion if you participate and tell me what you would like to see changed in the article. This thread could potentially cause discussion to restart on the article talk page involving all users, and I'm okay with that. A number of other users have confirmed that consensus is NOT necessary to nominate the article, so I don't think you were correct to delete the nomination, but I'm willing to talk about any outstanding issues at this point. Sometimes solutions to AN/I threads can be complex, but most of the eventual solutions do involve assuming good faith and discussing things. This is Wikipedia, and for better or worse, those two things are pretty much mandatory.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No one is required to open a discussion. The person who wants to have a discussion, or insists on having a discussion, is the one who should open it. There is no requirement that a GAN be pre-discussed. Discussion happens as a matter of course in a GAN. If someone wants to re-nominate the article for GA, they are free to do so at any time. If someone wants to forestall that, the way to do that is to bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No one is required to open a discussion—CurtisNaito is, as you're aware. Again, you're WikiLawyering. Now why are you avoiding addressing the actual issues? This thread being part of it—the whole situation's a setup on TH1980's part. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- The place to discuss the article issues is the article's talk page. The place to discuss behavioral issues is in an ANI thread with abundant substantiating diffs (or an ArbCom request, if it has gone that far). What other issues do you want addressed, or what outcome are you expecting/wanting from this current ANI thread? Could you be specific? CurtisNaito and TH1980 topic-banned from Japan-related articles? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from tag-teaming/co-editing? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from GANs without prior article-talk-page consensus? (Or some other sanctions against poorly sourced editing?) Since we haven't yet heard from any of the other editors to this article, it's hard to make those calls based solely on your evidence here. That's why I suggest a dedicated ANI thread that all parties who have experience with these two editors can participate in and bring evidence to. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Softlavender: While I'd love to see them both topic-banned from Japan-related articles, all I've asked for here is that they both abide by the standing requirement that if they intend to nom any of these highly contentious articles for GA, they post about it beforehand on the article's talk page and ensure there is consensus that the issues have been dealt with. I'd hardly call that burdensome. Why would they refuse if they are acting in good faith? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't "the standing requirement". No one but you ever said that I needed consensus to nominate this article, and you only just told me this month. Still, I'm willing to get consensus, but only if those who disagree with the nomination do what SoftLavender says and "bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page". That's the key. Those who disagree need to list specific objections that we can discuss and that we can fix. I think that once a majority of respondents approve nomination, that should be consensus.TH1980 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- All right. I'd like to see Wehwalt review that proposal and post his opinion, possibly also closing this thread in the process unless there is more business to attend to. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Softlavender: I need to point out—again, since people are ignoring this—how many editors have engaged with these two at History of Japan and who don't even bother to respond to pings any more, so effectively have CurtisNaito and TH1980 worn them out. A dozen archives in less than six months (mostly August to December). Attrition is a serious problem with these two, and a serious problem with getting them dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you on that, and I've had experience in similar situations with editors who lock down a specific topic POV and wear everyone else out so that the landscape is clear for them to dominate. That's why an ArbCom may eventually be in order, if you can motivate the troops. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Softlavender: While I'd love to see them both topic-banned from Japan-related articles, all I've asked for here is that they both abide by the standing requirement that if they intend to nom any of these highly contentious articles for GA, they post about it beforehand on the article's talk page and ensure there is consensus that the issues have been dealt with. I'd hardly call that burdensome. Why would they refuse if they are acting in good faith? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- The place to discuss the article issues is the article's talk page. The place to discuss behavioral issues is in an ANI thread with abundant substantiating diffs (or an ArbCom request, if it has gone that far). What other issues do you want addressed, or what outcome are you expecting/wanting from this current ANI thread? Could you be specific? CurtisNaito and TH1980 topic-banned from Japan-related articles? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from tag-teaming/co-editing? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from GANs without prior article-talk-page consensus? (Or some other sanctions against poorly sourced editing?) Since we haven't yet heard from any of the other editors to this article, it's hard to make those calls based solely on your evidence here. That's why I suggest a dedicated ANI thread that all parties who have experience with these two editors can participate in and bring evidence to. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No one is required to open a discussion—CurtisNaito is, as you're aware. Again, you're WikiLawyering. Now why are you avoiding addressing the actual issues? This thread being part of it—the whole situation's a setup on TH1980's part. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm open to having a discussion—then open one, as you've been told countless times. But we know from experience that will never happen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm open to having a discussion concerning the article. I think all editors can participate and lay down any remaining problems that they have with the article. Remember that I didn't try to nominate the article until weeks after I had dealt with all outstanding concerns on the talk page. Once discussion restarts, I will not nominate again until I or another user has edited away any remaining trouble points. A talk page discussion with CurlyTurkey and all other users was all I was asking for anyway, and if all users agree that we should discuss the supposed problems with the article, then this thread can be closed.TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately I see this going two ways, 1. the arguments stay on here and somebody gets a block or better yet no-consensus or 2. The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails. That or wait for some responses, I went through as much talk and archives as I could, its impossible to sift through. The only people who could reliably comment on this are those that were there. As for a potential GA nomination, I agree with the above. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neither (1) nor (2) solve the problem. We've made numerous calls for someone to step in, but nobody has the balls. This mess is so big and so deep and so tall, we cannot pick it up. There is no way at all! And that's the point—CurtisNaito and TH1980's modus operandi is to keep these disputes so long, buried in so many archives and across so many forums, that nobody can seriously wade through it and deal with the real problem—which is CurtisNaito and TH1980 and their execrable hatchet jobs on Japan-related articles. It's too hard to see through the mess, and too easy to block a 3RR violation or someone saying "fuck". It's gone on for years now—how many more to come? How many people have to get blocked or IBANned or TBANned over standing up to these two editors' relentless shenanigans? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you feel there are enormous and site-wide problems with Curitsnaito's and TH1980's behavior, then I think the appropriate forum for that would be a dedicated ANI thread (not this one) with numerous specific diffs that make your case. Or ArbCom, but it should probably be at ANI first. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Softlavender: Another one? Very drôle. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you feel there are enormous and site-wide problems with Curitsnaito's and TH1980's behavior, then I think the appropriate forum for that would be a dedicated ANI thread (not this one) with numerous specific diffs that make your case. Or ArbCom, but it should probably be at ANI first. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- At this stage, I say block Curly Turkey if the GA review is removed again. I'm sorry, I don't see any indication that the request is in any being done to be disruptive or to make a WP:POINT so as of this point, someone has requested a review, so have a review and move on. I have zero idea in this long-winded discussion why Curly is opposed to another party reviewing the article but so be it. It's not like there's a dispute about the person doing the review, just the idea of a review. It seems like Curley is opposed to the state of the article, which is fine, but without a single discussion on the talk page about what is the problem with it, this to me is no different than someone posting a POV tag on the page and refusing to state what the actual concerns are. If the article is really in such poor shape, then a GA review should fail but at the very least, it won't be the same editors bickering over it. If we conduct a review, Curley still refuses to tell anyone what the actual issues are, a reviewer passes the article, can Curley then continue to be disruptive over the state of the article and refuse to state the actual concerns? What is we move towards a FA review? Will we continue this routine? It's not that difficult: if you have a problem with something, explain it and convince others. If you can't or won't do that, too bad, it's not our jobs to read your mind. Ranting that a group of others are ruining things without providing any concrete information about what the problem is is a fast way to get yourself topic banned. Besides, any article that isn't inherently stable is going to fail a GA review fairly quick so -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, you ignored every word of this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, I got it. You think people are doing something wrong. You haven't explained what it is nor do you have the consensus to get those editors topic banned
and rather than either doing the necessary discussion to get your point across, you're pouting and edit warring and playing passive-aggressive games that resolve nothing. The talk page shows a lot of disputes but there is currently no IBAN or TBAN or whatever in placeand you still won't just come out and explicitly tell anyone else the problems. So in terms of us moving on, either we will sit here going in circleswith you pouting and complaining about what or even who really, I can't tell,or someone can make a request for a GA review, and other parties can review this one articlewhile the rest of us deal with the remaining five million pages here. Again, it is YOUR responsibility to explain what your issues are: we are not psychic nor do I plan on responding to your "hide-the-ball" routine about what issue you have. I honestly could not care less about getting into whatever drama you want to engage in here but the fact that in this lengthy stupid discussion,I can't find a single concrete reason why your opposition to a review should trump someone else wanting to do it. I don't even know if you just think the article is not GA quality at which point the easier solution is to just start the review yourself or let it go.Clearly, you are more interested in stopping other people than actually achieving something here and for that, I suggest everyone else ignore whatever grudge you have and move on.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, I got it. You think people are doing something wrong. You haven't explained what it is nor do you have the consensus to get those editors topic banned
- In other words, you ignored every word of this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- If I may, Ricky, I originally thought exactly the same thing, and had so stated in so many words up above. Then I went back and closely read all of CT's posts in this thread which were not of the snipey type (the snipeyness and the like are CT's downfall), and found that his core points make abundant sense (even Wehwalt agrees with that), and are extremely worrisome. Even though ideally there should be an official ArbCom or ANI ruling to point to such a restriction on CurtisNaito and TH1980 re: this article, there isn't one other than the combined evidence that has been presented by CT and others in this thread and by other ArbComs and ANI threads (some of which are linked or mentioned here). It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus. That's why I'd like to hear from Wehwalt on this matter. Yes, CT was out-of-process in his GAN removals, but it may have served the higher good. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- If someone wants to propose an IBAN or a TBAN or whatever, then propose that. Do it in a separate section and be concise and to the point, instead of making out an argument routine about whether you need a consensus to start a GAN. Still, I don't see a simple: "this is a problem because of diff X" that cuts through the pages of text here. Until then, I presume that the GAN request was in good faith. Is there evidence that the GAN is some sort of POINT violation or something screwy? Are others here opposed to a GAN review on that article? If so, why? Give me an explanation that can't be defeated simply by "let the review go and oppose it at the review." Otherwise, deal with that issue separately, by as stated explicitly making a separate AN or ANI or ARBCOM post about the matter. If people want to debate the standards for creating a GAN review, take that to WT:GAN or whatever as that is not for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if literally no one else will deal with the problem, there are two possibilities here: either it literally is the most insurmountable problem ever seen in the history of this project, one that that is so complicated on such a giant topic involving so many different editors that it simply cannot be explained to mere admins or even arbitrators or regardless of your disagreements, there is no problem here. In this entire mess of a discussion, I see someone express a desire to get someone else topic banned and where the response has been "create an ANI discussion or take it to ARBCOM" and it seems like the response is "I don't want to do all that so this is how I'm objecting." Does that sum up where we are right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- All I can say is, unless you have read every single post and link on this thread very carefully, I don't think you have a grasp of the situation or how it cannot be solved by "a simple: 'this is a problem because of diff X'" or by assuming that the GA renom was simply in good faith. That's why I'd like Wehwalt (who is currently asleep/offline) to weigh in. I understand your attitude of 'I shouldn't have to read 150,000 bytes of text to understand this', but unfortunately I think you do. Anyway, I'm probably not going to repeat myself further or reply further; I will await Wehwalt. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Softlavender, I went through so many archives and talk pages. Discussions with these two editors is always a shitshow. The proposal is a little bit outside of norm but I understand where its coming from. Read everything and I believe you will too. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. When people can't distill their points down to a concise manner, it's largely a matter of effort. Ten to one if someone took this to ABRCOM and had to make the 500 word limited summary, they would be able to do it but no one is even trying here since there's requirement to do so. It's not that hard to link to five discussions that are going in circles rather than actual diffs to show us the Gish gallop routine if that's the problem. If even the IP dispute can be brought to ARBCOM with people following the specific word limitations and providing accurate summaries, this topic certainly can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- All I can say is, unless you have read every single post and link on this thread very carefully, I don't think you have a grasp of the situation or how it cannot be solved by "a simple: 'this is a problem because of diff X'" or by assuming that the GA renom was simply in good faith. That's why I'd like Wehwalt (who is currently asleep/offline) to weigh in. I understand your attitude of 'I shouldn't have to read 150,000 bytes of text to understand this', but unfortunately I think you do. Anyway, I'm probably not going to repeat myself further or reply further; I will await Wehwalt. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- If I may, Ricky, I originally thought exactly the same thing, and had so stated in so many words up above. Then I went back and closely read all of CT's posts in this thread which were not of the snipey type (the snipeyness and the like are CT's downfall), and found that his core points make abundant sense (even Wehwalt agrees with that), and are extremely worrisome. Even though ideally there should be an official ArbCom or ANI ruling to point to such a restriction on CurtisNaito and TH1980 re: this article, there isn't one other than the combined evidence that has been presented by CT and others in this thread and by other ArbComs and ANI threads (some of which are linked or mentioned here). It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus. That's why I'd like to hear from Wehwalt on this matter. Yes, CT was out-of-process in his GAN removals, but it may have served the higher good. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hardly ever participate in ANI threads, but the solution here seems simple. CT, opposed the nomination because of no consensus, then start a 7 day thread on the article's talk page, and if there is no opposition, or there is a reasonable consensus act on. CT was wrong to persistently revert, and TH1980 could have better handled the situation by starting a simple 7 day discussion on the talk page simply to appease the concerns of Mr. Turkey, and this whole discussion could have been avoided. If I'm missing something, I apologize, but this thread is turning into a wall of text going in circles.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 08:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- A wall of text maybe, but a wall of text with vital information about a very complex, wide-ranging, and longstanding problem. Have you read the entire thread and also the links provided to other discussions? Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have and it's a rather large amount to take in. But I still feel, going back to the original reason this post happened to begin with, if it were me, I would've opened a thread on the article talk page asking the other editors if it should be nominated. That would've only helped the nomination, because if it was nominated as a result of a discussion, it would have shown the article to be decently stable. Then again, I'm no content contributor and I gain my experience from lurking around various places. I just thought I would offer my opinion on the matter.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- A wall of text maybe, but a wall of text with vital information about a very complex, wide-ranging, and longstanding problem. Have you read the entire thread and also the links provided to other discussions? Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It would also be instructive to hear what BenLinus1214 aka Johanna has to say about the situation on this article, considering they rejected the last GA attempt
2.5 weeksa year ago with this summary: Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture/GA1. Especially given the fact that all of those maintenance tags were removed from the article surreptitiously, with false edit summaries, by CurtisNaito and TH1980. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC); corrected 12:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't receive the ping earlier for some reason. I haven't been editing much recently, but even so, if I was going to be discussed this much, maybe I should have been notified on my talk page instead.
- Softlavender, I don't believe that I removed tags improperly. I removed the tag mentioning art because my very next edit was a rewrite of the section on art with the edit summary "art". I must have done a good job editing it, because even though concerns were raised about parts of the article later, none of it related to the section on art. When I did remove the POV tag, I used the edit summary "It might be better to tag just the specific section you are concerned about. The large majority of this has never been objected to." Although I discussed the matter with Curly Turkey on my talk page [72], Curly Turkey did not give a reason for tagging the article and did not argue against it in the talk page. It seems to me that I removed the tags in an open and proper manner. Also, note that the article was last nominated one year and 2.5 weeks ago.
- However, a lot of the diffs above relate to events before 2016, almost all of which were presented as evidence in the aforementioned arbcom case. They may be misbehavior, but those diffs were already investigated and judged months ago.
- And concerning that issue, I think Curly Turkey is still showing some hyperbole relating to my edits. I'm not a bad editor, as the users who have reviewed the good articles I nominated can attest. Let’s keep in mind that Curly Turkey, in reference to Nishidani's edits to the History of Japan article, said the following about Nishidani. "Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia." "improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for" "Leave the copyediting to the competent, please." "you don't understand what sourcing is about and are willing to disrupt article space to push the slightest of POVs. This brings all of your sourcing into question" Is Nishidani really that horrible of an editor, completely unable to read sources or edit in a competent and sincere manner? Actually, it seems like Curly Turkey gets more than a little carried away in heated discussions with the people he argues with.
- Though I was not involved in the recent edit warring, naturally I supported nomination. I have nominated numerous good level articles, and when I noticed that TH1980 had been heavily editing the Korean influence on Japanese culture article while I was inactive, I told him he should consider fixing the article's remaining problems and nominate it. I never suggested to him that he add in any sources that (at the time) were described on the talk page as being controversial. From the talk page, we see that TH1980 was able to correct a number of important errors Nishidani made.[73][74] I'm sure each of them corrected each other on occasion. I noticed that Nishidani was warned by an admin about potentially driving users off the article because of his rude comments, but it seems like the two of them still managed to work together. TH1980 often pointed out in the talk page that the wording he used matched the preferred wording of the sources, which mostly were peer reviewed articles and academic books.
- Various users have put forward various solutions to the current problem of when to re-nominate the article. Though consensus may not be required, it's obvious that if new complaints turn up they should be discussed either during or prior to any good article review. If discussion begins again on the talk page of the article in question, I'm sure I'll eventually get around to expressing my own view. TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries, so what was needed was indeed discussion. Nishidani himself stated below that very frequently my role in the article's talk page was to step "in to find a compromise". There were many occasions on the talk page where I proposed requests for comment and other such measures, so maybe we need to move in that direction.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- "TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries." TH1980 renominated the article 2 weeks after Johanna rejected the first nomination. And none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, as I already mentioned above, he nominated it one year and 2 weeks after. It seemed to me that he was responding quickly whenever Nishidani raised a concern.[75][76] Personally, I think that discussion was progressing well, and if more work was needed then discussion should have continued.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see now you meant that the first nomination was in 2015; I had failed to notice the year date. However my point still stands that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. If you disagree with this, I invite you to read the entire talk page and its entire archives, as well as Nishidani's post below. on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most of Nishidani's posts were disputing the reliability of "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", a peer-reviewed academic article written by a team of leading scholars, including a prominent American historian. I offered to bring the source to the reliable sources noticeboard just to be sure it really was a good source,[77] but I never received a response. As was pointed out by three users in the talk page, Nishidani is a researcher but as a result has some tendency to lean towards original research. The academic article Nishidani disputed is at least not original research, but it could be original research to create, as Nishidani did, an entire paragraph, in an article on "Korean influence on Japanese culture", and cite it entirely to the Nihon Shoki, an eighth century work of history.[78] I appreciate that I could discuss things with Nishidani, but it is through discussion that we can identify and eliminate original research like this. I still think that re-nomination is fine as long as the current issues on the talk page are responded to and edited. TH1980 did not nominate until he had done that.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see now you meant that the first nomination was in 2015; I had failed to notice the year date. However my point still stands that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. If you disagree with this, I invite you to read the entire talk page and its entire archives, as well as Nishidani's post below. on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, as I already mentioned above, he nominated it one year and 2 weeks after. It seemed to me that he was responding quickly whenever Nishidani raised a concern.[75][76] Personally, I think that discussion was progressing well, and if more work was needed then discussion should have continued.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- As to this, I cited a primary source, almost word for word. That is not original research. When requested, I gave a secondary source. Nothing in that breaks the rules. The so-called peer reviewed source used to write a third of the article was co-authored by Sung-rak Choi, affiliated (what's that mean in terms of academic status?) with the Department of Archaeology, Mokpo National University, a department that seems to have near zero attendance, and one lecturer, not him. just as the other chap, Hyuk-jin Ro is affiliated with the Department of History, Hallym University, a small private university in Korea. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't take a passage from such an old history book and interpret it as being "Korean influence on Japanese culture". Wikipedia discourages the use of such old works in general, but we can't necessarily say that the authors of the Nihon Shoki intended that passage to demonstrate a Korean influence on Japanese culture. That might simply be a modern interpretation. I found it odd that you think the Nihon Shoki is a good source to cite in the article, but not a peer reviewed academic article specifically on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Also, I did offer to take the academic article to the reliable sources noticeboard, and we could have discussed the matter at greater length on the talk page. This article has a lot of strengths including co-authorship by numerous academics (you haven't questioned the two working at the University of Oregon), extensive citations to scholarly works, and research done at major museums in both Japan and Korea. Even if you disagree with its opinions, I suspect its acceptability as a source would stand at the reliable sources noticeboard, probably a lot better than the Nihon Shoki would.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just a simple English lesson. 'Old history books' has two primary meanings. (a) an outdated secondary source in history (b) a primary source (Herodotus, the Bible,Sima Qian, Livy, Primary Chronicle). You are using (b) in the sense of (a) and haven't understood WP:PRIMARY, since I made no interpretation. Making a more extended comment than this will only generate the humongously silly threads your failure to understand these matters invariably generate.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia also discourages primary sources, if you prefer to call it that. The very fact that you put it on an article called Korean influence on Japanese culture means that you interpreted that passage as an example of Korean influence on Japanese culture. Perhaps it is, but to be safe it's better to just use modern scholarship about Korean influence on Japanese culture rather than culling obscure passages from ancient works and assuming ourselves that these passages were intended to prove Korean influence on Japanese culture.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not really, Wikipedia doesn't discourage the use of primary sources, it discourages incorrect use of primary sources. Incorrect primarily meaning interpretation, don't interpret the meaning of a primary source. Where secondary sources are available then it is best to use them provided that they are Reliable. The very fact that it's on the article by no means means that there is interpretation going on. If a source says something and you quote it, there is, by its very definition, no interpretation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the "primary source" would be irrelevant unless it was on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and I would be wary of declaring the passage in question to be necessarily about Korea influencing Japan. In this case, it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. I think that we should be able to agree that a peer reviewed academic article published in 2007 is a superior source to base a whole section off of than a history book from the eighth century.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Curtis. The above only shows why you also have a behavioural problem. The obvious takes paragraphs + to get through to you, even with policy. When you raised this issue, you said: I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source. Translation? You don't understand what a primary source is (a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.) There is no shadow of a doubt that the Nihon Shoki fits this exactly. It is the primary literary record of the early history of Korean peninsular relations with Yamato. Once more your trivial, ignorant hairsplitting here is evidence of how this game of quibbling attrition is played on those and similar pages. Eventually this willful obtusity to the obvious on talk pages, which has driven off several editors, will have to be reviewed administratively. If CN can harp on his doubts even in the face of facts and straightforward policy, I leave it to all to imagine what happens when one must explain to him the intricacies of ancient history and its interpretations, esp. since he knows nothing of it.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Large passage? it's one bloody sentence how is that a large passage. Can you link me to the source you are supporting CurtisNaito, I'd like to take a look at it myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- For that matter I have a serious question. If theres an issue with the Nihon Shoki, why, has this not been implemented; [79]. @CurtisNaito: made a request for a better source, @Nishidani: offers up a recent secondary source, and @TH1980: states quite literally that they'll put it in and then doesn't do it. how about some actual conflict resolution and not just conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- TH1980 put the source in immediately after he said he would.
- Most of the history covered in the Nihon Shoki was not written contemporary to the events that had occurred. The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events. I favor the journal article Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan. I do think it's a double standard to use the Nihon Shoki as the sole source for an entire section, but disparage a recent peer reviewed article.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events.
- The 4th proof in a few exchanges you don't understand what you are talking about. Prince Toneri, the editor of the primary text that is the Nihon Shoki, was a contemporary of the Empress Jitō whose reign is covered by that work. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're probably aware that Prince Toneri, who was born in 676, was not a contemporary of most of the historical figures portrayed in the book and could not have met Maketsu personally.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are totally unaware that Livy, Sima Qian, the Tanakh, Herodotus, Thucidides, etc.etc.etc. are all primary sources, like the Nihon Shoki, and are regularly quoted on early Roman history, the Zhou Dynasty. the history of early Israel, and the Ionian Revolt, all things that occurred up to a 1,000 years before the birth of those primary source authors. My practice is always to quote them, unlike most good wiki editors, through secondary sources, unless the datum is quoted verbatim, as I did from the primary source here. You don't know the subject, you don't understand the elementary rules on primary sourcing, so drop the obtusity.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is Wikipedia, we should just use Wikipedia's definitions. Wikipedia defines primary sources as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." You can't deny that this does NOT describe the Nihon Shoki as you cited it. Prince Toneri was not "close to" the events of, say, Shotoku's regency (or Maketsu's arrival in Japan) and certainly was not directly involved it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Further evidence why you should be banned from editing these articles, for intransigent hair-splitting to dispute the obvious and challenge the universal consensus of scholarship, which, if if isn't just dumb, looks like a tactic of attrition.Since this is Wikipedia, we should read the whole policy page, and not spin one part for the whole, i.e. 'Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later. Sometimes the only evidence relating to an event or person in the distant past was written or copied decades or centuries later.' All modern scholarship on Japan classifies the Nihon Shoki as a primary source: here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. So much for your vaunted preference for ‘modern scholarship’.
- This persistently willful obtuseness to make a point should be sanctionable, and I leave this for anyone to bookmark for an occasion when CN’s longterm behaviour on these articles calls for serious administrative review.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most of those sources you just cited are referring to the Nihon Shoki as the main source of information on ancient Japanese history. "Azumamaro established a reputation as an authority of the Nihon Shoki which for him served as the primary source on ancient history". If it was only "the primary source for him", it means that it was the main source he was using, not a "primary source" in scholarly terms. You are far more likely to see the Nihon Shoki described as a historical text or an ancient history book than as a primary source. According to "Traditional Japanese Literature" by Haruo Shirane, "The Nihon Shoki draws on numerous sources, including Chinese dynastic histories, records compiled by Korean immigrants to Japan, histories of temples (engi), and various local clan histories." In scholarly terms, a primary source should be the original. If a book is researched by consulting earlier sources, as the Nihon Shoki was according to Haruo Shirane, it is likely a secondary source. That's why Wikipedia says that secondary sources are "one step removed from an event."CurtisNaito (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is Wikipedia, we should just use Wikipedia's definitions. Wikipedia defines primary sources as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." You can't deny that this does NOT describe the Nihon Shoki as you cited it. Prince Toneri was not "close to" the events of, say, Shotoku's regency (or Maketsu's arrival in Japan) and certainly was not directly involved it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are totally unaware that Livy, Sima Qian, the Tanakh, Herodotus, Thucidides, etc.etc.etc. are all primary sources, like the Nihon Shoki, and are regularly quoted on early Roman history, the Zhou Dynasty. the history of early Israel, and the Ionian Revolt, all things that occurred up to a 1,000 years before the birth of those primary source authors. My practice is always to quote them, unlike most good wiki editors, through secondary sources, unless the datum is quoted verbatim, as I did from the primary source here. You don't know the subject, you don't understand the elementary rules on primary sourcing, so drop the obtusity.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're probably aware that Prince Toneri, who was born in 676, was not a contemporary of most of the historical figures portrayed in the book and could not have met Maketsu personally.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- For that matter I have a serious question. If theres an issue with the Nihon Shoki, why, has this not been implemented; [79]. @CurtisNaito: made a request for a better source, @Nishidani: offers up a recent secondary source, and @TH1980: states quite literally that they'll put it in and then doesn't do it. how about some actual conflict resolution and not just conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the "primary source" would be irrelevant unless it was on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and I would be wary of declaring the passage in question to be necessarily about Korea influencing Japan. In this case, it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. I think that we should be able to agree that a peer reviewed academic article published in 2007 is a superior source to base a whole section off of than a history book from the eighth century.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not really, Wikipedia doesn't discourage the use of primary sources, it discourages incorrect use of primary sources. Incorrect primarily meaning interpretation, don't interpret the meaning of a primary source. Where secondary sources are available then it is best to use them provided that they are Reliable. The very fact that it's on the article by no means means that there is interpretation going on. If a source says something and you quote it, there is, by its very definition, no interpretation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia also discourages primary sources, if you prefer to call it that. The very fact that you put it on an article called Korean influence on Japanese culture means that you interpreted that passage as an example of Korean influence on Japanese culture. Perhaps it is, but to be safe it's better to just use modern scholarship about Korean influence on Japanese culture rather than culling obscure passages from ancient works and assuming ourselves that these passages were intended to prove Korean influence on Japanese culture.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just a simple English lesson. 'Old history books' has two primary meanings. (a) an outdated secondary source in history (b) a primary source (Herodotus, the Bible,Sima Qian, Livy, Primary Chronicle). You are using (b) in the sense of (a) and haven't understood WP:PRIMARY, since I made no interpretation. Making a more extended comment than this will only generate the humongously silly threads your failure to understand these matters invariably generate.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't take a passage from such an old history book and interpret it as being "Korean influence on Japanese culture". Wikipedia discourages the use of such old works in general, but we can't necessarily say that the authors of the Nihon Shoki intended that passage to demonstrate a Korean influence on Japanese culture. That might simply be a modern interpretation. I found it odd that you think the Nihon Shoki is a good source to cite in the article, but not a peer reviewed academic article specifically on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Also, I did offer to take the academic article to the reliable sources noticeboard, and we could have discussed the matter at greater length on the talk page. This article has a lot of strengths including co-authorship by numerous academics (you haven't questioned the two working at the University of Oregon), extensive citations to scholarly works, and research done at major museums in both Japan and Korea. Even if you disagree with its opinions, I suspect its acceptability as a source would stand at the reliable sources noticeboard, probably a lot better than the Nihon Shoki would.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- "TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries." TH1980 renominated the article 2 weeks after Johanna rejected the first nomination. And none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Digging yourself deeper into the hole you made. (a) WP:Secondary source
- if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, (a) that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source, (b) but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary".
- This means per wiki policy that the Nihon Shoki, as all scholarship confirms, is a primary source.
- Even if you accept Shirane, then my citing the Nihon Shoki would be citation from one of the 2 fundamental secondary sources (which it isn't per the scholarly consensus) for ancient Japan. And thus your original objection is self-invalidated. In either case you are wrong. In both cases, you are demonstrating your ignorance of policy and the status of these works in Japanese scholarship Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I know that there are varying definitions of primary sources, but I had thought that on Wikipedia it was fine to use Wikipedia's in-house definitions: the ones from the policy page. Many of the Nihon Shoki's sources are still extant, like the Wei Zhi, which is directly quoted in the Nihon Shoki[80], and many temple records including Gangoji Engi[81]. Obviously the Nihon Shoki is far more than "one step removed from" most of the events it describes. As you know, the point I was trying to make earlier is that we should discourage using the Nihon Shoki alone as a source for entire sections. No matter how we classify it, I think we should realize that the Nihon Shoki's information is not always reliable. If you still insist that the Nihon Shoki is reasonable as the sole source of information for a paragraph of potentially controversial material, you can have that view, but maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- No one used the Nihon Shoki for 'entire sections' or even a 'paragraph', that is, again, a fairy-floss fantasy spun out of nothing. I cited it for one sentence on sewing. (b) Since you believe the Nihon Shoki, against all the scholarship, is a Secondary Source, you should have simply challenged it as a secondary source, rather than challenging it as a primary source. No one in his right mind, with a knowledge of the hopic would discuss such details on that talk page any more. It is a numbers game controlled by two editors, who write what they want to write, regardless of objections, and that is why it probably won't get GA approval.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the reason why I said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source" is because I assumed that, if the Nihon Shoki were construed as a primary source, then the section would be reverted outright. I have been warned in the past to never use primary sources in any articles, though maybe the rules have changed since then or maybe it was always an informal rule. Because of my tendency to compromise, I wanted to hold out the possibility of retaining the material rather than just reverting it. I was told in my early days, "we avoid primary sources". If the Nihon Shoki were a secondary source, as it definitely is if we use Wikipedia's in-house rules, then it would seem more acceptable as a source. My personal opinion is that the Nihon Shoki is not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section, but that's just my opinion and I wanted to stimulate discussion rather than force my opinion on you.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually the reason why we are having this absurd discussion is that you ignored taking the tip from 15 modern academic sources, which overwhelmingly list the Nihon Shoki as a Primary Source. Only someone who has no frequentation with classical Japanese scholarship could ever doubt the obvious, and quibble on those testimonies, as you then did. That, and the fact that you didn't know what WP:Secondary sources states, explains why we have this tedious negotiation. It's even worse on that talk page. When wrong, admit it. It's simpler all round. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except its not an entire section. It is one sentence. Stop referring to it as a paragraph or an entire section. This sort of misrepresentation is what annoys other editors most. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was referring to the section entitled "sewing". Do you not call that a section?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes its a section, with one sentence. Here's your comment -> "not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section" that section is one sentence. Is the source reliable enough for one sentence? Yes actually it is. So what exactly do you want done here? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, I was not deliberately misrepresenting. I had believed that each titled portion of a Wikipedia article was called a "section". According to Wikipedia, a paragraph means a "self-contained unit of a discourse in writing". I had thought that an independent "section" dealing with sewing constituted a "paragraph", but I suppose that the word paragraph can be defined in other ways. I feel that not responding to content-based complaints would be rude of me, but what I really want is what I said right above. "Maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here."CurtisNaito (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes its a section, with one sentence. Here's your comment -> "not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section" that section is one sentence. Is the source reliable enough for one sentence? Yes actually it is. So what exactly do you want done here? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was referring to the section entitled "sewing". Do you not call that a section?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except its not an entire section. It is one sentence. Stop referring to it as a paragraph or an entire section. This sort of misrepresentation is what annoys other editors most. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't 'deliberately misrepresent'. You're certainly confused, and disconcertingly change tack endlessly in this infinite pettifogging. You've rephrased defensively as usual your gross distortion that started this nonsense. You origionally wrote of my one short sentence that it broke wiki policy on 'large passages based on primary sources (which you deny however was a primary source!:
it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. 19:08, 28 June 2016
- This style of backtracking without giving an inch is what we have to supposedly negotiate with assuming good faith.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I showed, there's simply no way to define the Nihon Shoki as a primary source according to Wikipedia's rules and, though you denied my description of it as a "history book", if you want I can give you far more than 15 sources describing the Nihon Shoki as a "history book". In order to not step on Wikipedia's rules, I would personally rather call it a history book, as do many scholars. However, on this issue, like many others, I'm always modifying my stance in accordance with the stances of other editors. My stance isn't fixed, because that makes compromise more difficult. It's not that my personal viewpoint "changes tack", it's that I'm willing to put aside my differences with others for the sake of a compromise. For instance, I personally believe that the Nihon Shoki is not a primary source, but in my comments I merely said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source", because I was holding out the possibility that it was a primary source. I have my opinion, but I don't like to force it on others. I would rather be deliberately vague and guide the discussion to a mid-way compromise.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- i.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just take my above words at face value. Opinions vary, sources vary, but usually there's ground for compromise somewhere in the middle. I hope we can discuss this matter further on article talk pages if there is need. I'll listen to your views, and I will not unequivocally call the Nihon Shoki a "history book" again. That's only my opinion and the opinion of certain other scholars. I promise to not impose that opinion on any articles one-sidedly.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- i.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- A history book, doesn't necessarily mean an old book, it can also mean a book about history. Many secondary sources are called history books because they are books about history. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I showed, there's simply no way to define the Nihon Shoki as a primary source according to Wikipedia's rules and, though you denied my description of it as a "history book", if you want I can give you far more than 15 sources describing the Nihon Shoki as a "history book". In order to not step on Wikipedia's rules, I would personally rather call it a history book, as do many scholars. However, on this issue, like many others, I'm always modifying my stance in accordance with the stances of other editors. My stance isn't fixed, because that makes compromise more difficult. It's not that my personal viewpoint "changes tack", it's that I'm willing to put aside my differences with others for the sake of a compromise. For instance, I personally believe that the Nihon Shoki is not a primary source, but in my comments I merely said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source", because I was holding out the possibility that it was a primary source. I have my opinion, but I don't like to force it on others. I would rather be deliberately vague and guide the discussion to a mid-way compromise.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, that's a more reasonable request. Paragraphs are generally 4-6 sentences in length but can be smaller, one relatively small sentence won't be considered a paragraph even by technicality. It is generally preferred that content discussion stay on the article's talk page. So yes please, take those discussions there by all means. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I think part of the reason TH1980 started this thread in the first place was what he perceived to be absence of talk page discussion. It seems like reverting without discussion was one factor leading to this dispute, and maybe all users need to be enouraged to use the talk pages more readily to explain their ideas in detail. Wikipedia says, "A paragraph consists of one or more sentences", but your above comments on paragraph size are something we can discuss on that article's talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Did he? I see that he put it in the references section but didn't actually use it for the citation in question. A remarkably convenient omission don't you think? Thank you for linking me the article, I will take a look at it shortly. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- He added the source as the citation in question, not just in the references section, immediately after saying that he would.[82] TH1980 was correct in saying that he did not nominate until after he had executed all existing recommendations posted on the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my apologies, the format is a little different on the citation then in the references. Due to the lack of date and name for the source. I didn't recognize that they were the one and the same. As a side note, what in particular would you like to be included from the source you linked me for the sewing section?
- No, I only meant that I found it odd that such an old text was being cited as a reliable source for an entire section, while the academic article was not treated as a high quality source. Concerning the Nihon Shoki, both TH1980 and myself expressed some concern that Nishidani was extensively analyzing the Nihon Shoki and another ancient source to refute the academic article in question. I don't think that the reliability of a peer reviewed paper should be questioned based on a Wikipedia user's analysis of an ancient text like the Nihon Shoki. My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my apologies, the format is a little different on the citation then in the references. Due to the lack of date and name for the source. I didn't recognize that they were the one and the same. As a side note, what in particular would you like to be included from the source you linked me for the sewing section?
- He added the source as the citation in question, not just in the references section, immediately after saying that he would.[82] TH1980 was correct in saying that he did not nominate until after he had executed all existing recommendations posted on the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Did he? I see that he put it in the references section but didn't actually use it for the citation in question. A remarkably convenient omission don't you think? Thank you for linking me the article, I will take a look at it shortly. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I think part of the reason TH1980 started this thread in the first place was what he perceived to be absence of talk page discussion. It seems like reverting without discussion was one factor leading to this dispute, and maybe all users need to be enouraged to use the talk pages more readily to explain their ideas in detail. Wikipedia says, "A paragraph consists of one or more sentences", but your above comments on paragraph size are something we can discuss on that article's talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, that's a more reasonable request. Paragraphs are generally 4-6 sentences in length but can be smaller, one relatively small sentence won't be considered a paragraph even by technicality. It is generally preferred that content discussion stay on the article's talk page. So yes please, take those discussions there by all means. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- 'My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.' Thanks for giving me a laugh. I like to end the evening with the stimulation of a fantasy, preferably someone else's. Guess who added most of the modern scholarship on that page. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand. I cannot comment on the reliability of sources dealing with the article in question. The issue that Nishidani, if I have understood, seems to be addressing is that the source you have provided isn't credible for biased POV issues. That is something that the editors who are working on the article need to sort out themselves. Somebody should open an RfC with their version and the competing version and hope to collaborative productively from there on. That said, Nishidani does not appear to be the average Wikipedia user, but, a published academic in this field. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat this again, and then I'm going to stop, because I feel you are changing the subject and giving a run-around, instead of addressing the point (I'm guessing this is one of your behaviors that CT and others have referred to). You claimed above that TH1980 did not renominate until he had responded to all talk page queries. The truth is that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved. This can plainly be seen by anybody who reads the talk page and its archives, and now also Nishidani's post below on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I guess my point was that TH1980 did not see the peer-reviewed academic source as a problem, and while I didn't either, I wanted to find a solution that might settle the matter. However, when Nishidani did not respond for weeks, I think TH1980 just went with the existing consensus because many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which, TH1980 and I noted, was somewhat dubious as article content. If this issue arises again, the reliable sources noticeboard or request for comment are maybe the only solutions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat this again, and then I'm going to stop, because I feel you are changing the subject and giving a run-around, instead of addressing the point (I'm guessing this is one of your behaviors that CT and others have referred to). You claimed above that TH1980 did not renominate until he had responded to all talk page queries. The truth is that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved. This can plainly be seen by anybody who reads the talk page and its archives, and now also Nishidani's post below on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a personal attack insofar as it, as is usual, completely screws up my work here and the editor in question had the hide to misrepresent me as agreeing with him.
- While I know the basics on Japan/Korea history, it's not my field and I don't want to opine on the article because I know an expert could lead me around with subtle POV I wouldn't get. And I feel I expressed an opinion when I said I was satisfied with CurlyTurkeys explanation, so I don't feel I should close this. Appreciate the confidence though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Responding to User:Mr rnddude's request.o
- WP:COI.I am published on this topic, in a peer-reviewed academic press. My identity as such is known to several here, including an admin with a professorial chair.I am critical of nationalistic cant, esp. when it infects scholarship, not only regarding this culture area.
- I agree with Curly Turkey on this. There is no conflict there. We had a vigorous disagreement on one of these pages, that turned nasty once. We sorted it out. I respect his independence of judgement and care in editing.
- The article would be very important if it was in competent hands. Fixing the persistent POV+pushing spin and clumsy uses of sources by TH1980 and CurtisNaito - my experience with them is that their editing is a nightmare- has been a constant drag on everyone’s time. They shouldn’t be editing the article so deeply entrammeled by competing nationalist claims. Yet they have done nothing that would get a sanction there, except showing an extensive ignorance of early Japanese history, and a persistent desire to document a theory, that it is all Korean, basically. They are very careful to be polite. The iron nescience wraps itself in a velvet glove. Impeccable, with a variant: When TH1980 screws up, CurtisNaito steps in to find a compromise,
- Nothing was either ‘Korean’ or ‘Japanese’ down to the 6th—7th century, when a proto-nationalist strain slowly began. The Korean state was created in 668, the Yamato ‘state’ somewhat earlier. In both we have constant inflows of tribes, cultures, language groups, warring and making alliances with each other alternately, in both the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archepelago. TH1980 is retroactively casting all this intricately polyethnic movement as being ‘Korean’, as do many of the sources (dumb to the nuances of higher scholarship) (s)he cites.
- I’ve been notified from time to time to look at it by several editors, and almost invariably found both their edited content deeply problematic. Neither should be allowed to touch anything dealing with ancient Far eastern history. They know nothing of the scholarship, the sources they use are mediocre, and they consistently misread them.
- The article is in its present shape because (a) edit after edit, TH1980 mainly, screwed up. Editors like myself stepped in, readjusted the text, and replaced the poor sources with page-links to the latest scholarship on every issue. I gave up because I intuited that it doesn’t matter to the POV pushers that they get everything wrong, since, their bid for a GA article is assured: They screw up, and a competent area scholar will fix the damage making it look so much better.
- A third of the sourcing (37/118) comes from just one source: Rhee, Song-Nai, Aikens, C. Melvin, Choi, Sung-Rak, and Ro, Hyuk-Jin, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". Asian Perspectives, Fall 2007.
- This passes RS, formally, but the kindest construction on it is that ‘Asian Perspectives’ though that, despite the heavy handed Korean nationalist spin, it did contain numerous citations of recent high quality Japanese and Korean scholarship, and was worth passing solely on those grounds. I have said that it should never be used unless the trouble is taken to verify their spin or claims or arguments, item by item, against the judgements of recent Japanese and Korean scholarship.
- I stated some of the problems on the talk page here. Where I gave one instance of where in just one (of numerous details) these four scholars allow their nationalist POV twisting to alter and distort primary sources. All of the corrections involve technical details that will fly over the heads of the average reader unfortunately. The criticisms I make are consistently ignored by the two editors, perhaps because they can’t grasp them.One could do this for much that is in the source paper written by those 4 scholars. I for one, haven’t the time or inclination to frig about correcting it all, to make it usable for this article.
- All of these issues, and many others, will persist with that page as long as incompetents guide its editing, and GA reviewers are likely to miss the mess because to see the fraudulent spin you must have some solid grasp of Korean and Japanese nationalism, a detailed knowledge of their respective ancient histories, and the fact that nearly all of the ancient historical issues exhibit conflicting currents of interpretation in the relevant scholarship. Everything there is theoretical, not factual, and drenched with potential bias u nless one exercises acute care. One could do better by writing an article The history of interpretations of Korean and Japanese cultural links in modern scholarship, which has an extensive academic literature, and would run to the 100,000kb level at a minimum. As it stands, and as its main editors edit, the article should never been considered worthy of GA review. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Stop dicking around with other peoples comments here. Unless you are removing a personal attack against yourself, leave them alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an opportunity venue for editors to weigh in with mechanical adversity against an editor whose views they consistently oppose on any or every topic. The proper thing is to ask an editor who with his tagteam mate has driven to exhaustion six other competent editors, to explain his egregious distortions regarding my views. My practice is to use the talk page to convey what the relevant scholarship says. They don't know it, and need to be told in every edit. When I do that drudgery, the response is 'original research', (i.e. 'Duh, I didn't know that.') I don't cite my own views on any article. I cite what the scholarship states in its varied opinions.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Nishidani for taking the time to respond to my request. From what I gather, there is a significant imbalance of weight being allocated to certain Korean sources. Perhaps the editors in question, or perhaps all editors, should look to try to balance their use of Korean and Japanese sources with some other Western sources as well, or at least, look to make statements that are confirmed by both side, Korean and Japanese, or Korean/Japanese and Western sources. This should ideally prevent all bias and POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an opportunity venue for editors to weigh in with mechanical adversity against an editor whose views they consistently oppose on any or every topic. The proper thing is to ask an editor who with his tagteam mate has driven to exhaustion six other competent editors, to explain his egregious distortions regarding my views. My practice is to use the talk page to convey what the relevant scholarship says. They don't know it, and need to be told in every edit. When I do that drudgery, the response is 'original research', (i.e. 'Duh, I didn't know that.') I don't cite my own views on any article. I cite what the scholarship states in its varied opinions.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break[edit]
Ok, I'm still not seeing anything new here. It looks to me like there was a prior GAN, someone provided a review there, including numerous suggestions. Since then, it's been a year and someone else (or the same person, doesn't matter) wants to conduct another GAN. The original reviewer and others think the prior fixes weren't done, other editors think it was. Some editors think others should be topic banned, others don't or the reverse but the end point here is: there still are not topic bans in place and I still do not see any indication that the GAN request in and of itself is a problem, just a vehement disagreement on whether the article is a GA, which is kind of the point of a GA review. Either way, there should either be continued discussion on the talk page about whether it even passes the first GA requirements suggested or we can start a new GA review and you all can chew out the new reviewer as incompetent to understand the vague suggestions that you all are going on about or you can take on the new reviewer as another review. The first thing any sensible new reviewer is going to ask is if the prior GAN review concerns were addressed so that same issue now stopping a new GAN from starting will be done there. If the new reviewer wants to start anew, so be it, go chew them out for that if you want. Again, if someone wants to suggest a topic ban or an IBAN or whatever, there is little in this discussion seriously addressing that so either start that specific issue or let's just move on to doing a GAN. It would be hard to imagine a GAN passing without the people who find the page problematic actually expressing their views but if they don't express their views beyond vague generalities about Korean and Japanese sourcing, I have no idea what the rest of us are doing here other than waiting until this discussion takes up the whole page, runs out of steam and then goes straight into the archive without any admin action. As if now, I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here and I care only about resolving the GAN issue right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here—Whoa, way to put Mr rnddude and Softlavender in their places! You've contributed nothing but noise, Ricky. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: If you think "vehement disagreement" is something that can or should be resolved by a GA review then you need to look more carefully at the GA criteria, and especially at "quick fail" criterion 4 and GA criterion 5. Being the subject of an ongoing and significant dispute is an immediate disqualifier for GA status. So any GA reviewer could reasonably stop there without taking the time to understand the dispute in more detail. That is, the existence of this dispute ipso facto means that any attempt at a GA nomination would be premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- From looking at the talkpage I am pretty sure the disagreement would disppear with the forcible exiting of certain editors. What stands out for me are the personal attacks.
- "Go away. You are boring and incapable of reading either policy or scholarship. It is quite pointless addressing me, since you cannot understand my replies."
- "Because the other editor is, is for me, notoriously incompetent"
- "obviously because you don't know anything about Asian, Korean or Japanese history."
- "You haven't understood anything."
- "you are a one-eyed POV pushing editor"
- "
You shouldn't be on Wikipedia - "my working hypothesis is that your lazy tossing in of 'stuff' you google up without understanding what its status is in Japanese studies, is meant by now as a prod to get serious editors who actually know the subject professionally, to fix it, and thereby, since you can't write a GA article, get them to do so by fixing your errors with technical precision."
- Etc. When you add in the constant use of profanity, it is actually surprising that disagreement has been so civil by the other parties there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- All factual descriptions, and I confirm them. The tactic here is to maintain a perfectly WP:AGF posture while consisting hindering competent editors from doing their work. That's why so many have fucked off. The amount of netspace caused by the intransigent hair-splitting in particular of Curtis Naito, whose knowledge of ancient Japan, and the secondary scholarship, is close to zero and yet who persists in talking past the concrete evidence by waffling, is unbelievable. Anyone who disbelieves this is invited to look at the tortuous negotiations to resolve obvious solutions his presence there demands on numerous pages. Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are no exceptions to WP:NPA and your opinion of other editors is not a factual description. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- My opinion as to CN's ignorance of the topics he edits is factual. I've documented it on numerous talk pages. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I recognize that you and the other editors are getting frustrated because the discussion is going nowhere. However, it is best practice to never comment on an editor, only their work. Please keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. All that will happen is that it will cause the original complaint to stall and even backfire. Muffled Pocketed 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: The whole reason this is here at ANI is because of behavioral problems by the users in question. That is, literally, the primary topic of this discussion. So don't tell us not to discuss it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, then what's the solution? It's either (a) a GAN review or (b) no GAN review. We can add blocks or topic bans or whatever else people want but I don't see any specifics other than general bickering and people pointing out that the talk page and its archives are not being productively done. The last review was just a quickfail on the tagging. The tags have been removed. Is the tag removal at issue? If so, then oppose a GAN review and go back and argue about tagging. If not, what are we doing here other than going in circles here with the bickering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody above mentioned that according to GAN policy, a dispute on content should automatically invalidate a GAN. I would not personally recommend the article for GAN until all the content disputes are resolved. Yes, there are multiple simultaneous content disputes. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude: Somebody above mentioned that ...—you don't have to tell Ricky that. He is, after all , the only one who has read through any of this mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody above mentioned that according to GAN policy, a dispute on content should automatically invalidate a GAN. I would not personally recommend the article for GAN until all the content disputes are resolved. Yes, there are multiple simultaneous content disputes. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: I apologize if that came across as an order to not discuss behavioural problems. Some of the comments made by Nishidani above are not acceptable. If I were to pick one specific example it'd be "You shouldn't be on Wikipedia.", the only editors who shouldn't be on Wikipedia are those that WP:NOTHERE and WP:VANDAL. What I is was trying to demonstrate is that "Comment on content, not on the contributor." should be a guiding principle when talking to other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think as a whole, Nishidani's comment was that they shouldn't edit that area until they had read up on the material because what they are producing is substandard. Possibly some of the descriptions could be toned down without loss of content, to assure that this discussion doesn't sidetrack.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since when does any of that justify NPA? Also, user comments should almost never be modified by another user. As for al the claims, I don't think anything is going to come of any of this because at this point, it is just one large wall of text.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- You obviously failed to see that the user's comment which I struck out, was then emended by that editor when challenged to provide a diff, because he realized it falsely attributed to me a view I never espoused. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1) I've been reading this since day one, I didn't stray in. 2) As for your comment, I am very much opposed to touching someone else's comment. What I would have done is ask him, or coax him to strike or remove himself. If he fails to do so then i would contact an admin to see if that is casting aspersions or something that would warrant you to strike it out yourself. As far as results, this is typical of ANI, once the thread is too large to read, there will be no action other than auto archive. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not averse to following advice. But it is rather disconcerting to see that when I struck out an opposing editor's fictional attributions to me of an idea he shared with his pal, there began a fluttering in the dovecotes about me that wholly ignored the justice of my complaint. That I was correct was shown by his subsequent alteration of the text, without any note that he had made the mistake. I don't mind the fine tooth-comb being vigorously applied to my work. I often observe that in a conflict where I have a just complaint, my formulation of it is scrutinized with a microscope for my behavior, while the content issue is ignored. I sigh, stiff chedder, mutter 'fuck me dead' and then, well, have a cuppa and roll myself another smoke, thinking that that's how all of this bullshit written here will end up anyway, like my cremated self one of these days.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I referred to both you and TH1980 in my post, and then much later in the post I made a reference to "He and I". I thought it was clear from the context that "he" meant TH1980. I didn't care that you altered my comment, but if you had instead asked me, "Who is the 'he' you are referring to later in your post?", I would have said TH1980, not you.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1) I've been reading this since day one, I didn't stray in. 2) As for your comment, I am very much opposed to touching someone else's comment. What I would have done is ask him, or coax him to strike or remove himself. If he fails to do so then i would contact an admin to see if that is casting aspersions or something that would warrant you to strike it out yourself. As far as results, this is typical of ANI, once the thread is too large to read, there will be no action other than auto archive. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the only thing that can, and arguably needs to, come of this is that the editors recognize that GA will have to wait till all content disputes are resolved. I'd rather not see any sanctions imposed on any editors involved unless they irreconcilably demonstrate that they are not here to co-operate to improve Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- In other words: enforce the restriction on CN et al. against nominating without first seeking consensus. We're back to where we started, but I'm sure Ricky's itching to block me if I dare try to enforce this already-established restriction again—so how do we enforce it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- You'd have to institute that restriction, because it never existed in the first place. Above someone said, "Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any." "CN et al." is a vague statement... In my opinion, the problem was that other users were not willing to discuss the alleged problems with the article on its talk page. Now that discussion has restarted, the problem is solved for now.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- You won't lawyer yourself out of this—I JethroBT named "Both editors", and the consensus here is against your pulling this again. The number of people who've seen you at play keeps increasing—do you seriously think you can keep playing these games? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at the link, and IJethrobot never said "both editors". You said "both editors" in your comment, but nowhere did the closer of the thread, IJethrobot, say "both editors".TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- TH1980, you quoted me (without attribution) just above, but you failed to mention that I later stated "It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus." I will strike my earlier opinion if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at the link, and IJethrobot never said "both editors". You said "both editors" in your comment, but nowhere did the closer of the thread, IJethrobot, say "both editors".TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- You won't lawyer yourself out of this—I JethroBT named "Both editors", and the consensus here is against your pulling this again. The number of people who've seen you at play keeps increasing—do you seriously think you can keep playing these games? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- You'd have to institute that restriction, because it never existed in the first place. Above someone said, "Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any." "CN et al." is a vague statement... In my opinion, the problem was that other users were not willing to discuss the alleged problems with the article on its talk page. Now that discussion has restarted, the problem is solved for now.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- In other words: enforce the restriction on CN et al. against nominating without first seeking consensus. We're back to where we started, but I'm sure Ricky's itching to block me if I dare try to enforce this already-established restriction again—so how do we enforce it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- You obviously failed to see that the user's comment which I struck out, was then emended by that editor when challenged to provide a diff, because he realized it falsely attributed to me a view I never espoused. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since when does any of that justify NPA? Also, user comments should almost never be modified by another user. As for al the claims, I don't think anything is going to come of any of this because at this point, it is just one large wall of text.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think as a whole, Nishidani's comment was that they shouldn't edit that area until they had read up on the material because what they are producing is substandard. Possibly some of the descriptions could be toned down without loss of content, to assure that this discussion doesn't sidetrack.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, then what's the solution? It's either (a) a GAN review or (b) no GAN review. We can add blocks or topic bans or whatever else people want but I don't see any specifics other than general bickering and people pointing out that the talk page and its archives are not being productively done. The last review was just a quickfail on the tagging. The tags have been removed. Is the tag removal at issue? If so, then oppose a GAN review and go back and argue about tagging. If not, what are we doing here other than going in circles here with the bickering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I recognize that you and the other editors are getting frustrated because the discussion is going nowhere. However, it is best practice to never comment on an editor, only their work. Please keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- My opinion as to CN's ignorance of the topics he edits is factual. I've documented it on numerous talk pages. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are no exceptions to WP:NPA and your opinion of other editors is not a factual description. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- All factual descriptions, and I confirm them. The tactic here is to maintain a perfectly WP:AGF posture while consisting hindering competent editors from doing their work. That's why so many have fucked off. The amount of netspace caused by the intransigent hair-splitting in particular of Curtis Naito, whose knowledge of ancient Japan, and the secondary scholarship, is close to zero and yet who persists in talking past the concrete evidence by waffling, is unbelievable. Anyone who disbelieves this is invited to look at the tortuous negotiations to resolve obvious solutions his presence there demands on numerous pages. Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: If you think "vehement disagreement" is something that can or should be resolved by a GA review then you need to look more carefully at the GA criteria, and especially at "quick fail" criterion 4 and GA criterion 5. Being the subject of an ongoing and significant dispute is an immediate disqualifier for GA status. So any GA reviewer could reasonably stop there without taking the time to understand the dispute in more detail. That is, the existence of this dispute ipso facto means that any attempt at a GA nomination would be premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have not been involved in this article for over a year, I think, so I'm not directly involved in this thread. But I was pinged, so here I am. I think that this article was one of the oldest outstanding GANs (though I may be wrong about that). It was a pretty easy quick fail candidate, as the seemingly endless maintenance tags disqualified it. Furthermore, I looked closer and the concerns of whoever placed the tags seemed to be quite legitimate. That's pretty much all I can say about this. Johanna(talk to me!) 02:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thus my statement above. The GAN was rejected because of the tags. The tags were removed. If someone believes that the tags were wrongly removed, then we can discuss that but given the lack of discussion about the tags I presume people think the tags were rightly removed, so what is wrong with having this exactly same argument at a GAN? The only problem seems to be people who want to make it clear they reject any notion of any discussion about whether it qualifies under the GA criteria because of some fear that people who aren't them would pass it as a GA because they cannot or will not explain what their concerns are. As such, this will be another one of those "throw enough nonsense at a discussion at ANI about why you hate the other people there and no one will do anything about the actual conduct at issue until it goes into the archives" discussions. It seems agreed upon that there's no two person or consensus requirement to nominate a page and start a GAN or at the very least, it's literally something no one has every heard up and seems a new made-up rule for this page (every other dispute just goes to actually objecting at the GAN) to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- The tags were removed by the editors most involved in the article, can't remember if it was TH1980 or CurtisNaito that removed them. Not sure if it matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thus my statement above. The GAN was rejected because of the tags. The tags were removed. If someone believes that the tags were wrongly removed, then we can discuss that but given the lack of discussion about the tags I presume people think the tags were rightly removed, so what is wrong with having this exactly same argument at a GAN? The only problem seems to be people who want to make it clear they reject any notion of any discussion about whether it qualifies under the GA criteria because of some fear that people who aren't them would pass it as a GA because they cannot or will not explain what their concerns are. As such, this will be another one of those "throw enough nonsense at a discussion at ANI about why you hate the other people there and no one will do anything about the actual conduct at issue until it goes into the archives" discussions. It seems agreed upon that there's no two person or consensus requirement to nominate a page and start a GAN or at the very least, it's literally something no one has every heard up and seems a new made-up rule for this page (every other dispute just goes to actually objecting at the GAN) to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Noticed a couple IPs repeatedly adding and removing closing tags to this section without much by way of explanation. There were no objections, but that might just mean nobody noticed. I've reopened just because it didn't seem like a legitimate close, not because I have any opinion on the content or outcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: CurtisNaito and TH1980 removed the maintenance tags, without permission and with diversionary and misleading edit summaries. This has already been noted several times in the discussions above. CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [83]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [84], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [85], [86]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I edited the Art section right after I removed the tag recommending that the art section be edited.[87] I asked in my next edit summary why the tags could not be put only over the part of the article in dispute(if there was such a part)[88], but got no answer. No one disputed the removal of the tags on the article talk page at the time. I did discuss the matter on my talk page[89], but I never heard any reason to maintain the tags. Recently, an experienced user commented on the article talk page, "At present, I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags." There are issues currently being discussed on the talk page, but I never heard a single editor argue on the talk page that the whole article needed to be tagged.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- If the arguments are about the tagging, then why were we wasting this time arguing about the GAN nomination requirements? What was the point of that whole routine above? I said from the beginning that if the tags were the problem, say that and we can discuss it. And no, I don't care if someone puts up hidden text that says "don't remove these tags no matter what." No one owns the articles including the "right" to require tags. The tags were placed in May 2015 and there is nothing on the talk page about what specifically that editor found as OR at issue or what neutrality is in dispute. Is it in the archives? I'd guess that any reasonable editor looking at that page and looking at that talk page would presume that the issue has been resolved, hidden comment or not. If someone now thinks that there remains OR or that the neutrality remains in dispute, fine, post that on the talk page and/or put new tags or let it get GAN quickfailed, either one achieves the same result BUT again, we are back to the same issues: if someone has a problem with the page, articulate it on the talk page. Do not argue to reinstate tags and then quickfail GAN or oppose a GAN and then play the "it's too complicated to explain the problem" routine. This discussion looks resolved to me while other sections seem to be being discussed but I don't see a need for giant tags at the moment. If the text is not based on a reliable source, then it should be removed entirely, I don't see why we have this belief that that we must keep what is already there and at the same time demand that something "better" be found to replace it before someone agrees to a GAN on the page. It seems entirely guaranteed to just result in stagnation and arguing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The tags were placed in May 2015 and there is nothing on the talk page about what specifically that editor found as OR at issue or what neutrality is in dispute. Is it in the archives? Of course it's in the archives; the talk-page is bot-archived every 60 days and only has threads from April 2016 and thereafter. I'd guess that any reasonable editor looking at that page and looking at that talk page would presume that the issue has been resolved. Not if they checked the archives, where various issues were raised. As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, CurtisNaito and TH1980 have been waging a tag-team IDHT and wall-o-text war of attrition against anyone trying to correct and improve the article (which seems mainly to be Nishidani, and the two-against-one tag-teaming has worn him down, as detailed in the above discussions). Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the contents of the talk page and article over the last week mostly involves other users like Nishidani asking for things and TH1980 by and large doing them. Nishidani complained about a certain source being used for 30% of the article[90] and TH1980 decreased it to 7%.[91] Nishidani wanted book links[92] so TH1980 added book links[93], and so on.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're both going to GA and, when I extracted with a humongous and quite absurd effort, blood from a stone showing a consistent pattern of deception to push a POV, a partial compliance was swiftly executed, when it could have been done months or a year ago. It took me 3 months to get TH1982 to make one obvious minor concession (see the talk page). So no. No more complicity in this Potemkin village façade dressing, for the vanity of a GA certificate from the unwary. Last remark. There is one huge gap, that could be documented in great detail, to underline the decisive role of peninsular influence on early Yamato, and neither of the 2 editors have woken up to its possibilities for their POV. I'm not going to tell them. If I'm still around, one day, when these things can be written with detached equanimity, I'll add it, but probably to a different or fresh article.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the contents of the talk page and article over the last week mostly involves other users like Nishidani asking for things and TH1980 by and large doing them. Nishidani complained about a certain source being used for 30% of the article[90] and TH1980 decreased it to 7%.[91] Nishidani wanted book links[92] so TH1980 added book links[93], and so on.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I want to make it perfectly clear, there are six people discussing on that page. Myself, I have discussed ways of working through it based on policy, MOS, etc but have not done work on the content. Spacecowboy420, I think has done mostly policy discussion but may also be involved in content. CurlyTurkey, bringing up conduct issues. CurtisNaito, putting away conduct issues to try to keep discussion on content. Nishidani has done 80% of the content checking, working, questioning, etc. And finally, TH1980, who has done the other 20% of content work by implementing changes (proposed by Nishidani) and doing their own article work as well. Softlavender is mostly right, CurtisNaito and TH1980 are working with Nishidani on content, that is wearing on him because he alone has been going through and tagging problem sections. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Count me out. I've documented, and could do it dozens of times over, the manipulation of sources there. It has no effect on the attritional quibbling. Wiki has no devices to stop that. I've withdrawn from the article. Thanks for the efforts, Softlavender, rnddude et al.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Wiki has no devices to stop that." Actually, wiki has several devices to stop that: ANI and ArbCom among them. CurtisNaito has already been banned from such GANs via a previous ANI (so now he has TH1980 to do it for him). All that is needed is a dedicated ANI thread on the tag-team IDHT/wall-o-text/diversionary war of attrition they have waged across several articles. And if that doesn't work, ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was only the GAN on History of Japan that I was advised from not doing without consensus. On Korean influence on Japanese culture, I was not restricted, and actually, until recently I only made periodic comments on that page and otherwise stayed out. I've commented much less than TH1980 or Nishidani and have not inserted any walls of text.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are the third most involved user on that page with 39 mentions. Most of yours, TH1980's and Nishidani's posts have been explicitly walls of text. Any comment that takes more than about 6 lines to read, is a wall of text. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. Mr rnddude, I think your role in the article as a moderator has been helpful. I'm willing to forget about that article and move on if you think it would be for the best, but if anyone stays behind to edit it, you should consider staying as well to help them.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliment. I'm not asking you to leave, what I want is a resolution to this thread and then the article can move on. If you would prefer to move on elsewhere, go for it if it'll help you. To be honest, I don't know what is for the best, I only know what I can do to help. I imagine that all parties are over it at this point. As always, if people need me they are more than welcome to ping me. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. Mr rnddude, I think your role in the article as a moderator has been helpful. I'm willing to forget about that article and move on if you think it would be for the best, but if anyone stays behind to edit it, you should consider staying as well to help them.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are the third most involved user on that page with 39 mentions. Most of yours, TH1980's and Nishidani's posts have been explicitly walls of text. Any comment that takes more than about 6 lines to read, is a wall of text. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was only the GAN on History of Japan that I was advised from not doing without consensus. On Korean influence on Japanese culture, I was not restricted, and actually, until recently I only made periodic comments on that page and otherwise stayed out. I've commented much less than TH1980 or Nishidani and have not inserted any walls of text.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Wiki has no devices to stop that." Actually, wiki has several devices to stop that: ANI and ArbCom among them. CurtisNaito has already been banned from such GANs via a previous ANI (so now he has TH1980 to do it for him). All that is needed is a dedicated ANI thread on the tag-team IDHT/wall-o-text/diversionary war of attrition they have waged across several articles. And if that doesn't work, ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Count me out. I've documented, and could do it dozens of times over, the manipulation of sources there. It has no effect on the attritional quibbling. Wiki has no devices to stop that. I've withdrawn from the article. Thanks for the efforts, Softlavender, rnddude et al.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The tags were placed in May 2015 and there is nothing on the talk page about what specifically that editor found as OR at issue or what neutrality is in dispute. Is it in the archives? Of course it's in the archives; the talk-page is bot-archived every 60 days and only has threads from April 2016 and thereafter. I'd guess that any reasonable editor looking at that page and looking at that talk page would presume that the issue has been resolved. Not if they checked the archives, where various issues were raised. As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, CurtisNaito and TH1980 have been waging a tag-team IDHT and wall-o-text war of attrition against anyone trying to correct and improve the article (which seems mainly to be Nishidani, and the two-against-one tag-teaming has worn him down, as detailed in the above discussions). Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
War of Attrition[edit]
- Comment I am separating this from the above, to give evidence to the allegations raised by Softlavender. Below is what I can provide to show the issues of IDHT, wall-of-text monstrosities, diversionary tactics, but also, the general frustration of all parties.
The most recent thread, should have ended shortly after this with a resolution to the problem; [94], that thread is still going and currently looks like this [95]. It's impossible to have a resolution to any dispute like this.
- The first response by either editor, TH1980 or CurtisNaito, to address the issue was by TH1980 at 14:55 July 6, [96] to clear up the issue.
- Three minutes later, TH1980 accused Nishidani of not pulling their weight[97] which is frankly, bull.
- By 17:07, July 16, Nishidani comes back to inform of bad-faith editing on the part of TH1980 [98].
- My testimony is this; the use of sources in the case brought forth isn't acceptable. The problem is incorrect paraphrasing of sources to push a point of view. Take a sincere look at the edit that Nishidani made.
- to which CurtisNation weighs in to defend TH1980 15 minutes later [99]
- an issue that did not even begin to be resolved until 22:28 [100].
- This then spiraled out into a behaviour discussion for hours (from 23:38 July 6 to 05:05 July 7) and was only brought back on track by me here [101] and would be derailed again within the hour, the first attempt at about 7 minutes after my post.
- Realistically, there's two problems at play here; 1. Is myself, Spacecowboy420 and CurlyTurkey's involvement, there is constant derailing of discussion on that thread and it's heavily predicated on our outside uninvolved commentary. Though I try to bring it back to the rails. 2. The absolute wall of text war of attrition that every thread turns out, it wears on the spirit.
This all I could dig up on a moment's notice. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- To conclude, since I didn't do so above, without sanctioning anybody, CurlyTurkey, Spacecowboy and myself need to stay out of it for now. Let TH1980, CurtisNaito and Nishidani (who probably wants nothing to do with it anymore) deal with the problems. This, is rather an unreasonable request, but it could hypothetically work. Alternatively, somebody else might have a better suggestions. I highly recommend the involved parties to do not post thoughts and ideas below (that means, Nishidani, CurtisNaito, TH1980 and CurlyTurkey). Let AN/I resolve the issue, because the past two weeks, have achieved nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- We will not get a resolution until there is clarity on what people want and consensus for that. This entire two-week mess started off as an argument about the consensus required for a GAN which everyone admits is a smokescreen for the actual desires here. If people want someone topic banned then propose it in a separate section and provide justifications in a plain statement. Statements that "it's too complicated to explain" do not help. Otherwise, the sniping at each other over other pages and insinuations that ARBCOM can resolve this do nothing. This is not a topic subject to discretionary sanctions so the people involved will need to get a consensus here for any sanctions and these walls of text (such as the week-long debate about the consensus for GAN) resolve nothing. Otherwise, it looks like there's nothing to do here. Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#TH1980 alleges repeated, deliberate misrepresentations by one editor. That's not a minor charge but again since there's no basis for discretionary sanctions, sanctions require a consensus here. It's not block-worthy to me at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- 'alleges repeated, deliberate misrepresentations by one editor.' I made no allegation. I documented repeated, deliberate misrepresentations by one editor'. Anyone who ignores the chat, and just isolates and examines the primary data, how it was spun, how this distortion was exposed, and how the editor concerned kept it up until forced to admit it by adjusting under pressure, would see this. Ask any outside expert with competence in Japanese studies. The technique is to 'bury' the essential data under walls of hum and haaing textNishidani (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nishidani recommended that the Tamamushi Shrine section be changed, and so I did change it in accordance with Nishidani's suggestions. I dealt with Nishidani's concerns myself, so give me credit for that at least. By contrast:
- Nishidani wrote in the article, citing Mikiso Hane, that "many from these kingdoms fled to Japan and, according to Mikiso Hane, later contributed significantly to the implementation of the Taika Reforms and the Taihō Code". The source in question does not say anything about Korean influence on the Taiho Code. I pointed this out on the talk page[105] and eventually I fixed this error myself.[106]
- Nishidani wrote in the article "the Japanese continued to prefer employing open-hearth ovens"[107] even though the source only said "In cooler regions of the northeast, however, the kamado's limited capacity as a room heater discouraged its use". "Cooler regions of the northeast" is not the same thing as "the Japanese", so I pointed this out on the talk page [108] and fixed this error too.[109] No matter what the problem is or who added it, I always fix it. An honest person would have to give me credit for that.TH1980 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- In DNA, there are 2 threads that spiral in parallel, but the sequence on one finds its pattern precisely replicated, if in a different order, on the other thread. Much of it is clutter, but the dual coding of the two texts is correlative. In wiki threads, there is no consonance. Make a point (a) and the answer is (z), or (p) or (s) at random, and the issue raised (a) is lost in alphabet soup. That is the attritional tactic. You just used it above.
- Nishidani wrote in the article "the Japanese continued to prefer employing open-hearth ovens"[107] even though the source only said "In cooler regions of the northeast, however, the kamado's limited capacity as a room heater discouraged its use". "Cooler regions of the northeast" is not the same thing as "the Japanese", so I pointed this out on the talk page [108] and fixed this error too.[109] No matter what the problem is or who added it, I always fix it. An honest person would have to give me credit for that.TH1980 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I gave meticulous documentation on the last of your many manipulations of source text, and of the exceedingly long time required to make you come round to adhere to the wording of the source in your edits. Your answer? No explanation of what you did. You shifted the goalposts, and said: 'But Nishidani made mistakes. 'Of course I make mistakes, but they are not reintroduced by myself after that mistake is corrected: I do not defend them. Indeed, I apologize to the page. So your reply consists of an evasive red-herring. Making an error or two over some years is not a behavioural problem. Persisting in restoring erroneous edits, under protest, and against the clear evidence of specialist scholarship on each problem, is deeply problematical.
- The minor lapse of memory, for example, in the diff re Hyeja which you noted, which came from retaining in my memory on provisional trust a mistake endorsed by an IP on that page from an as yet unexamined poor source years earlier('The temple became his personal devotional center where he studied with Hye-che, a Buddhist priest from Koguryo), was acknowledged as such by myself immediately here. I nowhere tried to defend that mistake. You have stubbornly defended your ill-informed content, for months, over several sections, and only yield ground at the last minute, esp. if third parties join in and are watching. The one is a lapse, the other is a behavioural stubbornness in the face of contrary evidence.
- This thread started as a complaint you laid against one of the last surviving editors on a page you have thoroughly dominated from the outset. Several editors just gave up, some were driven off. I succumbed to the passive aggressive polite WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT technique as well. I came here, on request. As far as I can see, under the huge rubble here, the evidence of abuse by you warrants a WP:Boomerang result. Since this thread is on the theme of attrition, I will document that charge minutely, if third party editors need the whole story briefly, topic by topic. If they prefer to just drop it, fine.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- "In DNA, there are 2 threads that spiral in parallel, but the sequence on one finds its pattern precisely replicated, if in a different order, on the other thread. Much of it is clutter, but the dual coding of the two texts is correlative. In wiki threads, there is no consonance. Make a point (a) and the answer is (z), or (p) or (s) at random, and the issue raised (a) is lost in alphabet soup. That is the attritional tactic." I have to 100% agree with this. CurtisNaito has used this tactic in every post he has made to this ANI. That is why it is impossible to have a coherent, productive, collaborative, good-faith conversation with him, and the same is apparently true of TH1980. It is obvious how this behavior of the two of them combined would drive off any editor attempting to do anything productive, remedial, or collaborative on any article the two of them have targeted. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's the same with Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition: the article says Korean based on a source that isn't readily available. I point out that another article explicitly calls its Chinese. When pushed for the exact wording, the actual wording from those sources is both and the source TH1980 is irrelevant and TH1980's response is that those scholars aren't citing this source (ignoring that the source cited is irrelevant). It gets changed to reflect the actual sourcing better but then TH1980 adds more details than the edit summary implies. This is not productive and a topic ban may be warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- EVERY source agrees that paddy agriculture originated in China. The difference is between sources that say, on the one hand, that paddy rice agriculture was adapted in Korea and then imported to Japan, or on the other hand, that it came directly from China. All the reliable sources I inserted into the article until recently stated only that it came through Korea. In my recent edit, however, I added in an entirely new source referring to the possibility that it could have come directly from China.TH1980 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- If EVERY source says China, then why are you defending having it say "Korea"? I didn't even accuse you of adding it but I'm guessing you did. So we have sources that are not available online that you know say something different than what you are putting there and since no one else can easily see what's going on, you have no issues with blatantly misrepresenting sources? I wouldn't even have figured this whole thing out if another article didn't touch the same subject, a subject that you fully admit you know states China and yet you have no issues with this article saying Korea because you found a source that say both and then you ignore half of that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article said that wet rice agriculture was transferred to Japan THROUGH Korea. Every source agrees that wet rice agriculture originated in China, but every source which I inserted into the Wikipedia article said that wet rice agriculture was transferred THROUGH Korea. Neither the Wikipedia article, nor I, nor anyone ever said that wet rice agriculture did not originate in China. The controversy does not relate to where wet rice agriculture originated. The controversy relates to how wet rice agriculture was transferred to Japan. Originally the Wikipedia article only said (per the sources) that wet rice agriculture was transferred THROUGH Korea. Recently, I added a new source suggesting that it could have been transferred DIRECTLY from China. The source from the other Wikipedia article that you found said that wet rice agriculture originated in China, as do all sources. What my scholarly sources said was that wet rice agriculture was transferred from China THROUGH Korea to Japan. Do you understand? The Wikipedia article was never inaccurate and the sources were not misrepresented.TH1980 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- If EVERY source says China, then why are you defending having it say "Korea"? I didn't even accuse you of adding it but I'm guessing you did. So we have sources that are not available online that you know say something different than what you are putting there and since no one else can easily see what's going on, you have no issues with blatantly misrepresenting sources? I wouldn't even have figured this whole thing out if another article didn't touch the same subject, a subject that you fully admit you know states China and yet you have no issues with this article saying Korea because you found a source that say both and then you ignore half of that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- EVERY source agrees that paddy agriculture originated in China. The difference is between sources that say, on the one hand, that paddy rice agriculture was adapted in Korea and then imported to Japan, or on the other hand, that it came directly from China. All the reliable sources I inserted into the article until recently stated only that it came through Korea. In my recent edit, however, I added in an entirely new source referring to the possibility that it could have come directly from China.TH1980 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's the same with Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition: the article says Korean based on a source that isn't readily available. I point out that another article explicitly calls its Chinese. When pushed for the exact wording, the actual wording from those sources is both and the source TH1980 is irrelevant and TH1980's response is that those scholars aren't citing this source (ignoring that the source cited is irrelevant). It gets changed to reflect the actual sourcing better but then TH1980 adds more details than the edit summary implies. This is not productive and a topic ban may be warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- "In DNA, there are 2 threads that spiral in parallel, but the sequence on one finds its pattern precisely replicated, if in a different order, on the other thread. Much of it is clutter, but the dual coding of the two texts is correlative. In wiki threads, there is no consonance. Make a point (a) and the answer is (z), or (p) or (s) at random, and the issue raised (a) is lost in alphabet soup. That is the attritional tactic." I have to 100% agree with this. CurtisNaito has used this tactic in every post he has made to this ANI. That is why it is impossible to have a coherent, productive, collaborative, good-faith conversation with him, and the same is apparently true of TH1980. It is obvious how this behavior of the two of them combined would drive off any editor attempting to do anything productive, remedial, or collaborative on any article the two of them have targeted. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- TH1980. It is really pointless going on like this since you are an unreliable reporter of sources and (b) do not actually understand the import even of the words you cite or paraphrase. I.e.just one more example
- If you believe what you just stated
paddy rice agriculture was adapted in Korea and then imported to Japan,
- then perhaps you could throw a brilliant light on the extraordinary genetic mystery you just created in stating this, i.e. how did the 'Koreans adapt this Oryza sativa japonica/sinica from China before exporting it to the Japanese archipelago? They, the 'Korean' geneticists in 1000BCE only had a very short time since this species appears almost contemporaneously in both Korea and Japan. Remember that Rhee et al., are cited by you precisely regarding this distinct kind of species to prove Japanese rice is of Korean derivation.
- As you waffle out of that bizarre assertion, keep in mind Daniel H. Temple, ‘Evolution of Postcranial Morphology during the Agricultural Transition in Prehistoric Japan,’ in Ron Pinhasi, Jay T. Stock (eds.) Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture, John Wiley & Sons, 2011 pp.235-264 p.256, which makes a nonsense of your statement, since he writes :'The earliest wet rice fields in Japan best resemble those from China dated to around 6000 BP.' I.e. either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are pretending to have read widely in the fundamental source literature.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- What you just posted above cites only one source, "Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture". However, the statement from that book, "The earliest wet rice fields in Japan best resemble those from China dated to around 6000 BP" is in turn cited to Imamura 1996. Here is what Imamura 1996 says, "In contrast with the former two [routes from China and the Ryukyu Islands], for which their is scant archeological evidence, the third route is supported by a great wealth of evidence that links northern Kyushu to southern Korea... Most Japanese archeologists support this route... The existence of both round and slender types of rice in the lower reaches of the Changjiang presents a problem for the direct route hypothesis, since only round varieties have been discovered in Japan..."TH1980 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Shifting the goalposts again,-it's not the trade route, it's the source for the technology- and failing to understand the question. The source says Japanese wet-rice paddy culture is identical to that in early China. I asked you a question. You are listing as a 'Korean' contribution to Japanese culture the adoption in the latter of wet rice cultivation from southern Korea, where it came from China. I've told you a dozen times, in trade and cultural diffusion, the middle man is not prioritized as the original creative agent, he is the Kulturträger. The Greek alphabet developed from the Phoenician, and via an Etruscan modification of its Western Greek variant, became the Roman alphabet. You're like a Greek patriot listing this as a 'Greek' influence on Roman civilization while burying the fact the idea was Semitic in origin. So what was the specific event in the 'Korean' (all historians save Korean nationalists agree Korea (a unified polity) didn't exist at that time, any more than 'Japan') adaptation of Chinese wet-price technology that influenced Japanese culture? (note to self. Next I'll be told a computer chip developed in Silicon valley and manufactured in China, now inside my computer, is evidence of the Chinese impact on Italy, where I live).
- So, stop dodging, answer the question.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- You have a legitimate point of view. However, you cannot deny that Rhee et al also have a legitimate point of view when they describe the Yayoi-Jomon transition as "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". You cannot deny that Satoru Nakazono has a legitimate point of view also when he describes the Jomon-Yayoi transition as "characterized by the systematic introduction of Korean peninsula culture".TH1980 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let me get to the gravamen of this conflict. The issue is one of an editor consistently cherrypicking sources to drive home an identifiable nationalistic POV against another nation, by ignoring the wider scholarship, focusing on 'friendly' snippets torn from context, and often distorting them. This is in violation of WP:NPOV. Outsiders perhaps have difficulty in seeing this because the dispute easily degenerates into talking round quite specific but complex technical issues.
- What you just posted above cites only one source, "Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture". However, the statement from that book, "The earliest wet rice fields in Japan best resemble those from China dated to around 6000 BP" is in turn cited to Imamura 1996. Here is what Imamura 1996 says, "In contrast with the former two [routes from China and the Ryukyu Islands], for which their is scant archeological evidence, the third route is supported by a great wealth of evidence that links northern Kyushu to southern Korea... Most Japanese archeologists support this route... The existence of both round and slender types of rice in the lower reaches of the Changjiang presents a problem for the direct route hypothesis, since only round varieties have been discovered in Japan..."TH1980 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- As you waffle out of that bizarre assertion, keep in mind Daniel H. Temple, ‘Evolution of Postcranial Morphology during the Agricultural Transition in Prehistoric Japan,’ in Ron Pinhasi, Jay T. Stock (eds.) Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture, John Wiley & Sons, 2011 pp.235-264 p.256, which makes a nonsense of your statement, since he writes :'The earliest wet rice fields in Japan best resemble those from China dated to around 6000 BP.' I.e. either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are pretending to have read widely in the fundamental source literature.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Nationalistic POV pushing[edit]
To understand what's going on one should keep in mind the following.
Evidence suggests that between 300BCE and 300CE large numbers of peoples migrated from the Korean Peninsula to the Japanese archipelago, where they introduced rice agriculture, bronze and iron working, and other technologies. Thus rather than the existence of Korean and Japanese peoples there was a continuum of peoples and cultures. The Wa of western Japan, for example, may have lived on both sides of the Korean Straits, and they appeared to have close links with Kaya. The task of historians to sort out the links and patterns within this complex has been made more difficult by the strong nationalist sentiments that prevail in the region today, and by the tendency to project modern notions of national and ethnic identity anachronistically onto these early times. (Michael J. Seth, A Concise History of Premodern Korea: From Antiquity through the Nineteenth Century, vol.1 ed.2 Rowman & Littlefield, 2006 p.32.)
- In the discussion re the spread of rice from peninsular Korea to Japan, this is being spun as a 'Korean' influence on Japan. Korea at the time was a congeries of a dozen different tribal groups, often linguistically, culturally and ethnically differentiated, many of whom also migrated over to the Japanese ar chipelago, and the these diversified groups maintained interactive contacts. The 'influence' is not state to state until almost a millennium later.
Examples of 'we taught them' hyperbole, that require consistent adjustment.
- According to linguist Ho-min Sohn, it "seems certain" that the Korean script Gugyeol influenced the creation of Japanese katakana characters.(Korean Language in Culture and Society by Ho-min Sohn page 58)
- This was ludicrous because (a) it was a false attribution and (b) it misread the source (c) creating a nonsense. Not understanding what he was reading on a complex issue in linguistic history TH1980 put the cart before the horse, making out that the later attested kugyŏl system influenced the creation of the earlier attested Japanese katakana system. Not understanding the problem or his source he edit warred against 2 others (here;here and here trying to get back his preferred anachronism in the flawed form rejected by two other editors. I had to step in and fix it. He wasn’t satisfied and reintroduced the identical anachronistic text rejected by 3 editors and , superseded by a rewrite, here.
- Regarding Yamanoue no Okura, one of the greatest of early Japanese poets, he insisted with one loosely phrased source from a non-specialist that Okura was a 'Korean' living in Japan, a Korean influence on Japanese poetry. He stated a controversial theory as a fact in extremely simplistic terms to buttress the 'we-Koreans-did-everything-theory' He edit warred to retain this phrasing of Okura’s being a ‘Korean’. I had to step in and provide the basic facts and eradicate the Korean nationalism he'd introduced.
- Ancient Japanese learnt to build large ships from Koreans. Nonsense.The source was an obscure article from an inaccessible Korean weekly printed 50 years ago Had to be fixed thus. .
- Japanese neo-Confucianism was essentially learnt from Koreans. Utter nonsense. Had to be fixed thus and thus.
- The flowering of the Japanese publishing industry owes to the introduction of Korean metal type. Utter crap. Fixed thus
One could go on for every section in the article, but the pattern, of an initial silly tidbit from a poor source requiring to be totally rewritten by other editors, or corrected, or eliminated as counter-factual, is constant. What are we to do, when 2 editors dominating the content because everyone else has drifted off, underwrite this pointscoring nationalism against another country?Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Everything that I added to the article was cited to reliable, published works written by reputable scholars, but I have never been against adding different perspectives from other scholars in the article. Everything Nishidani added to the article is still there, and though dozens of good scholars will attest to Korean influence on Japanese printing and Confucianism, I welcome adding in alternative perspectives. If I wanted to be as dismissive of Nishidani as he is of me, I would say something like "all the seamstresses of the village of Kume (來目) in Yamato province hailed from a sewing woman, Maketsu (眞毛津) who was given as tribute to the Yamato court." More nationalist bullcrap from Nishidani. Sourced only to a 1,500-year old primary source." Also, another user said "I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags".TH1980 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- 'Everything that I added to the article was cited to reliable, published works written by reputable scholars'.
- I.e. Hyoun-jun Lee writing 3 articles for 'Korean Frontier' 46 years ago, used by you extensively? Ernest Fenollosa writing 96 years ago?,etc .etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban of TH1980[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok, I'm cutting to the chase now. I'm too WP:INVOLVED now but I'd like to propose that @TH1980: be topic banned from the Korean influence on Japanese culture article. To get a short idea of the amount of headaches TH1980's editing creates, see Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition which I only started based on the fact that another article explicitly states that the wet rice cultivation is from China. As TH1980 admits above, all sources say that but one source may say that both Korea and China (and that's in dispute if it's on point at all) and thus TH1980 feels that this article should only state Korea. This kind of POV pushing, gameplaying and completely misuse of citations (especially obscure non-internet-available citations) is not even disputed, just responded to and then ignored. It is literally a death by a thousand cuts WP:BATTLEGROUND routine as each fight then results in another sentence or two being added from another or the same difficult to find source that may or may not be another misrepresentation which is kind of the point since the article itself is sort of a WP:SYNTH of examples of Korean influence in Japanese culture rather than something that's pretty concrete. I see their point above and while I still think framing this as a GAN argument is why so much time was wasted, we should just get to the actual point here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – This topic ban is being proposed because of a misunderstanding. Ricky81682 says "As TH1980 admits above, all sources say that but one source may say that both Korea and China (and that's in dispute if it's on point at all) and thus TH1980 feels that this article should only state Korea." I never said anything like that. ALL of the sources I used in the Wikipedia article said ONLY that wet rice agriculture was transferred THROUGH Korea. Therefore, that's what I put in the Wikipedia article. Later, I added a NEW source stating that it may have been transferred DIRECTLY from China. The Wikipedia article NEVER said that wet rice agriculture originated in Korea nor did I EVER say that. Wet rice agriculture ORIGINATED in China, but most sources agree that it was transferred to Japan THROUGH Korea. Historian Keiji Imamura says, "the third route [through Korea] is supported by a great wealth of evidence that links northern Kyushu to southern Korea... Most Japanese archeologists support this route..." The information in the Wikipedia article is accurate. Piotrus examined the Wikipedia article earlier and concluded, "I do not see any arguments that would justify tagging this article or reference with POV/RS tags". It's a rather one-sided proposal to topic ban me. Only in death was saying just recently that problems would dissipate on the article if Nishidani were removed[110], and Nishidani is the one who received an official warning from an admin over his behavior.[111] I don't want to remove any editor from the article, but I have been very patient throughout in working to keep the article neutral and to insert good scholarship. I should not be topic banned because of a misunderstanding. Users who want to know how I edit really should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition to see that I use reliable sources and seek compromise.TH1980 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is also claimed that "the article itself is sort of a WP:SYNTH", but most of the information from the article was already compiled in the essay by Rhee et al entitled "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan" and the book chapter by William Wayne Farris entitled "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection". The synthesis was already accomplished by scholars before the Wikipedia article was even written. But if it were really true that the article was all SYNTH, it would have been deleted altogether. Any user can nominate an article for deletion, but as long as this article exists we can use scholarship, like the works I listed above, to build the article.TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Either you are deliberate or you are massively unable to read these sentences. I don't care about official warnings for other people. If you want Nishidani topic banned, propose that below. I have had a single section going on with you where you admit that all sources say China which were you exact words and yet you still have no issues with just putting Korea there and then playing this weird backpedaling game of "well they all say China but I found this one source that says China and Korea so it's ok to put Korea there" and then "ok, we'll put both China and Korea but one is the 'dominant' theory" and you don't answer how you know what is the dominant theory and so on. Now, we're arguing about inlays that you claim a source calls a "Korean" influence that is entirely in Japan based on a single source with no credentials I can find about Japanese lacquer history that cites later excavations in Korea and who claims that Koreans brought to Japan a design based off a beetle that doesn't exist in Korea. Again, the only other alternative is a WP:CIR problem with an inability to comprehend what sources actually say. And it is a synthesis when the entire laquerwork section is based off a single source's very odd historical description of a single monument and applying that the entire history of lacquerwork in Japan (of which the talk page notes is based on the fact that one author called this the old surviving work of its sort as an statement about all lacquerwork in Japan. It's an mix of sections, each one citing a different source about a different art or style and each one has to be analyzed and sliced and then we just get another paragraph put in about another particular piece of art or work citing another source and we continue onward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Initially, ALL the many sources cited in the article stated that wet rice agriculture came to Japan through Korea. Historians like Keiji Imamura agree that this is the dominant theory. LATER another source turned up suggesting that wet rice agriculture may have come directly from China. I added that theory to the article so that both theories would be represented. Therefore, the Wikipedia article only included the scholarly consensus initially, but later I added in the alternative theory as well. What's so wrong about that? Also, are you saying that you do not believe that Dr. Beatrix von Rague is a reliable scholar? Her book on Japanese lacquerwork was described as a "thoughtful, lucid, and thorough text" by Louise Allison Cort in Monumenta Nipponica.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's a beautiful monograph. No one questions that. How you selectively spun its content to score a point for Korean nationalism is the problem. See the talk page: ’I just checked Beatrix von Ragué’ and TH1980 for proof you manipulated it, and had to be forced to alter your distortions only after the abuse of it was exposed.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I'd even extend it: topic ban both TH1980 and CurtisNaito from Japan-related articles, as proposed/requested by Curly Turkey far above. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The article exists. TH1980, at least (though CurtisNaito bears equal responsibility for this mess) shouldn't go near it. It should be retitled, State Formation and Continental Cultural Influences in Korea and Japan. All modern historians criticize the ways Chinese, Korean and Japanese scholars have at times twisted the record to boost their own national narcissism. Given those 2 premises, one could, without difficulty, expand the article into a neutral, denationalized, outline of the profound links, ethnic, linguistic, cultural etc governing the formation of both states. This cannot be done with nationalist POV pushers deciding what goes in or out. The peninsular impact on Yamato was as profound as the Chinese impact on the peninsula, no one disputes that. Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose When I looked over the talk page, I saw that there were a ton of problems involving incivility and misinterpretation of sources, but TH1980 seems like he might be the least to blame of anyone. A topic ban on TH1980 for this article is not a solution to anything, and how long is that topic ban on TH1980 even supposed to last?Homemade Pencils (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I freely admit to exasperation. Did you examine, not the verbal politeness issue, but the behavioural issues of (a)stonewalling (b)WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT (c) repeated source distortion (d) the refusal for a year to provide links to verify the asserted content (e) the repeated reintroduction into the text of erroneous material which a majority of editors had challenged (f) citing obscure old, non-RS from popular magazines that cannot be accessed (g) the persistent attachment, demonstrating total ignorance of the topic, to stray suggestions that have been killed and buried in serious scholarship (Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism being derivative of Korean thought?) (h) that at least 7 editors who disagree with TH1980 and CurtisNaito gave up on the page, though many know the topic well, out of despair etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not to put to fine a point on it, but Homemade Pencils has been on Wikipedia less than a year, has made less than 220 edits, and his only edit to the article was adding a comma on 27 June 2016: [112]. He clearly also hasn't read this thread or the article-talk archives. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have looked at one of the discussions and I don't see anything that would warrant topic ban, however I would strongly urge TH to exercise caution regarding NPOV and anything along the lines of WP:BRD. I'd suggest we give him a second chance and if in, let's say, half a year people are complaining again, then I'd probably not object again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- 6 more months? I took some months to do even a complete rewrite of this trash with 107 notes from mediocre sources to get it right at Khazars more or less, 297 notes from strictly scholarly sources, and that was possible only because the several obsessive POV pushers messing with it and who knew nothing of the topic found themselves in a minority, and stood aside, as the overhaul was overdone. This article, by contrast, is relatively simple, it has a huge scholarly coverage (only slightly used) but can’t be touched because the POV push knows nothing of the topic except googled POV tidbits, and exercises control over whatever any other editor tries to add. Do you understand the topic issues in terms of contemporary area scholarship on these issues? This has been going on for 2 years over several articles, as well. An article like this, written by someone who knows the secondary literature thoroughly, would take 2 days to finish. Under Wikipedia conditions, perhaps 3 weeks. It's not as if huge threads over time indicate that there has been a modification of this stubborn nationalist POV. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- All the information you have added into the Wikipedia article is still there, so it does not seem like I am obstructing you much right now. Also, it is not me but you who were warned by an admin that your behavior would "drive people away from articles". I am fine with working with others and I do not want to topic ban anyone. In addition, I find it ironic that you are accusing me of using "googled" information, even though this topic ban was proposed because of my use of "non-internet-available citations". I am being accused of both using Googled information and information not available on Google.TH1980 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Piotrus, you can't make an informed decision without reading all of the talk page discussions, including all three of its archives, plus also this entire ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- 6 more months? I took some months to do even a complete rewrite of this trash with 107 notes from mediocre sources to get it right at Khazars more or less, 297 notes from strictly scholarly sources, and that was possible only because the several obsessive POV pushers messing with it and who knew nothing of the topic found themselves in a minority, and stood aside, as the overhaul was overdone. This article, by contrast, is relatively simple, it has a huge scholarly coverage (only slightly used) but can’t be touched because the POV push knows nothing of the topic except googled POV tidbits, and exercises control over whatever any other editor tries to add. Do you understand the topic issues in terms of contemporary area scholarship on these issues? This has been going on for 2 years over several articles, as well. An article like this, written by someone who knows the secondary literature thoroughly, would take 2 days to finish. Under Wikipedia conditions, perhaps 3 weeks. It's not as if huge threads over time indicate that there has been a modification of this stubborn nationalist POV. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, and doubly support Softlavender's proposal of having both TH1980 and CurtisNaito banned from all Japan-related topics. The attrition and exasperation have to end. These two have done huge damaged to these articles and to the morale of their fellow editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind:
- ArbCom has reprimanded both TH1980 and CurtisNaito for their editwarring on Japan articles in the past, CurtisNaito has a couple of blocks for this stuff.
- The number of competent editors who have been driven from these pages in exasperation over these two's behaviour: @Shii, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, Signedzzz, and MSJapan: etc etc.
- Both Ricky and Softlavender started off seeing me as the problem, but when they examined the actual evidence came to see TH1980 as a major disruption. Don't be fooled by TH1980's superficial congeniality. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind:
- Oppose - I concur with TH1980 and Homemade Pencils. In particular, I have to agree that Ricky81682 proposed the topic ban on TH1980 based off a fundamental misinterpretation. As you can see in that link to Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture#Jomon-Yayoi_transition, the point that TH1980 is trying to make, the point that the Korean influence on Japanese culture article itself made, and the point that the quoted books and articles are all trying to make, is that wet rice agriculture came from China to Japan by way of Korea. TH1980 was correct, the Wikipedia article was correct, and the sources were correct. In this case and in all cases, everything TH1980 put into the article had a reliable citation attached. I don't know on what grounds a page ban can be reasonably instituted here.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not to restate the bleeding obvious, but CuritsNaito's !vote should be disregarded as he is TH1980's meatpuppet and partner in disruptive/tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is much more than a content dispute. It's a pattern of highly disruptive, nationalistic POV pushing that has taken place on other similar articles in the past. If this was a minor part of their editing history, then I might think differently, but it isn't and there is no reason to think that anything will change. I think a wide ranging topic ban will let us clearly see if these two editors are here to improve Wikipedia in general, or if they are only interested in articles that allow them to push their POV. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Careful, folks—these two are going to try to frame this as a content dispute, when the issue is entirely behavioural.
As to the content issue, there's already a list on the talk page of the different rice routes, some of which don't pass through Korea, and one of which has Korea as a stopover—but these two had the text assert in black-and-white that Japanese rice farming was "based on the wet-rice farming practiced in Korea". Repeat this sort of distortion for virtually every paragraph of each of the disputed articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)- This has nothing formally to do with content disputes, except as shown repeatedly on the talk page and archives, all material added by the 2 has a nationalistic point-scoring direction. You go and fix it, and they tailor it, to retain the nationalism, while being happy to have added some serious scholarship by editors that know the topic, because they haven't provided much of it themselves and it helps to get GA approval for the nationalist POV.
- This is hard to follow because the issues are technical, but there are many proofs that the two editors have no knowledge of the subject: (a) they supported the hallucinating suggestion in a minor Korean source that Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism owed a huge amount to the stimulus of Korean thinkers. This flags to the competent proof that neither has every had even a grazing acquaintance with either Confucianism or its Japanese development during the crucial period of the Tokugawa.
- They argued that Korean metal printing accounted for the flourishing of Japanese printing technology in the Edo, and subsequently, modern Japanese publishing industry, again using the same inferior source. Several specialist sources show that this technology was introduced, used for a few decades, and dropped for woodblock printing which accounted for the overwhelming mass of Japanese books for 2 and a half centuries.
- To make those two edits means you have no knowledge of either topic, that you are unfamiliar with Japanology, and are liable, if you see any quarter-baked opinion in an incompetent source that suggests otherwise, to embrace it and register the error on Wikipedia.
- The essential objection to their presence is thus this. They repeatedly show that they are wholly out of their depth, that they cannot understand the nature of the objections made by people with a scholarly background in the subject, that they have driven off several competent editors, now retain control of the page, and that all 'compromises' are advanced to keep on board what is a form of neo-nationalist 'Korean'-ascendancy theory in the development of Japanese civilization. The answer is to get them off this page for 6 months, allow it to be overhauled per NPOV and per the complexities of the vast modern scholarship that has been systematically ignored or selectively clipped, and call on the other, exiled editors who left I n exasperation, to return to guarantee that the rewriting is done according to FA criteria, even if that is not the aim. I'll do it, and rapidly, but not if I have to negotiate with high-school level amateurs with a buzzing 'Koreans'-taught-the-Japanese-everything- fringe theory in their heads.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I.e. everyone can edit any topic for several years, and waddle about in a slough-of-despond on any topic. But if the article gets seriously stuck, the aim, of producing encyclopedic reliable articles is lost from view. Piotrus is in favour of letting this frigging about in the sandpit continue for another 6 months, after over a year of incessant dispute. My proposal is to stop the agony column, by an immediate rewrite free of humming and haaing, that will more or less produce what Wikipedia claims it aspires to create, under competent collegial supervision. It's not how I want to spend a month this summer, but I'll do it, if asked, just as I did, with User:Tom Reedy for the 10 year old agony page Shakespeare Authorship Question, damned to its decennial mess by a POV crowd, which we extricated and drove to FA status, and then on Khazars. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- The point in that discussion is that other articles have no issues with explaining that this came from China. TH1980 admits that all sources state that it came from China. The only response is that a source partially claims that it came from China via Korea and after much teeth-pulling and review, it's obvious that TH1980 would have no problem stating that it came from Korea without question if no one else noticed it. That is not in the spirit of this project. This project doesn't work on the basis of people writing whatever they can get away with, citing very obscure sources and then other people have to continually police them and treating one side's misrepresentation of sources and correcting their **own** antics as equal to other people having to review and revise their work incessantly. The point of the matter is, the actual quality of work that TH1980 brings pails in comparison to the amount of time and energy that has to be spent policing it to make sure TH1980 isn't playing some game here. Frankly, to me, that is the worst kind of editor to have around here. If not topic banned, the talk page seems to be filled with point after point of erroneous and erroneous citations and the only response continues to be "well, you caught me there, so let me adjust it slightly and add a bunch more stuff for you to challenge next." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Careful, folks—these two are going to try to frame this as a content dispute, when the issue is entirely behavioural.
- No, that is not what the article or the sources indicated. The article only said that wet rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea. ALL the sources I had, including by historians like Keiji Imamura, Song-nai Rhee, Gina Barnes, and Satoru Nakazono, entirely agreed with this. NONE of these sources could possibly be called "obscure" by anyone. The article always said the same thing as the leading scholars: wet rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea.TH1980 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, virtually all the sources make it clear that the issue has never been settled and that there are several theories by which rice either bypassed Korea entirely or only passed through, while the article states in black-and-white that Japanese rice farming was based on Korean prictices. But look—you're trying to obfuscate this again by making it look like it's a content dispute. Ricky81682, you should stop talking about the rice—it's a game these two are playing to make it seem like this is an isolated content dispute, rather than a protracted behoviour issue spanning years over a number of articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support I clearly see this as malicious and a competence issue. At best they are simply unable to edit constructively, at worst nationalistic POV cherrypicking. I can't see this as a net positive for wikipedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nishidani and Ricky81682: The supports since your own are calling for the TBAN to include CurtisNaito, and to expand its breadth. Could you clarify for the closer where you stand on those points? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think any measure should be restricted to this page. The problems I see there with both editors precede this of course - we've had the same issues on other pages earlier.Since they appear to tagteam, the measure taken for one ought to apply to the other, and at least one of the very bad edits I noted above comes straight from Curtis Naito. However, this is a consensual republic, I don't believe in severity. I only believe we are here strictly to write reliable articles, competently, collegially, and in an environment of trust that is not undermined by repeatedly flawed additions that require surgery. This one evidently can't be edited by either because they refuse to, or cannot understand, objections to their abuse of sources going back years. It will take a month or two to fix. I am suggesting a topic ban for 6 months at least from this article. If that is in place, it would serve as a warning that there is a deep problem in their approach, and such a sanction would be on the record for future consultation if the behavior persists on other pages. By way of balance I suggest administrative directions obliging the editors who cannot work with the two to bring this at least to GA level within that period, or suffer sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- So much for WP:NODEADLINE. EEng 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- But... there is a deadline... WP:DEADLINENOW Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- So much for WP:NODEADLINE. EEng 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think any measure should be restricted to this page. The problems I see there with both editors precede this of course - we've had the same issues on other pages earlier.Since they appear to tagteam, the measure taken for one ought to apply to the other, and at least one of the very bad edits I noted above comes straight from Curtis Naito. However, this is a consensual republic, I don't believe in severity. I only believe we are here strictly to write reliable articles, competently, collegially, and in an environment of trust that is not undermined by repeatedly flawed additions that require surgery. This one evidently can't be edited by either because they refuse to, or cannot understand, objections to their abuse of sources going back years. It will take a month or two to fix. I am suggesting a topic ban for 6 months at least from this article. If that is in place, it would serve as a warning that there is a deep problem in their approach, and such a sanction would be on the record for future consultation if the behavior persists on other pages. By way of balance I suggest administrative directions obliging the editors who cannot work with the two to bring this at least to GA level within that period, or suffer sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for TH1980 and CurtisNaito. It's clear that boosterism is occuring, and TH and CN are promoting a particular line, then fiercely sticking to it. They rarely engage with points raised, but instead deflect with some other point. Several of the diffs shown above involve information that only topic experts could interpret, but it is possible to see that TH and CN deflect rather than engage. Indeed, most of their points on this page involve dodging and weaving. Johnuniq (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely. Well stated. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not only am I always very quick to respond directly to concerns on the talk page, I have also added far more material to the article than any other editor this past month, always with the goal of responding swiftly to what other editors have said on the talk page. Not a single diff has shown me personally evading any direct question or refusing to compromise with others.TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- We're all aware of this game at this point, having waded into the dispute and seen your behaviour in context. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not only am I always very quick to respond directly to concerns on the talk page, I have also added far more material to the article than any other editor this past month, always with the goal of responding swiftly to what other editors have said on the talk page. Not a single diff has shown me personally evading any direct question or refusing to compromise with others.TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely. Well stated. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- After reading this mile-long thread and some more I support a topic-ban on all articles relating to Japan, broadly construed, for both TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Enough is enough. Thomas.W talk 19:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support I thought these issues had long been put to bed especially after all the ANI threads and even Arbcom. This is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This thread shouldn't be archived without a proper close, there has been significant discussion on the topic. NeilN or Ricky81682 is there a way to prevent the bots from archiving this discussion prior to a proper close,
or, perhaps have somebody close it now? Note that this thread hasn't been touched for a few days so it may be safe to say that not other parties want to vote on the discussion.Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – If TH1980 is editing with reputable sources then his opinion(s) or theory is still valid. I would question these wanting to ban this user just because they don't like this user's edits. If this user is ban then all others who asking to ban this user should also be ban from Wikipedia society as well.KoreanSentry 11:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not it is not KoreanSentry, none of our "opinions" are valid on any article. Our opinions stay off of articles for a reason. We don't base "our" theories off of reliable sources, we're not entitled to have our theories (or opinions) put on Wikipedia. What is acceptable, is to paraphrase (and it must be an accurate paraphrase) of the source material. That is it. No more, no less. As for the rest of your comment, nope. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note—KoreanSentry has not edited in seventeen months. Their last edit was to the "Korean influence" article removing tags. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry/Archive, there seems to be agreement that KoreanSentry has nationalist Korean leanings and runs a website spouting pro-Korean, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese ideology. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now ain't this downright incriminating—a certain User:Consoleman who signs his comments ~~KoreanSentry~~. Consoleman wearing a false nose, or was the SPI closed prematurely? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- And worse: a certain Consoleman is a moderator of the Korean Sentry message board. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The sockpuppet investigation that was linked to above said that the accounts were not related. I am concerned that there is some harassment going on against users who vote against a topic ban for me. Several users who voted oppose have been threatened with the same page ban applied to me or worse, but no one who voted support has been threatened in this way.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The SPI that Benlisquare opened determined KoreanSentry and Aocduio had not used the same IPs. The evidence above is that Consoleman signed himself with KoreanSentry's name, and that a Consoleman moderates a Korean nationalist message board called Korean Sentry. Trying to bury this will only incriminate yourself, TH1980. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The sockpuppet investigation that was linked to above said that the accounts were not related. I am concerned that there is some harassment going on against users who vote against a topic ban for me. Several users who voted oppose have been threatened with the same page ban applied to me or worse, but no one who voted support has been threatened in this way.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- And worse: a certain Consoleman is a moderator of the Korean Sentry message board. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now ain't this downright incriminating—a certain User:Consoleman who signs his comments ~~KoreanSentry~~. Consoleman wearing a false nose, or was the SPI closed prematurely? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Johnuniq puts it very well and I have nothing to add to it. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Blackmane and ThomasW, and the mountain of evidence above, and in previous iterations of this nonsense.
We tolerate this crap for far too long. Let's stop doing that. To be clear, as requested above, whilst I obviously refer primarily to TH, I include CurtisNaito, and my support is for a ban from all Japanese related topics for both. Begoon talk 14:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC) - Strong support - This IDHT/TAGTEAM/SYNTH/EW/LAWYER/GAME (must I go on?) has lasted for years, and enough is enough. These two do hack jobs on articles to boost their stats and edit war to push their POVs, playing arduous games of IDHT to the point that most editors just give up or get in trouble for swearing/edit warring or some such. I treated them fairly and courteously, and then I found out that this is either a game to them or they are too incompetent to edit here. I applaud those of you who were willing to sift through the walls of text to see the big picture, and especially nishidani for putting up with them more than anyone else. I also want to point out that a few times, in this thread, where TH1980 claims that CT was the only one who told him something (like needing consensus to nom articles), well, he obviously forgot about nishidani, Hijiri88, and myself. Neither of these users should be editing East Asia-related articles, in all honesty, until they can prove that they are willing to contribute in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in letter and spirit, which they have promised and failed to carry out multiple times in the past. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Add Korean Sentry to any sanctions User:KoreanSentry lasted edited Wikipedia 18 months ago. (one single edit) prior to that, he last edited in early 2013. It seems very obvious that this is either a sock puppet, or meat puppet and the only reason for the account existing is that he can jump into debates for the master account saying "me too, me too!" - I suggest indef blocking Korean Sentry, the reason for him being here is nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This proposal is not supported by any diffs. This can be a controversial topic, so warn all users to stick to the scholarship, but it's obvious in the one link provided above that TH1980 is not causing any disruption. H. Humbert (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe my old eyes are tricking me again, but I have seen far more than one link to TH1980's edits on this discussion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- H. Humbert has been around for just over a year and has made just over 400 edits, largely in East Asian articles, including the disputed History of Japan. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's immaterial, unless it can be shown he meatpuppets for one of the two tagteamers. Otherwise, it is a valid vote, even if based on a failure to read the talk pages or this whole thread.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are no "valid votes", per WP:NOTVOTE; the editor's "failure to read the talk pages or this whole thread" is enough to invalidate their !vote per WP:CONSENSUS. Given how quickly this !vote appeared following the extremely questionable KoreanSentry's, taking a close look at the context is warranted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's immaterial, unless it can be shown he meatpuppets for one of the two tagteamers. Otherwise, it is a valid vote, even if based on a failure to read the talk pages or this whole thread.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- H. Humbert - this thread is 157,930 characters long, and chock-full of links, diffs, and evidence. Our entire article on Japan is 130,002. The linked discussions from this thread would break bookshelves. At every turn, following these links, one sees POV boosterism, filibustering, wikilawyering and outright obstructive disruption from these editors. Did you mean something else? Begoon talk 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I guess he means the one link provided at the beginning of this sub-heading. Concerning the unrelated matter of the History of Japan, my role there was fairly limited and was already examined in very great detail by an administrator who determined that my behavior was not disruptive.[113] The History of Japan matter was already settled and I was cleared of any wrongdoing.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps he did mean that. Although that would be remarkably shortsighted, given the breadth of discussion here. I'll stick with the "POV boosterism, filibustering, wikilawyering and outright obstructive disruption" that caused me to support the topic ban after consideration. And I did consider. Bludgeon away, though, I'm sure that'll work out just fine for you. Begoon talk 17:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I JethroBT did not clear you of any wrongdoing—he even highlighted your editwarring on the article. He unfortunately failed to examine the context of this edit, which was in bad faith and meant to mess with all our heads as the issue was [active discussion] when you pulled that edit. Your used the same disruptive mock-innocent tactics there as on "Korean influence". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I guess he means the one link provided at the beginning of this sub-heading. Concerning the unrelated matter of the History of Japan, my role there was fairly limited and was already examined in very great detail by an administrator who determined that my behavior was not disruptive.[113] The History of Japan matter was already settled and I was cleared of any wrongdoing.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for both TH1980 and CurtisNaito - the evidence that they're the problem is unambiguous. Additionally, I have requested a review and closure on this subject on AN. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Long term uncivil behaviour from PeeJay2K3[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today I noticed PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · logs) being aggressive against others again, and enough is enough so please do something.
On Manchester United F.C. he removed a blue link to an existing article several times ([114], [115], [116], [117]) claiming it is not notable and even accused the new editor of vandalism (dont bite the newcomers). The article PeeJay2K3 removed links to is Axel Tuanzebe now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Tuanzebe
The reason for this report is a long term pattern from this editor, where he is very aggressive towards other editors (both new and experienced) and I often react on the edit summaries like this threathening message: if you put one more template on my talk page, I swear to god I'm gonna bite you next and others like still nope, idiot, what a childish little asshole, grow up, cunt, who the fuck is Luis Nani, are you retarded? and many more just these last 10 days.
After an archive search, the editor has previously been reported in
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive273#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive91#PeeJay2K3 reported by Matty4123 (Result: Page protected )
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Declined)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive316#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:BDD (Result: Warned)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:86.156.215.77 (Result: Declined )
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by CroatiaShoes (Result: Page protected)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#PeeJay persistent personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both warned)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive272#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: No action)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive72#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24 hours)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Greenman (Result: Locked)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Hmdwgf (Result: No violation)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive268#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Hawaiifive0 (Result: Filer blocked)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive88#PeeJay2K3 reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: reporter blocked )
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive175#User:PeeJay2K3 reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result: No vio)
I know that this editor has been here for a long time but this is still a big concern that this many editors (including experienced editors) all have reported him. He is a good and big contributor, but I have a serious concern that he is making new editors leave wikipedia, due to his behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, his is a good contributior with civility issues, my advice is to avoid profanity in disscusions. I'll propose a civility resriction on that user. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 23:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is a "civility restriction"? Is the editor restricted to acting as civil as everyone else is supposed to be? The editor has an extensive block log. Unless there's a good explanation for this repeated refusal to follow the civility policy, I don't see any point in doing anything but blocking the editor to prevent further abuse on others indefinitely until such time that the editor agrees to stop with the attacks. Especially in football articles, there's a host of new editors who don't know our technical criteria so being abusive is entirely unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I agree with a indef block for making personal attacks. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 01:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is a "civility restriction"? Is the editor restricted to acting as civil as everyone else is supposed to be? The editor has an extensive block log. Unless there's a good explanation for this repeated refusal to follow the civility policy, I don't see any point in doing anything but blocking the editor to prevent further abuse on others indefinitely until such time that the editor agrees to stop with the attacks. Especially in football articles, there's a host of new editors who don't know our technical criteria so being abusive is entirely unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note that a) the last block was September last year; b) that it was of a month's duration; and c) that the blocking admin noted it as being "third edit war block in 13 months."
- Although, I also note that this report is not regarding an edit war. Muffled Pocketed 11:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for making that point Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I fully admit I've been blocked a fair few times in the past, but the only time I was blocked for incivility was eight years ago and came as a result of provocation by an extremely vexing editor who has since had the good grace not to darken Wikipedia's doorstep. Obviously that doesn't excuse my recent language, but I think the response suggested above by KGirlTrucker81 and Ricky81682 is excessive. Most of the time it's just in edit summaries anyway, and usually when the other party has shown zero interest in cooperating with the Wikipedia ethos. I'll do better next time, but until then, come on guys... – PeeJay 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
it's just in edit summaries anyway, and usually when the other party has shown zero interest in cooperating
- that will not bring you much sympathy, but it makes one doubt your sincerity. (No comment on the merits of the case) TigraanClick here to contact me 11:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- PeeJay is an (usually very) good editor with a (sometimes) shoddy attitude sometimes. He knows to behave better, and he also knows what will happen if he doesn't. Does this current outburst merit any further action by admins? No - and I'm saying that as someone who was accused of being a "jobsworth" by PeeJay about 48 hours ago. GiantSnowman 19:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I know User:PeeJay2K3 is a good editor and this might not require action at this moment but when is it enough? He has been told about his behaviour in the past and then he cools of a while, before being back at full swing again. I have been told the the amount of editors are declining and this is one of the reasons. Instead of talking to the new editor, it became a war and a potential future editor has probably been lost. Personally, I am so close to have had enough seiing this all the time and I am having a hard time to watch it. I almost only see two solutions, either I leave wikipedia or I face it head-on commenting and leaving messages (and if needed I report) every time I see something. I feel like this "wild horse" need to get hit with electric taser when they do something bad. Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with GiantSnowman, this all seems to be a storm in a teacup. When did Wikipedia become a church where you can't swear in an edit summary? I would consider PeeJay an asset to the project overall. JMHamo (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @JMHamo: There is a big difference between swearing a bit and attacking other editors calling them different names. There is WP:UNCIVIL, ...a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.. There is also common sense, I imagine you dont go around calling unknown people for different things on the street so why do it behind a screen. As anti-bullying people say "words hurt". Qed237 (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @JMHamo: Do you think we should be allowed to say what we want in an edit summary? Then wikipedia would be a lot more disputes and not a lot of editors would stay. This is a concern. Qed237 (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with GiantSnowman, this all seems to be a storm in a teacup. When did Wikipedia become a church where you can't swear in an edit summary? I would consider PeeJay an asset to the project overall. JMHamo (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I know User:PeeJay2K3 is a good editor and this might not require action at this moment but when is it enough? He has been told about his behaviour in the past and then he cools of a while, before being back at full swing again. I have been told the the amount of editors are declining and this is one of the reasons. Instead of talking to the new editor, it became a war and a potential future editor has probably been lost. Personally, I am so close to have had enough seiing this all the time and I am having a hard time to watch it. I almost only see two solutions, either I leave wikipedia or I face it head-on commenting and leaving messages (and if needed I report) every time I see something. I feel like this "wild horse" need to get hit with electric taser when they do something bad. Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
We'll agree to disagree. I feel my role on WP is to build an encyclopedia the best I can, not to worry about the feelings of others but that's just me. JMHamo (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight... UserX is a good and experienced editor, therefore, UserX can insult other users. Nope, it doesn't sound right. SLBedit (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, but some like JMHamo apperently thinks it is okay. Qed237 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- We have other and better things to do at WP than this. I agree with JMHamo. We should be grown People and not directly run to WP and tell them what editors did. Some People should get over their "feelings" being hurt or whatever. Kante4 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- God forbid we care about our fellow editors or editor retention. Lets just continue to encourage a toxic environment on this project that is built on civil discussion. Seriously? We have WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:Harassment for a reason. I feel as though these polices are severely under enforced. I support civility blocks and think that editors who show a problematic pattern on uncivil behavior and personal attacks are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia whether or not they are great content contributors. When editors are allowed to get away with personal attacks "because they have good contributions" they scare away others who could be making the same or better contributions. The behavior is disruptive. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also if it wasn't clear I support an indef or civility restrictions being placed on PeeJay2K3 this behavior is unacceptable. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- If I'm ever uncivil, it's usually because another editor has given me reason to suspect that they are not here to be a part of a collaborative effort either. I have zero tolerance for people who fuck about on Wikipedia, whether they're introducing troll edits or simply not paying attention to more experienced editors (not always myself) who tell them their edits are wrong in some way. The suggestion that I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia just because I won't put up with such people is laughable. – PeeJay 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- We have other and better things to do at WP than this. I agree with JMHamo. We should be grown People and not directly run to WP and tell them what editors did. Some People should get over their "feelings" being hurt or whatever. Kante4 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, but some like JMHamo apperently thinks it is okay. Qed237 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: So just out of interest, if someone was to call you a "childish asshole", or asks "are you retarded?" or, indeed, tells you to "grow up, cunt" either on here or in the real world, you'd be fine with that? No. Didn't think so. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3: Sorry, I wasn't aware WP:Civil or WP:NPA had an exception for insulting people you suspect aren't here to build an encyclopedia. The fact you are justifying your behavior shows you see nothing wrong with it. That in it self is troubling. The suggestion is that you refuse to get that your behavior is unacceptable and that in it self could be seen as not being here to collaborate on this project. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposal of Civility Restrictions for PeeJay2K3 by Cameron11598 (withdrawn)
|
|---|
|
Propose Civility Restrictions be placed on PeeJay2K3 as they clearly see nothing is wrong with their behavior. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
|
- I've withdrawn my proposal I however do think at minimum PeeJay2K3 needs a strong warning. These kind of edit summaries shouldn't be tolerated. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please can we archive this silliness and go back to building an encyclopedia. JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed lets close it however I think it should be noted this behavior should not be allowed to continue. Justifying an editors actions with "They contribute a lot" or "they are a good contributor" shouldn't be used to justify personal attacks. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- {(edit conflict)@JMHamo: You are more than welcome do other things, no one is forcing you to follow this discussion. Please respect that other editors have issues with this kind of bad behaviour that drives editors away from wikipedia who already has the declining number of contributors. Wikipedia is a page for collaboration. Dont think you can tell us if we should discuss something or not, this is a valid concern to discuss even if you dont think so. It is good to know that there are no fucking limits and as long as it is in edit summaries it is okay.Qed237 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please can we archive this silliness and go back to building an encyclopedia. JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Support indefinite blockSupport short-term last-chance block of roughly one month in duration in view of [118] - PeeJay is not only being clearly hostile (some of the most offensive words in the English dictionary are in those edit summaries), he acknowledges he is being clearly hostile and doesn't think it is a problem. Do WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BITE actually count for anything? If we're going to tolerate this kind of hostility, we might as well delete those policies. Banedon (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)- Offence is in the eye of the beholder. Take a look at the one where I called that guy a cunt: he was trolling me - his only purpose on this site was to leave this message on the WT:CRIC page, then after I told him to grow up, he took it upon himself to leave provocative messages on my talk page and vandalise articles I had recently edited in an effort to bait me, which he continued to do under a new pseudonym after he was blocked the first time. If that's not cunty behaviour, I don't know what is. Don't get me wrong, I've made mistakes in choosing when to employ my colourful language, but an indefinite block is absolute insanity. – PeeJay 07:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is BS. I had an ANI report about my civility in which I had numerous people saying how evil I was for saying "no shit Sherlock" and "crap removed" in edit summaries. I had people crying for a lengthy block and people telling me that I was in breach of various civility rules, despite not making a single personal attack. Now you have another editor calling someone a cunt and it's a different situation?
- I guess it's not the complaint that counts, it's who makes the complaint that matters. I had established editors complaining about me, and I'm (comparatively) new. I guess that once I reach 5yrs here, I can call everyone cunts and get away with it? Or maybe the rule is that once I reach 25,000 edits, then everyone I complain about will be blocked? FFS I don't care what the rule is, but it had to be the same for all editors, no matter who complains and who is complained about. Either say "we are all adults, we can deal with a few insults" or "don't ever use profanity" and apply those rules to everyone, equally. Personally, I think PeeJay is not civil & I don't think it matters, we are here to provide accurate and neutral content, not enter into a manners competition. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Even if the person you were calling a [redacted] is a troll (I make no comment on whether that is the case), Wikipedia already has mechanisms in place to deal with that. WP:DISPUTE spells out exactly what editors should do in these situations. WP:DISPUTE covers conduct disputes as well; you could've followed those guidelines instead of reverting edits with insults in edit summaries (which also violates WP:REVTALK). As I mentioned above, you've used some of the most offensive words in the English dictionary. If that does not count as violating WP:CIVIL, what does? To top it all off, you actually don't think you're doing something wrong - a huge red flag. I'm sorry but I have to support an indefinite block. Banedon (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. I am far more offended by someone pushing a POV, or someone being dumb, than someone directing profanity towards me. Why even consider an indef block for an editor who has been contributing well for many years, just because someone got offended? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because it violates a core WP policy. For a first time offense I'd be inclined to warn instead of block, since as you said PeeJay2K3 has been contributing well for many years. However per Qed237 this hostile behaviour has been the case for a long time, and PeeJay2k3 has already been warned in the past. At some point one just has to say that warnings are not working, and block. Also, while you might not be offended by the profanity, many people are (especially women, since the redacted word is gender-specific). Every now and then the popular media reports on the effects this kind of profanity has on its victims, and they are strongly negative. Example: [119] I could support a short-term last-chance block if PeeJay2k3 is genuinely sorry, but nothing more lenient than that. Banedon (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. I am far more offended by someone pushing a POV, or someone being dumb, than someone directing profanity towards me. Why even consider an indef block for an editor who has been contributing well for many years, just because someone got offended? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. The word cunt is not gender specific in every English speaking country. As far as I was aware, PeeJay is living in one of the English speaking nations that use the word cunt as a non-gender specific insult. [Scottish women calls Donald Trump a cunt] I'm sorry, I don't see people crying when someone is called a dick, so why make out cunt to be such an evil slur? I might agree if he used a homophobic or racist slur. But he didn't. So I don't. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ummm.... define the word cunt and get back to me on that. It's the vulgar form of "vagina". So yes, it's gender specific (the female gender to be specific). As an insult it is used against either gender, male or female, but it's much like bitch in this respect (female dog). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Much as I hate the word myself, I can confirm that it is used as an abusive word towards both men and women in the UK, especially certain parts of it. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ummm.... define the word cunt and get back to me on that. It's the vulgar form of "vagina". So yes, it's gender specific (the female gender to be specific). As an insult it is used against either gender, male or female, but it's much like bitch in this respect (female dog). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. The word cunt is not gender specific in every English speaking country. As far as I was aware, PeeJay is living in one of the English speaking nations that use the word cunt as a non-gender specific insult. [Scottish women calls Donald Trump a cunt] I'm sorry, I don't see people crying when someone is called a dick, so why make out cunt to be such an evil slur? I might agree if he used a homophobic or racist slur. But he didn't. So I don't. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose the request for indefinite block but can easily back a block of shorter length (say a month) - To be blunt a fair chunk of this is irrelevant. PeeJay has extensive blocks for edit-warring, however, it's been seven years since PeeJay has been blocked for incivility. Going from a 24hr block to indefinite is unacceptable. Taking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA into account, calling people idiots, assholes, cunts and retarded is abhorrent behaviour, the fourth diff "who the fuck is Luis Nani" doesn't fall into either category (NPA or CIVIL), but, the ("colourful") language is unnecessary. I would have been willing to let the cunt comment slide with a warning due to the lack of civility from either party [(moron, cretin) and yes, I'm taking into account the fact that cunt is far more profane then either moron or cretin], but, with everything else I think a block of some length should be given. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: the above was directed at Banedon's comments, not Mr rnddude's. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I moved my comment down, don't worry about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: the above was directed at Banedon's comments, not Mr rnddude's. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- KGirlTrucker81 you put "if I was a a girl and have a laptop, I'd love to contribute without clothes." on your user page. You consider that to be acceptable for an encyclopedia and calling someone a cunt, worthy of an indef block?
- Wikipedia isn't a joke, even if you are treating it as one. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Spacecowboy420, not sure that you are responding to the right person there. Banedon is the one suggesting an indefinite block, KGirlTrucker81 has one edit to this page and it's in a different thread entirely. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jokes are allowed on userspaces. I currently edit on a xbox one but a laptop is easier than an xbox because I can do semi automated tasks. (like Tinkle) I did'nt do nothing wrong and I don't deserve an indef block. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 13:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- KGirlTrucker81 1. Double negative (didn't do nothing -> did something), 2. Not correctly directed at you but rather at Banedon, 3. You're not going to be blocked nor was it being suggested. If you refer to the whole discussion, Banedon is suggesting an indef block for PeeJay for some rude comments. Spacecowboy thought it was you making the suggestion instead of Banedon. Hence his comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would been harrased if made a comment on my talk page about my userspace. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- KGirlTrucker81 1. Double negative (didn't do nothing -> did something), 2. Not correctly directed at you but rather at Banedon, 3. You're not going to be blocked nor was it being suggested. If you refer to the whole discussion, Banedon is suggesting an indef block for PeeJay for some rude comments. Spacecowboy thought it was you making the suggestion instead of Banedon. Hence his comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jokes are allowed on userspaces. I currently edit on a xbox one but a laptop is easier than an xbox because I can do semi automated tasks. (like Tinkle) I did'nt do nothing wrong and I don't deserve an indef block. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 13:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Spacecowboy420, not sure that you are responding to the right person there. Banedon is the one suggesting an indefinite block, KGirlTrucker81 has one edit to this page and it's in a different thread entirely. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, PeeJay2K3 makes very useful contributions to Wikipedia. Yes, PeeJay2K3 has made some very uncivil comments, including in this thread. PeeJay, if you could just show a bit of contrition and genuinely try to do better, we can probably close this and move on. NB I hate it when editors are rude to one another, it's just not necessary, it really upsets some people and it definitely doesn't help anyone at all. But there are ways to respond to it. See this essay I once wrote about it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Obviously I recognise that my language was excessive and unnecessary and I'll try to do better in the future. Now can we all please get on with what we're all actually here to do? (I would also like it noted that I have been nothing but civil since this discussion started.) – PeeJay 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to comment, but I'm pretty sure with PeeJay's statement and continued civility on this matter, it can be closed, without spending any more precious editing time on it... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Move to close --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At SPI, we have discovered a massive sock farm that is being used for seeming undisclosed paid editing. This spans dozens of accounts and dozens of articles. I am formally requesting a community ban be placed against Sunilseth15 (the seeming oldest registered account) and for articles by this sock farm to be blown up (WP:TNT) unless other editors have substantially changed or expanded the article.
We were led to this article [situation] after it was discovered that the accounts had been using a wide array of flickr accounts to dubiously release images under a creative commons license and then upload them to the Commons despite in some cases clear copyright watermarks were visible. All accounts are single purpose accounts and clearly have an intimate knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Everything about this set up appears to be a professional and willful attempt to create promotional articles and defeat our checks and balances. Given that nearly all the articles are for companies or individuals it has all the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing.
Thank you for your consideration, Mkdwtalk 15:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both a community ban and nuking of all promotional articles created by them. Thomas.W talk 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support community ban and mass deletion. They're almost all tech or software companies, with a smattering of biographies of barely notable or non-notable people. Nice catch. Katietalk 16:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good catch. What a mess. --Church Talk 16:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and TNT. I know I'm not willing to
sort through that messfix the new articles they created. I doubt anyone else is. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and nuclear option. Kleuske (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both the ban and the nuclear option. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both ban and mass deletion of their creations. I had already made a list of the 28 articles they created and posted it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Slew of articles from a prolific sock farm. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nuke and Community Ban. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion. We need to make it clear that this is not to be put up with. BethNaught (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion of created articles. Great catch! This is way too much and I don't see why we should spend hours trying to AfD or cleanup the articles created. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass deletion. Clear and extensive violation of Terms of Use and COI guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support both actions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support and you might be interested in this message:
Email
|
|---|
From: David <info@wikiwiz.net> Subject: Wikipedia Editor Message Body: Hi, My name is David and I am an editor on Wikipedia. I represent a group of people that has been editing Wikipedia articles for over six years. We decided to get in touch with websites like yours, to open the possibility of having a Wikipedia page or a backlink created specifically for you. Wikipedia is ranked top 3 on Google for almost any keyword, because Google loves this high authority website. Therefore, if your website had a backlink pointed from Wikipedia, its authority would significantly increase in the eyes of Google, and thus, your search rankings would greatly improve. Similarly, it will make you more trustworthy in the eyes of prospective visitors. In addition to that, Wikipedia is the #7 top visited website in the world. Millions of people read articles every day and having your link there can get you highly targeted, permanent and organic traffic. Moreover, many publications on .EDU or .GOV domains use Wikipedia references. Which means that if your website is among the referenced sources, there is a high chance of it being added on other .EDU sites, and therefore, get you high authority backlinks for free. There are a lot more benefits I can talk about, but in case if you're wondering how you can get a Wikipedia backlink pointed to your site - we opened a website where we share our Wikipedia editing services for a small fee. Please go ahead and visit www.wikiwiz.net We would be happy to cooperate with you on boosting your website's authority! Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reply to my email. Kind Regards, David |
- To my mind, it seems inherently wrong to seek payment for lacing wikipedia articles with backlinks - Lugnad (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ugh! That reeks of paid editing! Have you let them know of our paid editing policy? -- Gestrid (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Lugnad: Was this email sent to you in relation to this sock farm or are you bringing to our attention another case where you were solicited? Mkdwtalk 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If needed, we can contact them using their own Contact Us form. However, I doubt that'll get us anywhere. I'm unfamiliar with what CheckUser does, but would it help in this case? -- Gestrid (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest Legal or some other WMF staffer doing so while pointing them at our m:Terms of use and WP:Long-term abuse/Morning277, just to make it expressly clear to them that Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia Foundation both expressly forbid this. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation of that website, it appears they also offer creation of Wikipedia pages. Clearly, this is paid editing. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- In answer to Mkdw’s question: it was not, strictly speaking, an email. It was a message sent via the contact page of a web site. The web site is called lugnad dot ie. It focuses on Irish maritime history. I have not responded, in any way, to the message. I did email some members of Wikimedia Community Ireland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Ireland I doubt that they did anything either. –
- User:Gestrid mentioned starting another topic. I am not certain of the benefit of that. Nonetheless if you consider it warranted, then you start it and I will join in Lugnad (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Per Jéské Couriano's suggestion, I'm emailing legal@wikimedia.org to ask them to contact the website. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've
sent the following emailjust finished a conversation with Wikimedia Legal regarding WikiWiz:
- I've
- Per Jéské Couriano's suggestion, I'm emailing legal@wikimedia.org to ask them to contact the website. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Email discussion with Wikimedia Legal
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Support the nuclear option. Ban the editors, nuke the articles, ferret out any backlinks. No sense in rewarding bad behavior. clpo13(talk) 19:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and nuking. –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ban and Nuke for egregious policy violations. If they learn that they can create an article, get blocked as a sock, and still have the article stay, then it's only an incentive to keep it up. That's how we did it with Orangemoody, and the precedent should stay. GABgab 19:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ban and nuke Ban is obvious for mass-socking, and all articles are against Wikimedia policy, so should be deleted. Deletion also de-incentives others from doing similar things. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, nuke, and salt, with a link to the SPI and/or LTA in the deletion messages. The more we call out this sort of thing, the less attractive it will become. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, nuke, salt. Also perhaps ban account recreation by the underlying IPs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, nuke, salt, pepper, and bone meal to deter pests. - This is actually really big, as I ran into this farm on an AfD vote (and a subsequent SPI) in a totally unrelated area. So it's spilling over into other processes and areas, and we can't have that, especially when it's really easy to unbalance XfDs with a vote or two. MSJapan (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and nuke. Don't reward the socks by keeping their work around. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, even tho 2 or 3 of the articles are about notable subjects. (Dr. Moopens definitely & probably Aloise & possibly ToastAle.)
- BTW, I thought Google honored our nofollow for the links, in which case either they don't know this or they are deliberately claiming more than they can deliver. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support band, orbital nuke option, scorch the earth and salt. Zero tolerance for this sort of thing. Blackmane (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's utterly depressing that regulatory capture prevents us from lifting a finger in such cases except for extremes like this where the editor has proven himself wholly incompetent. —Cryptic 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ban, Nuke, and do so ASAP Support is unanimous. Let's be expeditious about it. TimothyJosephWood 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would also like to support salting the articles. It has been my experience that once there is a monetary incentive, the articles are often recreated using IPs or other sock puppets. As Katie and DGG said, most of the articles are non-notable and the ones that are or become notable can be created through WP:AFC or request their semi-protection be removed at WP:RPP if the editor is not confirmed. Mkdwtalk 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kill! Kill! Kill! EEng 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban and mass-deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ban, mass-deletion, and salting. This can be closed and the WikiWiz issue re-raised as needed in another thread. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nuke from orbit with prejudice. Not sure if mass deletion is feasible; prod-tagging all would be a good start. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Someone call Major Kong so he can ride the nuke on the way down. Serious mode: ban and nuke EvergreenFir (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a SNOW situation. No one is seriously going to oppose banning/nukeing/etc. What is being waited on here? We don't need anymore movie reference pile-on affirmations. Just do it already. Doc talk 04:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Timothyhouse1 persistently adding unsourced content despite many warnings[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User I am reporting (Timothyhouse1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding content to articles without verifying where it came from. He has been warned numerous amount of times about adding unsourced content but it seems he has ignored these warnings and is still adding unsourced content to articles I gave him his final warning on July 19th but yesterday, he was still adding unsourced and unverifiable content, so I decided to report it here. It has to stop. People read these articles and we cannot have people persistently adding content and not verifying it with a source. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- example diff - the editor has continued to make these types of unsourced contributions after being warned multiple times. They do not seem to want to engage with us, so I think that unless they come here and agree to start verifying their claims a NOTHERE/CIR block may unfortunately be in order -- samtar talk or stalk
- Blocked two days. Blocks will be longer if behavior continues. --NeilN talk to me 12:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @NeilN:. If the behaviour continues should I report back here, report him to AIV or tell you personally? Class455fan1 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Class455fan1, AIV or post a note on my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @NeilN:. If the behaviour continues should I report back here, report him to AIV or tell you personally? Class455fan1 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Was the unsourced content incorrect? I've no objection to blocking people who deliberately add false information to the pedia, and you certainly need to start referencing content before you can become an admin or get DYK or FA credits. But our policy and the standard rubric on our editing screen is still "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" changing that policy to "Encyclopedic content must be verified" would be a big jump and I'm not sure if we are ready for it yet. Currently BLPprod only applies to new articles on living people, if we changed policy to require all new info to cite sources then that would mean widening BLPProd to all new articles. I'm not necessarily against such a change, but if we do it I believe we should first go down the German route and change the system messages to prompt contributors to source their contributions. Having enforcement stricter than the system guarantees that people will be bitten. A stricter set of rules and editing system combined with a flexible and helpful community would make for a much less bity site. ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If an editor completely ignores multiple attempts by other editors to engage them regarding the burden policy, they're going to get blocked, sooner than later. --NeilN talk to me 13:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- From the nutshell at WP:V: "Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." It was challenged. Can't criticize anyone for conforming to clear Wikipedia policy; rather, you should give them a medal. If you disagree with the policy, you are free to try to get it changed, and best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1/2 sibling talk page[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP user 173.11.136.229 originally created Talk:1/2 sibling with content copied from Sibling#Half-sibling, which I have then moved to Draft:Half-siblings, but then the same page was recreated by 172.56.15.83, deleted, recreated again by 173.11.136.229, and finally deleted. To prevent the page from being recreated again, either the IP users should be blocked or the page should be salted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have protected the page for a month so that only autoconfirmed editors can create it. --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1/2 sibling talk page[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP user 173.11.136.229 originally created Talk:1/2 sibling with content copied from Sibling#Half-sibling, which I have then moved to Draft:Half-siblings, but then the same page was recreated by 172.56.15.83, deleted, recreated again by 173.11.136.229, and finally deleted. To prevent the page from being recreated again, either the IP users should be blocked or the page should be salted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have protected the page for a month so that only autoconfirmed editors can create it. --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:P3DRO[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
P3DRO (talk · contribs) after being reported for edit warring on 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season and being warned to not add unsourced information about living people, P3DRO continues to do so. P3DRO claims to be an experienced user but he/she ignores Wikipedia guidelines. This is getting tiresome. SLBedit (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I added a reference from zerozero, a reliable source. You are persistently adding unsourced content about players numbers. Stop that childish behaviour! Respect other wikipedians contributions. P3DRO (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
P3DRO continues with the disruptive behaviour. SLBedit (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Relevant AN3 thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Both editors blocked by Bbb23 for 24 hours for edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Spacecowboy420 repeatedly insulting me and violating Wikipedia rules while making his own up[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User:Spacecowboy420 has repeatedly insulted me and mocked me in his comments on his talk page and at other pages. Here he threatens me with a block over an attack by an IP even though it is shared. I told him that it was a shared IP and I didn't do it, also he kept making his own rules up and didn't follow the actual Wikipedia rules as can be seen from his edit summary in this revert adding the alleged name again of a juvenile defendant. After that I informed him that the name can't be added due to Wikipedia rules and consensus was against it, but I kept making mistakes in typing so I reposted the message multiple times. Here however instead he mocks me for taking eight attempts to get my comment right. here he accepts what he said isn't in good faith and continues to poke fun at me. He thinks I'm "lecturing" him over his "lack of knowledge", while all I tried to do was act in good faith by informing him about Wikipedia policies so he knows them better. After that here he agrees with another user's comment of calling me a "jester" and then calls me an "entertaining' person. Then he tells me i'm not supposed to edit because the IP was shared and was used by others to attack, even though there is nothing such in Wikipedia rules. Clear cut he's making up his own rules and trying to harass others with false pretexts. Her he says he thinks that I'm here to fight and provoke while I didn't attack him but he was the one who attacked me several times. Also on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape#Mohammed_Afroz he displays that he either has no knowledge of Wikipedia's rules or knows and makes his own rules up. And he continues to willfully violate them even after being informed. You can notice from the article's talk page, it will be lengthy if I go into detail. His little knowledge of the rules and willful violation can also be seen from his edit summaries here and here even after being informed. This person clearly has no interest regarding following the rules and having a proper conduct with others. He clearly shouldn't be here. I request he be blocked for a short period of time for his wilful violation of rules and especially his unacceptable comments and rude behaviour towards others. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't read most of your message since the first part was enough. Wikipedia "rules" clearly allow an IP to be blocked for disruption including attacks on either contributors or other people. If you aren't happy about this, you will need to register for an account. Who made the attack isn't particularly germane unless there's a proposal to block your account because of the IP's activity or there's some evidence who made the attack is no longer using the IP. Warning an IP for making an attack is standard practice. Warning an IP after ~4 days is more complicated. Still it's a judgement call and it's difficult to fault someone for doing so unless they knew, or should have known, the IP was no longer used by the same editor. If you aren't the one who made the attack then clearly the warning wasn't directed at you, although as stated the IP may still be blocked if the editor making attacks is still using it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- First, Spacecowboy420 wasn't insulting you. He didn't tell you not to edit – he told you not to get upset over a notice left for another user. Second, he's allowed to warn you. Third, this is a content dispute, although there seems to be consensus here to keep the name out of the article. Either make new consensus or keep the old, but work it out on the talk page. Katietalk 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I.P seemingly running amok on personalities of Jewish descent.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This I.P. is making large numbers of undiscussed changes to specifically Jewish personalities.Can somebody please take a look?[[120]] Regards Irondome (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity just like Christianity and Islam is a religion and not and ethnicity. I will let others decide if a change should be made and I will not make edits without approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.36 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- (ec)While that may be your own opinion, it is not a accepted fact. Certainly I, a Jew by ethnicity but not by religion, reject your assertion.In any case, you are editing against a clear consensus, that has been established through discussion on countless pages and occasions. I recommend that you read some of these before returning to this area and trying to impose your own interpretation. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's way oversimplifying things. Jews are an example of a ethnoreligious group. It's technically true to say that Judaism is a religion, but being Jewish can be considered an ethnicity. See, for instance, Judaism#Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism, Jewish identity, Who is a Jew?. clpo13(talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- All of the IP's edits have been reverted by User:Nihonjoe. Blackmane (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, eight days ago. See also User talk:Nihonjoe#Jewish people. @Irondome: Why is this being reported now when it's all been reverted? Is there another IP making the same edits? If so, please report that one, not this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The individual made a comment tonight on Jews talkpage about this "interpretation". I also notice that a SP investigation is now on the I.P's page. I was unaware that you had reverted them en masse, but I suspected a new attempt to make similar edits was about to start. Irondome (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IP edits seem to be the same as edits from this blocked editor: [121] Valeince (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- IP blocked for a month. --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IP edits seem to be the same as edits from this blocked editor: [121] Valeince (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The individual made a comment tonight on Jews talkpage about this "interpretation". I also notice that a SP investigation is now on the I.P's page. I was unaware that you had reverted them en masse, but I suspected a new attempt to make similar edits was about to start. Irondome (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, eight days ago. See also User talk:Nihonjoe#Jewish people. @Irondome: Why is this being reported now when it's all been reverted? Is there another IP making the same edits? If so, please report that one, not this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concerns about Adam9007 declining speedy deletion nominations[edit]
I am concerned about Adam9007 (talk · contribs) continuing to patrol articles nominated for speedy deletion for not asserting importance (CSD#A7) without understanding the criteria. He is removing CSD#A7 tags from articles that have no reasonable assertion of importance:
- Shreyansh Jain SK
- Reuben Haines III
- James E. Wolfe
- Imitiaz najim where in the ensuing AFD , the editor quickly commented "Snow delete:" after declining speedy
Several Dozens of editors have tried discussing this with this patroller on his talk page:
- User_talk:Adam9007#Credible_assertion_in_speedy_deletions
- User_talk:Adam9007#Secrets_of_how_starting_your_own_business
- User_talk:Adam9007#CSD
- User_talk:Adam9007#Removing_CSD_deletion_tag_in_Imtiaz_najim
- ...
None of us appear to be making any progress in convincing him that his wholesale removal of CSD#A7 templates is not constructive so I'd like some additional comments here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags. Just because you don't, you think I'm being disruptive. You're not the first person to think that. I am seriously getting very close to quitting Wikipedia over this. I follow consensus to the best of my ability. I really hate being branded disruptive over it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Branded or not, there are dozens of folks in your talk page archive that have brought this to your attention and you refuse to get the point. It is now disruptive in my opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Adam9007 James E. Wolfe and Shreyansh Jain SK are clear A7 deletions – they do not assert significance, plus they're unreferenced. When we talk about association with notability, we're not talking about someone's husband or wife unless that person is notable on their own. Reuben Haines III claims significance as a founder of the Franklin Institute but there's no reference to support that. Please explain your reasoning for removing those first two A7 tags. Katietalk 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. If working with such a person is a CCS (and i have had people agree with me on that), then being married to in addition to that most certainly is a CCS. References? Irrelevant for A7. Credible (plausible) claims are enough. Adam9007 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unreferenced is not a CSD criteria. It is a criteria for BLPprod, but if people are tagging articles for speedy deletion because they are unreferenced then at present it is OK to decline those CSDs. perhaps in some cases replacing with BLPprod or AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam9007 is one of the few editors I've come across that could inject a little more WP:IAR into their editing and little less absolute determination to follow policies and guidelines to the letter. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- A7 is purposefully a lower bar than notability, and Adam9007 does a lot of good work removing improper tags (e.g. this A7 tag removal that was later overwhelmingly kept at AfD), though like those who apply A7 overzeaously, can also remove them too frequently. The first and the last in the four should absolutely have been speedied as A7. The Wolfe article said he had been a hip-hop music pioneer in Tennessee, which is one of the most important US states for music, so without doing a Google search it could be seen as possibly above the A7 threshold, but a quick Google search of those claims shows that it's likely hyperbolic and non-credible. But the Haines article explicitly stated that he was a founder of two prominent Philadelphia institutions, both of which had articles, and is certainly above the A7 threshold. I don't see a need for sanctions beside a reminder to raise their A7 threshold a bit, check for the likeliness that A7-passing claims are hoaxes or otherwise exaggerated, and to use PROD more when declining A7s. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Patar knight nails it on the head, in my opinion. I have disagreed with Adam before, but I have also seen him properly saving several articles. Speedy deletion operates in a spectrum, and I think it's healthy to have a range of opinions on its application. That being said, I do hope Adam recognizes that he sometimes runs too close to the edge of the spectrum and accept some feedback.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I am in the middle of writing an essay in the hopes of avoiding discussions like these. Although it's not finished yet, shall I link to it here? Adam9007 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you know that CCS is an Wikipedia:Essays. Not a policy or a guideline. Ayub407talk 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I do, but Toddst1 seems to be treating it as policy today. Adam9007 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Can you provide evidence that "There are many people who agree with me when I remove A7 tags" Adam9007? I don't see any indication of this. At least one page that you removed the A7 from had no reliable sourcing on it. I am uncertain that you understand the criteria for WP:BIO. Early on it is mentioned that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" You cannot establish that notability without references. MarnetteD|Talk 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I do, but Toddst1 seems to be treating it as policy today. Adam9007 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
'Significance' doesn't mean one can claim anything about anything and have it withstand A7. :For the Wolfe article: a local musician, married to a notable musician with whom he provided support on recordings. Is that significant? No. On the Jain article: local politician, belongs to a party, has an unpublished book. Is that significant? No. And I'm not sure the Haines article isn't a hoax. Katietalk 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, it looks like the Haines article is legitimate. I'm going to see what I can do to tidy it up, add some sources and improve it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam, you removed the A7 tag from Shreyansh Jain SK and said there is a credible claim to significance. Can you please explain what the credible claim to significance is in that article? -- GB fan 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, it's worse than that. The text says he joined a political party. That's it. Don't millions of Americans join a party when they register a preference? --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Really?! WikiP does WP:NOT do articles about people that may have notability some day in the future per WP:CRYSTAL. Also you need to read WP:INVALIDBIO. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hate to pile on, as I feel that Adam is ultimately acting in good faith, and a net positive to the project...but yeah, he sets the bar way too low when it comes to "credible claim to significance". He gave me a hard time about deleting "Brain freeze challenge", an unsourced stub article about a segment a Youtuber does on Youtube, which asserted in its (short) body that it was created because said Youtuber asked his fanbase to make it. Not only an easy CSD choice, but an obvious WP:TNT choice. Two other Admin have speedy deleted it besides myself as well. If he wants to continue this sort of interpretation, I feel like he needs to start a discussion and get a consensus supporting it, because right now, he's the only person I've come across who draws the line so low. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's one of the links I was telling MarnetteD about. You'll see that a strong association with someone or something notable is considered a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Is that what you meant in your close? @Sergecross73 and NeilN: Good faith or not, this is nuts. It's creating unnecessary work for scads of editors who then have to PROD or AFD these articles, and he's even !voting delete on some of them. Unless he's willing to change his behavior, I think a topic ban is in order here. Katietalk 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- So it turns out Shreyansh Jain SK is a student. Seriously. --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, significance can be inherited, but use common sense. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what we really need is a consensus on what does not constitute a CCS. As far as I'm aware, there is none. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- More (edit conflict)s. As I suspected there is nothing at the discussion linked to about people "many or otherwise" agreeing with the removal of A7 tags. On top of that some of your removals do not meet the criteria set there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? They agreed with my ideas, not a specific tag removal(s). Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam, I'm pretty sure its rather evident there already is a consensus in place. Why do you think 3 separate admin deleted the article in my example, and yet only you opposed? Why do you think you have so much opposition in this discussion? You're setting the bar far lower than anyone else. Too low. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then why hasn't it been written into policy anywhere? Was there a discussion, and that's what was explicitly decided? Or is it that a certain number of people think it? If there's consensus, it should be documented. This is one of the things I've written about in my (unfinished) essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Adam9007: Don't bother writing an essay because we already have enough guidance on the subject. Your opinion is clearly out of step. The discussion you cite is a small sample size and not representative of the larger community. All you're succeeding in doing is making us use AfD to delete junk that you've prevented from going through CSD. Do you see how that's not constructive to the project? If anything, WP:A7 needs to be tweaked to clarify. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then why hasn't it been written into policy anywhere? Was there a discussion, and that's what was explicitly decided? Or is it that a certain number of people think it? If there's consensus, it should be documented. This is one of the things I've written about in my (unfinished) essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- More (edit conflict)s. As I suspected there is nothing at the discussion linked to about people "many or otherwise" agreeing with the removal of A7 tags. On top of that some of your removals do not meet the criteria set there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what we really need is a consensus on what does not constitute a CCS. As far as I'm aware, there is none. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Is that what you meant in your close? @Sergecross73 and NeilN: Good faith or not, this is nuts. It's creating unnecessary work for scads of editors who then have to PROD or AFD these articles, and he's even !voting delete on some of them. Unless he's willing to change his behavior, I think a topic ban is in order here. Katietalk 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's one of the links I was telling MarnetteD about. You'll see that a strong association with someone or something notable is considered a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I took a very brief look at some of Adam's removal of CSD tags. "Strong association" as stated in my close is a threshold far above what you've been applying, Adam. Merely being a member of something notable does not constitute a credible claim of significance. I think this is made clear using the example I provided in my close; receiving a notable award does not provide one a credible claim of significance, but creating a notable award might. "Strong association" is a largely undefined term and there is some degree of "I know it when I see it" there, but an obvious test anyone can use would be along the lines of "Could more than a dozen subjects claim this association?" If the answer is yes, then it's definitely not a strong association. (There may not be a strong association even if the answer is yes, though.) There must be something unique or unusually strong about the association that is not carried by the "average" person associated with the notable subject for the association alone to constitute a credible claim of significance. A president's daughter, yes. A president's third grade teacher, no. Or, as NeilN put it, common sense. ~ Rob13Talk 21:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- James E. Wolfe was another declined speedy by Adam, and this one is probably a good example of a "strong association" which had consensus to constitute a credible claim of significance. Both working with and being married to a notable singer is a "strong association". (Also, note that I'm not saying I agree with this interpretation of "credible claim of significance", just giving my neutral assessment of the discussion as closer.) ~ Rob13Talk 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also had some issues with his CSD decline. My only encounter with Adam9007 was at Majid M. Al Gethami Al Otaibi, where he declined the speedy with an edit summary "credibly asserts significance" I pointed out that AFC declined the version that was very similar to the version that was CSD tagged. Then he said significance was inherited because the individual is a professor at a notable university, which by extension makes the subject significant. I asked for a policy page explanation and all this user did was throw some policy numbers around without actually explaining how those policies apply to this page. The article didn't survive the AfD a month later. To me, the user uses a really liberal interpretation of the policies and when asked how it applies, he only cites policy numbers without explaining why it is applied. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam9007, you realize that thanks to your absurdly high A7 standards, Wikipedia has an article about a person who graduated Senior Secondary School last year, stating that he's a "Politician , Businessmen , Writter, Story Writter and Social Worker." --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what a lot of people don't realise is that just because I remove a CSD tag, doesn't mean I don't think the article should be deleted. I'm merely trying to preserve the deletion process's integrity. For example, what's the point in having PROD if just anything that's simply not likely to survive an AfD gets CSD'd? Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The integrity of the deletion process? Are you kidding? Katietalk 21:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see invalid CSDs all the time. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because of your commitment to the integrity of the deletion process, I just had to BLPPROD that Jain article. How is that helpful to anyone? Obviously, there are A7s that need to be declined. I do it all the time. The problem is that your view of what should and shouldn't be declined is very ungood. Katietalk 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, you're lucky that the page didn't contain a link to the subject's blogspot page. Else Adam9007 might remove it. I speak from experience. Adam, you need to have more faith that admins will decline inappropriate speedies. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because of your commitment to the integrity of the deletion process, I just had to BLPPROD that Jain article. How is that helpful to anyone? Obviously, there are A7s that need to be declined. I do it all the time. The problem is that your view of what should and shouldn't be declined is very ungood. Katietalk 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see invalid CSDs all the time. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The integrity of the deletion process? Are you kidding? Katietalk 21:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think what a lot of people don't realise is that just because I remove a CSD tag, doesn't mean I don't think the article should be deleted. I'm merely trying to preserve the deletion process's integrity. For example, what's the point in having PROD if just anything that's simply not likely to survive an AfD gets CSD'd? Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's funny, I was just asked for help the other day on my talk page regarding A7. This is how I explained it. Perhaps it may be useful or helpful here as well. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I was pinged here, and although I can't remember the hinted-at previous discussions, I'm glad this topic has been bought up once again, as it's one of the core issues NPPers face on a daily basis. In my opinion CCS is a shady provision, and it often causes headaches. Having said that, it can be useful in particular cases; as in everything, common sense is oft underused, and that's why we've ended up here talking on harsh terms. I suggest Adam9007 voluntarily withdraws from assessing CSD candidates for a while, as he appears to have acted on good faith. He can then slowly come back to this task as the community sees fit. Some of his actions are obvious misjudgements, even though he appears to have acted out of an excessive penchant on technicalities which ought to be reviewed given their inherent dubiousness - in other words, CCS needs to be more clearly defined to avoid such situations. On the other hand, admins are sentient beings and as such can assess most dbs rationally and consistently accurately, incorporating pragmatic judgement other editors unfamiliar in this area might not possess. There will be editors who complain of excessive tagging, or quick tagging, and ironically there are editors who complain about not tagging or in this case inappropriate untagging. We've all been there once. What we all need to do is learn from this and improve our editing from the experience. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Adam9007 usually does good work in this area so how about this: If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat, and if the editor still disagrees, Adam reverts himself. --NeilN talk to me 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Confession: I have a confession to make. I believe my asperger's has got in the way of my judgement. I tend to take things too literally and expect (not just wish) others to see things from my point of view. I believe I have got too involved with this whole thing and a wikibreak is long overdue. I think this is certainly one of those cases. I'm sorry I've got everyone worked up; it wasn't intentional. Why, only the other night I dreamt I got blocked here! I hope that wasn't a premonition; but I realised then that maybe I'm taking this all too seriously. I'm taking some time off to clear my head and all that, and I hope return with a fresh perspective (this doesn't mean I don't stand by what I wrote in my essay; just I'm taking even that too literally). Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Comment When Adam9007 first came to my attention, I began to feel despair. However, after quite some discussions involving me, him and @MelanieN:, I began to see where he was coming from. He had a desire for things to be absolutely clear in policy so there is no room for wriggling. He also had a very strict idea of what significance was. It isn't easy for him, as I see it, to accept the 'wriggle room' that is the core of applying Wikipedia policies in day to day business. Believe me, he has lightened up since then. There's quite some way to go, but I think some day he would make a good admin. Go on, laugh. I don't care. Rather than backing him into a corner and shouting at him, take time to go over some cases in discussion with him. Calmly explain things, bearing in mind that he takes things rather literally and may have difficulties with humour. Pick cases that he was involved with, and also explain why you deleted (or tagged) some other things. He's a lot further on than he was - help him get there. There's no way the policies can be written to cover every little detail, and there will always be those on the strict side, and those on the lax side in interpreting them. And there's always AfD if you don't want to retag - there's nothing in WP:CSD so far as I can see that forbids retagging. In WP:PROD, it is specifically stated that replacing a declined prod is not allowed. (Removed AfD tags should be replaced until the discussion is closed.) Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see Adam's said what I was skirting round... Good luck, Adam. Have a break - I'm having one soon myself (not through stress - I'll be out of touch for various reasons). Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Peridon: I'm writing that essay in the hopes of explaining my views clearly. If anyone challenged me over an A7 tag removal, I could just point them there instead of having a great big song and dance. But of course, things don't always go according to plan; for this happened before I could finish it. I shall of course finish it when I return. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see Adam's said what I was skirting round... Good luck, Adam. Have a break - I'm having one soon myself (not through stress - I'll be out of touch for various reasons). Peridon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I haven't looked at the articles linked above, nor any others Adam9007's untagged lately (my time is very limited at the moment), but I have spot-checked a couple dozen of his untaggings each time he's come to WT:CSD to complain, perhaps around a hundred in total. I've gone ahead and speedied maybe five of those, so clearly I think his judgment is mostly ok. On the other hand, I'm concerned about his statement above at 21:23 about untagging things he thinks should be deleted. Making people argue for things you already want done is disruptive - it used to be the one-line summary for WP:POINT around the time I started editing - and shows contempt for other volunteers' time. If you think something needs to be deleted but doesn't quite fit the speedy deletion criteria, leave it for an admin to decide whether it truly needs discussion. Or at least nominate it for deletion yourself instead of just untagging it. —Cryptic 22:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have also been concerned about this recently because, it basically outweighs the benefits of any apparent "claims of significance"; take Camp Lahti for example, he removed it because of "Programmes are events" which are not only thin thoughts but also not an explanation to not at least pursue deletion. I know DGG has had a long history about this recently going as far as to re-examine Adam's declines and nominate them himself; I know I also took several of these articles to AfD also. I know that DGG also suggested Adam at least consider deleting one path or another, by either AfD or PROD. I notice Adam has, but it's still being outweighed the removals. I believe some time away from this and, again, carefully examining how CSD actually works and should work. Once we start keeping these without pursuing forms of deletion, is then causing damage to the fluidity of deletion. I for one was being stressed by this very behavior because I along with a select number of my best colleagues were having their speedies removed. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 removed that A7, not me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged on this discussion, I had a look at the article in question. I think it was simply the presence of some references and a template that appeared to show a bunch of other summer camps as bluelinks that meant I didn't feel comfortable deleting it on the spot there. I notice my edit summary was "try PROD or AfD" which to be honest carries an implication of "I can't be bothered to improve this article and don't care if it gets deleted". I think the PROD was correct in this instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 removed that A7, not me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I've said many times before, I'm a hard-liner on WP:CSD. I looked at three of the examples cited here. Shreyansh Jain SK, not well written, at least as far as English grammar and diction goes. Since it is well known that we have bias towards anglo-european topics and native English speakers, I'm especially conservative about articles like this. There's a claim that he's a Politician , Businessmen , Writter, Story Writter and Social Worker. It's not unreasonable to say that's a claim of importance, and thus excludes A7. Reuben Haines III. Again, not well written, but about somebody who lived in the 18th century, and given our overwhelming bias for current events, I'm inclined to bend over backwards for historical figures. So, yeah, I agree that's not an A7. James E. Wolfe, has four published singles. Again, the article is poorly written and missing sources, but I think having four published songs is enough to get past A7. All of those might go down in flames at AfD, but there's enough there for all of them to deserve a full hearing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Roy, but just claiming that someone is a politician, businessman, or indeed alien ambassador from the planet Zanussi isn't a claim of notability unless there's at least one source supporting it, which there wasn't (thus failing BLP as well). I'd say that Adam really needs to brush up on what A7 actually means. Shreyansh Jain SK actually had no claims of notability at all, it was just an article written by someone about themselves (oh aye, I deleted it A7 a few moments ago with a bit of IAR, there was clearly no point in letting a PROD drag on for 7 days). Otherwise I could write a one-sentence article about myself saying "Black Kite is a politician, lion-tamer, shapeshifter, works for MI5 and likes cider" (all true by the way) and expect it to pass CSD. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SIGNIFICANCE explicitly says, A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're citing an essay... And according to your criteria, almost anything that states, 'X is a [profession]' cannot be A7'd. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:A7 says the same thing. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". I'm surprised that so many people in this thread seem to think that references are needed for a credible claim of significance. Omni Flames (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you don't think that. It's credibility we're talking about here. The claim still needs to be credible, and like the example I gave above, any claim out of the ordinary (in this case being a politician, in my case being a lion-tamer that works for MI5) is not credible without a source. Any politician, regardless of country of origin, would have such sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There's a difference between a credible claim and a credible claim of significance or importance. The Jain article claimed he was a writer. How is that significant or important? I'm a writer too. Am I significant or important? No. Is my local mayor significant or important? No. This is an encyclopedia. Significance has to be judged in that context. Katietalk 00:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A reliable source helps the "claim of significance" be credible. Are all writers significant? No. So "John Doe is a writer." can be A7'd and I would delete that. "John Doe is a writer."[link to newspaper review] This, I would decline as John Doe is credibly significant. Same text, two different outcomes. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that This is an encyclopedia. Significance has to be judged in that context. makes sense. I think we all agree on that. Where we disagree is how and where that judgement should be made. I'm saying if there's any doubt at all, it should be made at AfD. If I say, Fred Foobar is a politician, clearly it depends on what level of office Fred holds. A member of my local community board is probably not notable. The president of a country probably is. Figuring out which applies is a job for AfD, not a job for one person, deleting the page in anonymity and obscurity. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A reliable source helps the "claim of significance" be credible. Are all writers significant? No. So "John Doe is a writer." can be A7'd and I would delete that. "John Doe is a writer."[link to newspaper review] This, I would decline as John Doe is credibly significant. Same text, two different outcomes. --NeilN talk to me 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cider! Now there's a thought for a bleak Friday. Suggest a few people around here could use one. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinged here by Adam9007. Of the 2 (out of original 4) diffs in the OP that I can still view, the A7 removals are quite defensible. My impression is that @Toddst1: has done an exceptionally poor job of demonstrating that there is a problem in need of community action against a single editor (ie, that all other actions that he could take have been exhausted). I encourage him to (re)start instead at the policy talk page, WT:CSD, and work on wordsmithing better definitions of CCS either within the policy or getting some of the essays that support said definition linked from the policy. I also think several editors could use a reminder that speedy deletion exists to reduce the load on AfD; A7's are rarely urgent and anyone except an article writer should be able to contest them without getting flak. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @VQuakr:, perhaps you would have been happier if I had spent more time looking through the dozens of complaints other editors have made about this user's CSD judgement on his talk page. Why don't you review his talk page archive and tell me if you disagree that there is a pattern of complaints on this subject about this editor? Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinged here some time ago, not sure if my comment is still needed; we argued (User talk:Adam9007/Archive 1#Incedo ) about my db-inc tagging of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incedo. --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Time to close?[edit]
- The editor who people are discussing here has stated they're taking a wikibreak. It's obvious that no admin action is necessary yet. At this point, the thread serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the drama. Can we just close this thread with a warning that POINTy removals of CSD tags to "preserve the deletion process's (sic) integrity" are likely to wear out the community's patience if his views of what constitutes a credible claim of significance remain so far outside community norms? ~ Rob13Talk 00:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would oppose any close that implies the editor was being purposefully disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with a close, but I don't believe a warning is needed. Peridon explained well that Adam's declining of A7 is already coming a bit closer to community norms - and I think it's perfectly fine for your views to be more hard-line than others as long as it's not completely astray of consensus. RoySmith also explained well that "preserving the deletion process's integrity" can be valid in some cases. Many articles will probably not survive AfD at all, but that doesn't mean that they should be removed under CSD. It's good to have some editors with more strict interpretations of CSD on Wikipedia. Besides that, I also haven't seen any real consensus emerge with regards to a topic ban, though it has been suggested briefly at some points. Appable (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I do not see consensus for such wording in the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Before I go on my wikibreak, feel I might as well link to what I have written so far. The most important bits are the one about NOTINHERITED and "implicit consensus" vs explicit. Don't forget, this is all based on (explicit) consensus to my knowledge. I stand by it, even if I take it a bit too literally. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with NeilN's comment about the close. Earlier in this thread N also stated that "If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat" which is an excellent idea. I would add that "if several editors show up with concerns about an editing pattern" that Adam could listen to those concerns as well. That is better than digging in ones heels. It also helps to avoid ANI threads like this one. I don't know if this is feasible but I am hoping that Adam will take it under consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In response to something in that essay, significance can be inherited, but it isn't always inherited. That is explicitly part of my close of the significance RfC. Additionally, a credible claim of significance does not mean that something might be notable. It means that something has a reasonable chance of being notable. I think this is a large source of the issue. "Reasonable chance" is a much higher standard than the "might be notable" you wrote in your essay, and if your thinking about that doesn't change, I think it's likely you'll be here in another couple months. That would be regrettable, because I think you are trying to benefit the encyclopedia. ~ Rob13Talk 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? "Reasonable chance" is the same as "might". Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. "Might" means any non-zero chance, whereas "reasonable chances" is considerably higher than zero. A random author might become notable (it's possible), but a random author doesn't have a reasonable chance of becoming notable (since very, very few authors become notable compared to everyone who's ever considered themselves a writer). ~ Rob13Talk 01:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the term "reasonable chance" is a bit too subjective. At least the term "might" is more objective. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. "Reasonable chance" is not too subjective for reasonable people. You've admitted that you've been taking a pedantic approach to the rules here. I think that's the crux of the issue. It's clear your heart is in the right place, but your judgement is not. Toddst1 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: But Todd, what defines a reasonable person? You're just using recursion! (This is humor, folks. Don't take it too seriously.) ~ Rob13Talk 02:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is. What precisely does "Reasonable chance" mean? 20%? 30%? 40%?.... It depends on who you ask. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know it when I see it and the Duck test apply. If you can't get comfortable with ambiguity like that, then you should recuse yourself from any actions on Wikipedia (among other places) that require reasonable judgement. Seriously. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If you must have a number say 55% (slightly more likely than not) although if you are unable to manage the fuzzy logic that goes into making a judgelent call I would recommend that you, as you have said you would do, step back from this type of activity. If there were hard and fast rules we would have a score sheet and/or checklist which could be applied by rote or even by bot to make content decisions.
CSD is, by design, a two step process 1) editors of varying experience tag an article {{db-something}} because they think it should be speedy deleted 2) an admin, who has been vetted by the community and who is expected to understand speedy deletion criteria decides to delete or decline based on their experiemce.
Except in very clear cases of misapplication of CSD tags, my very firm opinion is that non-admins should not be making the call to remove the tag. I know that is not policy but if you are concerned about "the integrity of the deletion process" the final decision should be left to an admin - the community has vetted them and trusts their judgement about what should and should not be CSDed. Articles do not need to be "saved" from CSD by bypassing step 2 above. By removing the tag yourself you have taken the decision from the community vetted editor and substituted your, not only non community vetted but community-objected opinion, in its place. Making the process 1,!1 instead of 1,2. Which is less than optimal. JbhTalk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually our CSD policy does not prohibit anyone except the account of the article creator from removing the tag, even in cases where a DUCK test would say it's the creator logged out. You just have to assume good faith unless it's obviously not the case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely disagree. If CSD essentially bypasses consensus-based decisions that generally govern Wikipedia in cases where the article would universally be deleted anyway, I think any editor in good faith should absolutely be permitted to remove any CSD tag they feel does not meet criteria within reason. Of course some editors are more hardline about CSD, but I think that's a good thing for the project. If we start to use CSD too liberally then it bypasses consensus in times where the article could be improved, though of course if CSD is declined too often it does clog AfD. Appable (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. "Reasonable chance" is not too subjective for reasonable people. You've admitted that you've been taking a pedantic approach to the rules here. I think that's the crux of the issue. It's clear your heart is in the right place, but your judgement is not. Toddst1 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the term "reasonable chance" is a bit too subjective. At least the term "might" is more objective. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. "Might" means any non-zero chance, whereas "reasonable chances" is considerably higher than zero. A random author might become notable (it's possible), but a random author doesn't have a reasonable chance of becoming notable (since very, very few authors become notable compared to everyone who's ever considered themselves a writer). ~ Rob13Talk 01:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? "Reasonable chance" is the same as "might". Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In response to something in that essay, significance can be inherited, but it isn't always inherited. That is explicitly part of my close of the significance RfC. Additionally, a credible claim of significance does not mean that something might be notable. It means that something has a reasonable chance of being notable. I think this is a large source of the issue. "Reasonable chance" is a much higher standard than the "might be notable" you wrote in your essay, and if your thinking about that doesn't change, I think it's likely you'll be here in another couple months. That would be regrettable, because I think you are trying to benefit the encyclopedia. ~ Rob13Talk 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with NeilN's comment about the close. Earlier in this thread N also stated that "If an experienced editor has concerns about a deletion tag removal, and it's not on an article they created, they and Adam can have a quick chat" which is an excellent idea. I would add that "if several editors show up with concerns about an editing pattern" that Adam could listen to those concerns as well. That is better than digging in ones heels. It also helps to avoid ANI threads like this one. I don't know if this is feasible but I am hoping that Adam will take it under consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Adam9007: I think there is general agreement here that your idea of a self-imposed wikibreak for you is a good idea but we all want you to return to the generally good contributions you make (outside of CSD). Perhaps you'll agree to either steer clear of CSD upon your return or at a minimum, apply a different approach that takes into account the problems discussed here when considering removing CSD tags. What do you say? Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there's agreement at all that Adam should steer clear of CSD. Yes, I think that Adam may be a bit too hardline for A7 compared to the consensus, but at the same time I think there's huge value in having editors that see CSD as fairly strict criteria. RoySmith explained well that some of the pages linked there probably shouldn't be A7'd, even if they'd go down very quickly at AfD. Appable (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Appable: nobody said there was agreement that this discussion proscribed him avoiding CSD. It was a suggestion. Even you with, so few edits, agree that Adam has had problems in this area. How about you come up with a more constructive solution if you don't like the suggestion? Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Appable: I don't know why my edit count has anything to do with what I wrote here (though I've never discussed anything on ANI). I've run across Adam multiple times before, as I too sometimes patrol speedy deletions to help clear the backlog of articles that comes up on CSD by removing incorrect nominations, correcting nominations (sometimes G11 isn't valid but A7 is, etc). And, like Adam, you can see on my talk page that I've also had debates about speedy deletion declines (I've backed off a bit because of those). So naturally, while I may not have as long a history on Wikipedia, I've run into Adam often. Many times, I agree with his removal of speedy deletions as well. That being said, I do think there are some cases when the tag should probably stand because it's not much of a credible claim of significance.
- I did misinterpret you regarding your suggestion, as I thought you were saying there was "general agreement" that he should steer clear of CSD; upon rereading I can tell that's not the case. My constructive suggestion is that there is no need for a real warning - Adam's declining of CSD is clearly coming closer to community norms (though of course more hardline than others, which is completely all right), he plans to take a wikibreak, and at least a few editors here believe that at least two of the four articles in nomination contain CCSs. With all that in mind, I think Adam's work in CSD is absolutely valuable and that while his approach may be a bit too strict of an interpretation of A7, having those editors who are reasonably strict is important. Appable (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Appable: nobody said there was agreement that this discussion proscribed him avoiding CSD. It was a suggestion. Even you with, so few edits, agree that Adam has had problems in this area. How about you come up with a more constructive solution if you don't like the suggestion? Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt a summary.
- I hope everyone would agree that the proper way of nominating for deletion is to find an optimum balance; the question is what balance is optimum. Removing hopeless material at CSD is necessary, and the criteria have been tuned over many years to try to eliminate any definable group that might need more attention, or where one person cannot reasonably decide, or where the deletions are usually contested. For example, we do not have A7 for products, because it's hard to recognize something that is likely to have sources out of one's own field, nor for books, because many people might not recognize any particular title, as was shown by a great many failures to recognize famous books. But sending articles to AfD that are certain to be deleted does not help either, because for every unnecessary AfD there means we cannot pay the proper attention to the ones that do need discussion. An example of balance is the inclusion of web content in A7. When this was proposed, I opposed it, until it was shown to me how the overwhelming proportion of the great many submitted articles in that class was altogether hopeless.
- The definition of A7 has proven tricky., In my early years here I proposed several modifications, none of which were adopted, nor have most of those proposed by others. I think this is right, because there is a long history of interpretation at AFD and DRV based on the present wording, and this gives a certain degree of stability, and aids the admins in decided which to actually delete. I interpret a credible claim of significance to means a claim which if verified, would lead someone who understood the purpose of an encyclopedia like WP to think in good faith that the subject might possibly justify an article. No sensible person , for example would really think that being on a high school football team belongs in a encyclopedia ; but someone might think that being on a state championship team does, even if we usually do not consider that notable. (That's the difference between notability and significance. Most authors of a single book are not notable, but for someone to think they might be, is not absurd (except for a self published book, which is obviously not a CCS). No body could reasonably think that an artist who has not yet even been part of a group exhibition is notable, but if they have been, someone might think otherwise--even though that by itself is not enough, and such claims really need to be looked at by someone who knows how we judge artists. There's another factor:an article about someone not very important is usually either by a naïve new editor, or a promotional editor. Such articles need to be examined carefully to see if the claims for significance are made in good faith: I consider undeclared promotional editing in violation of the TOU not to be good-faith editing. At the least, such articles should be considered for tagging as G11. It's part of deletion policy that once an article has ben tagged for speedy, it may be deleted under any applicable criterion; if one comes across a A7 & isn't sure, it's usually worth considering it it falls in G11.
- I don't want to go into the specifics of the articles mentioned above: I also have a list of the misinterpretations. There is one general point: relationship is not encyclopedic significance. Nobody could rationally think that someone should get a separate entry in an encyclopedia just because their spouse is notable, except for very special circumstances. And certainly not for children, parents, schoolmates, business associates, and political sympathizers. (For the sort of special circumstances that can apply, see WP:EINSTEIN.) And possible future significance is not significance. Everyone who isn't dead might possibly become significant.
- Numbers were mentioned; it's hard to define what they actually mean. to the extent its meaningful, as a tagger or deleting admin, I wouldn't use speedy an article if I thought there were only a 2/3 chance I was right; it's equally unrealistic to expect 100%. WP being WP, there's going to be a good deal of variability. And the standard is not whether I think I am right, but whether I think that the community standard would think it right. It's not as much a matter of personal opinion as trying to understand what the consensus is.
- The most important point raised is that when one comes across a A7 tagging that does not apply, but the article should be deleted, it very much helps to change it to a Prod or an Afd. If one just thinks it's questionable, then at least a notability tag. Not just Adam, but other people should be doing this more often. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, Adam made at least two good calls out of four. The two articles that are live at present very clearly asserted the importance/notability of their subjects. The fact that they didn't prove this importance/notability with citations of reliable sources is irrelevant, as we are not talking about shutting down an AFD discussion where sources were requested but not produced. PROD should never be used where the only apparent problem with an article's visible claim to notability is that it is unsourced. Even if the two articles that I can't see at the moment actually should have been speedied rather than AFDed, that only means that Adam made two minor mistakes; whoever PRODded the two articles that remain actually made two far mor significant mistakes. Pinging User:Tazerdadog and User:JesseRafe to get their opinions on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ping didn't work for whatever reason, but I'm here now. I think the A7 tagging on the article I was involved with was correct but thin - it's certainly defensible to claim that a credible claim of significance is made in the article. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you're going to pontificate about what people are doing wrong, it's generally a good idea to actually know what you're talking about. Three out of these four articles were BLPs and as such can (and should) be PRODded purely because they don't have any sources. Obviously in many cases it is trivial to find such a source, but if you can't, it must be PRODded. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- One is dead, the remaining non-deleted article had a reference at the time it was tagged and from recollection of looking at the deleted ones before they were nuked, one of them also had a (questionable) reference. So 3 out of 4 would have failed BLPROD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, I was merely pointing out that Hijiri88's quote that "PROD should never be used where the only apparent problem with an article's visible claim to notability is that it is unsourced" is totally wrong when it refers to a BLP. It's surprising how many people don't realize this. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can PROD for any reason you like, including things like "This article reads like it was written by an uneducated drunk with two fingers". If it's not challenged, it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the articles presented at the top of this discussion, and I absolutely agree that the article on Wolfe was not a valid A7. Haines is arguable but where there's doubt it's better to untag and let a discussion happen. Another was tagged simulatenously as A7 (valid) and A3 (not valid), and both tags appear to have been removed in error when only the A3 tag should have been removed. I don't see enough disruption or malice here that justifies the continuing existence of an ANI discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
- Apologies for being late to the party on this discussion. I didn't expect it to be on the verge of wrapping up overnight.
- I've previously discussed the A7 removals with Adam (under my previous username, Bazj) and tried to clarify some of the points around A7 - though in retrospect that seems like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
- In pursuit of that discussion I took an RSS feed of Adam's A7 removals for a month or so...
- At the time I stopped the RSS feed (6 Jun) I sorted the data into live & deleted. The peppering of redlinks through the list shows the attrition since then.
- For a while I took the WP:AGF view that the removal of A7 indicated that Adam would have reason to vote keep in the ensuing AfD. However my experience has been that Adam seldom follows up his A7 removals with any further participation in discussion or improvement of the article. Effectively his actions have resulted in shoddy articles being given a free pass through the WP:NPP process.
- WP:AGF is a two-way process - those editors tagging articles A7 can't be expected to continue assuming Adam's good faith when he obviously makes no such assumption about their efforts that led them to tag the article.
- While Adam is scanning CAT:A7 and removing the tags with a vigor he effectively renders that CSD criterion ineffective meaning dross survives or is inappropriately tagged under some other criterion.
- My 2¢. (formerly Bazj) for (;;) (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with removing A7 even if you would vote delete in the resulting AfD, For (;;). While Adam may apply too strict a definition of A7, there are also articles that definitely do not have a credible claim of significance that are deleted under that criterion. That being said, I would recommend (not formally) that Adam does two additional actions (which DGG has mentioned here and to me directly) - make sure to nominate the article for AfD (as a procedural nomination) or PROD assuming the A7 wasn't applied incompetently (e.g. article not only has a CCS but also probably shows notability), and reply in the resulting discussion if it was a procedural nomination. Doing this would ensure articles nominated for speedy deletion go through the proper deletion venue and don't get a free pass through NPP. Appable (talk)
- Regardless of the fact that Adam9007 is currently taking a wikibreak, I propose that he be topic-banned from removing CSD tags, or at the very least from removing A7 CSD tags. This is no way implies that he is acting in bad faith. However, he is causing much disruption and time-wasting on the encyclopedia, and causing much rubbish to be left on Wikipedia. He is essentially performing an administrative function even though he is not an administrator and does not have an administrator's perspective. Removal of the tags is contentious, unnecessary (admins review before they delete), and disruptive. In addition, not only has he not conceded that his actions have been improper, he is writing an essay of self-justification in defense of his actions. For all of the above reasons, I think it's time for him to turn his attention on Wikipedia to other tasks, of which there are millions. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Rubbish" in whose opinion? I have been calling out bad speedies for years, overturning several to take them to DYK and getting a positive reception for it. Some GAs of highly notable topics were once marked for speedy deletion. So while Adam may need to slow down a bit, his heart is in the right place. Remember that a new article is many new users' route into Wikipedia editing, and if you scare them away calling their good faith edits in disparaging terms, we will never retain editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Referring to articles unrelated to Adam9007's CSD removals is irrelevant. He's not a new user -- he's been here over a year and has made over 12,000 edits. I have specifically already noted that he is acting in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I hope you're not implying I broke policy? Not all "administrative functions" require admin privileges. I realise that just because we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we should (don't forget that also applies to articles meeting CSD; contrary to popular belief, it does not mean they have to be CSD'd), but if my contributions are unwelcome, then never mind when, I'm not even sure if I'll return. Adam9007 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. Just stop removing CSD tags; allow admins to make the call whether to keep or delete. You are more than welcome, and encouraged, to continue your contributing to Wikipedia -- and there certainly is a need for good and dedicated users. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- By formally proposing a topic ban, you have stated you feel my contributions are unwelcome. And what's to stop this happening in other areas? It's only happened here because it's an area I am (was?) heavily involved in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat: I have never stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome. This issue is not being brought up here because it's an area you are heavily involved in. It's being brought up here because other editors are concerned that (in addition to being unnecessary) it is disruptive and detrimental to the project, and you are being requested to edit in other areas instead. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any real consensus that editors here feel that his actions are "disruptive and detrimental to the project" as a whole, though some removals may be too strict of an interpretation of the CSD rules. Some editors, like RoySmith, have also explained how hardline CSD reviewers are also valuable to the project. There's definitely a variety of opinions here, but I personally think Peridon nails it on the head - if we're concerned about Adam's removals of speedy deletion tags, the important thing is that that is improving and Adam can still be very valuable to the project by working on CSD reviews with a reasonably strict (less strict than now, but perhaps a bit more strict than the average editor) view of the criteria. Appable (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- To repeat: I have never stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome. This issue is not being brought up here because it's an area you are heavily involved in. It's being brought up here because other editors are concerned that (in addition to being unnecessary) it is disruptive and detrimental to the project, and you are being requested to edit in other areas instead. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- By formally proposing a topic ban, you have stated you feel my contributions are unwelcome. And what's to stop this happening in other areas? It's only happened here because it's an area I am (was?) heavily involved in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever stated or implied that your contributions are unwelcome; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. Just stop removing CSD tags; allow admins to make the call whether to keep or delete. You are more than welcome, and encouraged, to continue your contributing to Wikipedia -- and there certainly is a need for good and dedicated users. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I hope you're not implying I broke policy? Not all "administrative functions" require admin privileges. I realise that just because we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we should (don't forget that also applies to articles meeting CSD; contrary to popular belief, it does not mean they have to be CSD'd), but if my contributions are unwelcome, then never mind when, I'm not even sure if I'll return. Adam9007 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Referring to articles unrelated to Adam9007's CSD removals is irrelevant. He's not a new user -- he's been here over a year and has made over 12,000 edits. I have specifically already noted that he is acting in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Rubbish" in whose opinion? I have been calling out bad speedies for years, overturning several to take them to DYK and getting a positive reception for it. Some GAs of highly notable topics were once marked for speedy deletion. So while Adam may need to slow down a bit, his heart is in the right place. Remember that a new article is many new users' route into Wikipedia editing, and if you scare them away calling their good faith edits in disparaging terms, we will never retain editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Came here via Adam9007's ping. I cannot tell I remember having interacted with him before though I have A7-ed plenty of stuff. I did not read the whole thing, but from the four links at the top, two are inaccessible (likely deleted articles), and from the other two, one is a totally legit tag removal and the other (the rapper) is at least disputable (I probably would have tagged it if I was doing NPP, but I do not see a problem with de-tagging). Of course, the selection bias might be at work here; if the two deleted articles were correct A7s, a 50% correct record is not something exactly impressive.
- If someone regularly detags with an accuracy under 80% and continues after warnings (not saying this is or this is not the case here), I would easily support some form of de-tag restriction. Everyone can make mistakes, but not too many after the alarm went off.
Oh, and I do not know how the lucky pinged ones were selected, but if the objective was to prove that "others think like me", Adam9007 should probably read WP:CANVAS. (ANI threads can turn to !votes about sanctions against an editor, so it fully applies...)- Re-ping me if my input is necessary (I will not follow the thread). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I pinged everyone involved in that discussion, not just the people who !voted my way. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tigraan I feel bound to say that Adam9007 may be a PITA but I've always found him to be 100% conscientious and above board in his dealings. I wouldn't even start to suspect him of selection bias in his pinging. If you want more examples of Adam's A7 tag removals check out the collapsed box above. for (;;) (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, redacting accordingly. (Saying which discussion it was from the start would have helped.) TigraanClick here to contact me 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I looked at the removals 1 through 7 in the collapse box (except 3 which was deleted). They all look good to me. Only this one has a disputable rationale (though I agree with it). TigraanClick here to contact me 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)]
- @For (;;): I'll go thorough and explain each one if necessary, but after a quick skim through them, a lot were obvious out-of-scopes, and should be unambiguously valid tag removals. You may have just proved that I can and do get it right a lot of (if not most of) the time. Adam9007 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this. I think disputable rationales are absolutely fine (to me it's far better to remove a speedy deletion tag and have the article go through another deletion process if it doesn't seem notable than to bypass consensus in situations where consensus should not be bypassed), so that's good. As a general note to Adam9007, besides what I've said earlier, I've noticed that a lot of your edit summaries are simply "article asserts enough significance". Some summaries are more explanatory, though, and I think it'd also be helpful if you explained that in the edit summary briefly. Appable (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I looked at the removals 1 through 7 in the collapse box (except 3 which was deleted). They all look good to me. Only this one has a disputable rationale (though I agree with it). TigraanClick here to contact me 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)]
- Fair enough, redacting accordingly. (Saying which discussion it was from the start would have helped.) TigraanClick here to contact me 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tigraan I feel bound to say that Adam9007 may be a PITA but I've always found him to be 100% conscientious and above board in his dealings. I wouldn't even start to suspect him of selection bias in his pinging. If you want more examples of Adam's A7 tag removals check out the collapsed box above. for (;;) (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I pinged everyone involved in that discussion, not just the people who !voted my way. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I came across Ziadie family on my usual sweep through CAT:CSD and declined it after I found the family name-checked in The Independent and the Daily Telegraph. If it went to AfD I can't work out whether I'd !vote "keep" or "merge with Lady Colin Campbell", but I definitely wouldn't go with delete. In any case, Toddst1 should not be templating a user who hasn't edited in two years, that's just silly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are we running out of templates? WTF?? It's considered being a dick NOT to notify anyone who created an article when prod/afd/csd tags are applied. How do you know if they have an email trigger set for their watchlist? When they edit is immaterial. C'mon Ritchie, you're better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If Adam Keller wakes from his slumber and starts improving the article, I will conclude a point conceded, but I can't see it happening myself, and my essay comes from years of experience. In particular, saying "If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article" to an editor who first registered in 2006 is rather nonsensical and comes across with all the charm and warmth of a bailiff reposessing a house. Consider a personalised message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- the templates come with Twinkle, and the work being done with new articles would be almost impossible without it. IfI get a notice like this, as an experienced editor I know how it got there and it would seem absurd if I got insulted about it. What we might want to do is to check the wording of all of them, so they are\ a/ briefer, b/ kinder and c/applicable to all type of editors. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are we running out of templates? WTF?? It's considered being a dick NOT to notify anyone who created an article when prod/afd/csd tags are applied. How do you know if they have an email trigger set for their watchlist? When they edit is immaterial. C'mon Ritchie, you're better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Repeated "test edits" attempting to add code that if succesful would link to external sites[edit]
1.65.169.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
1.65.223.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.29.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.66.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.98.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.205.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42.2.205.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
116.48.166.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
119.237.202.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
168.70.18.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
219.77.111.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
A whole bunch of IPs, all geolocating to Hong Kong, have repeatedly tried to add code to articles here (the IPs listed are the ones that I have seen, but there might be many more), code that from what I can see would add links to multiple external sites, if succesful (sample edits: [122], [123], [124]; check the page history of Argentine Air Force, Grupo de Operações Especiais (Portugal) and GOE (Brazil)). So maybe someone would be interested in creating an edit filter to stop it? Thomas.W talk 13:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strange. Each IP seems to be adding a large bank of links, and then pretty much immediately removing them (unless caught and reverted by another editor first). Not sure what this achieves? Gricehead (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You could whack-a-mole, or pass this to the edit filter? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll see about hacking up an edit filter. BethNaught (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Special:AbuseFilter/779, log only for now, private because the means of detection is flimsy. BethNaught (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Kenny Loggins vandal again, another range being used[edit]
Two weeks ago, a rangeblock was set in place for the Kenny Loggins vandal, as can be seen in this ANI discussion.
The guy has surfaced again using a new range. Can we get another year-long rangeblock? Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- July 20:
- July 19:
- Sounds like a job for the edit filter to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If there is one filter we could use then I'm stumped about how to configure it. The hoax content changes quite a bit from article to article, from edit to edit. There would have to be a bunch of filters, ones tailored for each article. For instance, we could have a filter preventing Ghostbusters or Fletch from appearing in Template:Kenny Loggins,[125] and we could filter any attempt to insert Sheena Easton or Kenny Loggins in the Roy Orbison discography.[126] as well as vice versa. From what I understand about filters, each one takes resources and adds time to our processing, so each one should be deemed necessary. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a job for the edit filter to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
George Ranalli[edit]
- George Ranalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gurulupina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Ddperks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- On WP:COIN at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#George_Ranalli
- Previously on AN/I in 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive893#George_Ranalli
This is a problem reported on WP:COIN. It's basically resume inflation in a BLP article by several SPAs. There may be a COI, but it's hard to tell what the connection is. The last time this was at AN/I, the editor involved appeared to be the subject's wife. The article subject is an NYC architect who hasn't actually built very much in a long career. The real problem is WP:OWN. The main SPA has made over a hundred edits since July 11. They won't engage on talk despite repeated requests, and undo almost any edit made by others.[127][128]. (My own edit added headings which distinguished the architect's one significant new building from various renovation projects and paper designs. The SPA didn't like that.) The article needs trimming, but it seems impossible to do that without edit warring. Gurulupina edits only this article and some related articles. (Today, though, that editor made some minor cleanup edits to Frank Lloyd Wright.) Ddperks edits mostly this article, uploads related images, and may have a COI. If they can be induced to engage on talk, this can probably be worked out, but it may take the AN/I clue stick to make that happen. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This is one of those "good guy COI" cases. They write well, they cite sources, and they do a good job of editing. It's just that all the edits add up to a PR puff piece. The article subject is a minor architect with one notable building, a community center in Brooklyn, but the article makes him sound like a major figure in 20th century architecture. John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The odd bit is that the problem may be what he's trying to be notable for; looks like he's a fairly useless architect, but a fairly OK museum/exhibit curator with a number of published monographs. Some trimming definitely needs to be done, though, and I would support the clue stick if this has been an ongoing problem. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ranalli probably does merit a page. But since since his case is sonewhat borderline, he does not need to have one if he does not wish to have one. Someone (Ranelli, a relative, a friend or a colleague) is obviously very clumsily attempting to give him a page. However, he has been in the news and the article is liable to developing BLP 3.6 issues. I suggest that we treat this as the minor incident that it is, by 1.) issuing stiff warnings to all of the accounts involved. and 2.) by making very clear to each of those accounts that having a page has its downsides. That neither they, nor we, can guarantee that negative information will not go onto that page in future. But that, if he wishes, Ranelli can ask to have the page removed. And give them very clear instructions as to how Ranelli can discreetly make such a request.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. Another editor just did a trim of the article. Suggest the usual warnings and then waiting to see what happens next. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:I don't know enough about the clippers' collapse Sock of banned user.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above account claims to be a sock of User:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and has gone on a vandalism spree. Can we go ahead and put this one to bed?--Church Talk 04:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked. Our friendly neighborhood Cluebot reported this one to AIV. --NeilN talk to me 04:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Church: I tagged the account feel free to add the evidence like this report. Regards, --74.138.101.54 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mediation request for ohnoitsjamie admin removal re admin tool abuse[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for mediation Doctor Kaiju (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There hasn't been a "discussion" yet. There never was one with admin besides Ohnoitsjamie re:admin abuse; this page is for admin abuse, what the hell? Seriously, you're an arbitrator? Unbelievable. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the page to point to a mediation request which will not be accepted. --NeilN talk to me 06:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, which page is the page to post when an admin lies repeatedly over and over to justify clear abuse of power, and it can be proven? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can lay out your case here, presenting your assertions and diffs here. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here as in right here? Would you like links to each lie presented here over the years, with rebuttal for lie? Is this just a joke to waste my time, as if this was Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is that what this place has devolved to? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as in "right here". After all, you did bring this here! Evidence in the form of diffs is what you're going to need to prove your case. I think you're wasting your time, but that's just my opinion. Doc talk 06:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've read your mediation request. I'm quite prepared to block you if you continue to accuse Ohnoitsjamie of lying without presenting diffs or to refer to him as a "cancer" again. --NeilN talk to me 06:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here as in right here? Would you like links to each lie presented here over the years, with rebuttal for lie? Is this just a joke to waste my time, as if this was Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is that what this place has devolved to? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can lay out your case here, presenting your assertions and diffs here. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, which page is the page to post when an admin lies repeatedly over and over to justify clear abuse of power, and it can be proven? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can prove without doubt that Ohnoitsjamie has repeatedly lied, and am working on presenting it here now. I'm totally fine with being blocked if, after I'm done, you don't agree that he's purposely obfuscating liar. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The evidence is clear. I bet some people would be pleased if you were blocked, too! It isn't easy editing Wikipedia.
- Here is when I added the blacklisted link in the "External Links" section. It replaced a BROKEN LINK and had pictures of the creatures mentioned on the page. More to come. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor Kaiju, the next diff I expect to see is one of Ohnoitsjamie allegedly lying. --NeilN talk to me 06:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is where Ohnoitsjamie states the link does not meet w:rs criteria, even though it was NEVER a source and was in the EXTERNAL LINKS section. This is lie number one. "Regardless of what you call your site, it does not meet our reliable source criteria." It was NEVER used as one, OhNoitsJamie. Agreed? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stop obfuscating, the site illustrated the very monsters mentioned on the page, that is all. I added a lot of those films to the list myself. Regardless, you do agree that OhNoitsJamie made a demonstrably false claim, correct? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I absolutely do not agree with your assertion that OhNoitsJamie made a demonstrably false claim. I see your repeated attempts to use your own website as a source, even in the EL section, as promotional and not serving the interests of the encyclopedia. Doc talk 07:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're quibbling over semantics from over two years ago. You were blocked for spamming. You attempted to justify your spamming. Your unblock request was declined. Got anything else? --NeilN talk to me 07:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's NOT semantics, it's following the rules. And he did it today, too. And he's done it a lot. So, you do agree he was wrong, and he should have known better, right? He does it a lot more. 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were warned multiple times to provide diffs with your accusations. Here, you did not. Blocked three days for making personal attacks without evidence and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. --NeilN talk to me 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's NOT semantics, it's following the rules. And he did it today, too. And he's done it a lot. So, you do agree he was wrong, and he should have known better, right? He does it a lot more. 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And a head's up that with first page Google results, the 40 hits a month from WP are totally insignificant and irrelevant to me, I get 10-40K hits a month and I can PROVE that the hits are statistically without ANY significance to my website. I was replacing a broken link and sharing encyclopedic knowledge (i.e. this is what the monsters look like)Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, doc, you know it was NEVER used as a reliable source and him stating such is FALSE. Retract your statement or leave the discussion, we need to agree on what WORDS MEAN. And yes, I have a lot more. But we need to settle this point, that OhNoitsJamie's claim was FALSE. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Spacecowboy420 repeatedly insulting me and violating Wikipedia's rules[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I made this complaint earlier but User:KrakatoaKatie incorrectly claimed that User:Spacecowboy420 didn't insult me (despite him plainly admitting he did) and said I should take the discussion about rules to the talk page, even though the main problem was him insulting me and someone who violates rules should be complained about. Not only that the person who closed the complaint was User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi the same one who called me a "jester" and insulted me on Spaceboy420's page. He should at least have the sense not to decide the outcome of the complaint since he himself was involved. I request that the editors Katie and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi do not decide the outcome of this complaint, as well as User:Mr rnddude too be kept out of this since he is involved as well. Only uninvolved admins should decide the outcome of this complaint. Anyway here are the contents of my original complaint:
- "The User:Spacecowboy420 has repeatedly insulted me and mocked me in his comments on his talk page and at other pages. Here he threatens me with a block over an attack by an IP even though it is shared. I told him that it was a shared IP and I didn't do it, also he kept making his own rules up and didn't follow the actual Wikipedia rules as can be seen from his edit summary in this revert adding the alleged name again of a juvenile defendant. After that I informed him that the name can't be added due to Wikipedia rules and consensus was against it, but I kept making mistakes in typing so I reposted the message multiple times. Here however instead he mocks me for taking eight attempts to get my comment right. here he accepts what he said isn't in good faith and continues to poke fun at me. He thinks I'm "lecturing" him over his "lack of knowledge", while all I tried to do was act in good faith by informing him about Wikipedia policies so he knows them better. After that here he agrees with another user's comment of calling me a "jester" and then calls me an "entertaining' person. Then he tells me i'm not supposed to edit because the IP was shared and was used by others to attack, even though there is nothing such in Wikipedia rules. Clear cut he's making up his own rules and trying to harass others with false pretexts. Her he says he thinks that I'm here to fight and provoke while I didn't attack him but he was the one who attacked me several times. Also on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape#Mohammed_Afroz he displays that he either has no knowledge of Wikipedia's rules or knows and makes his own rules up. And he continues to willfully violate them even after being informed. You can notice from the article's talk page, it will be lengthy if I go into detail. His little knowledge of the rules and willful violation can also be seen from his edit summaries here and here even after being informed. This person clearly has no interest regarding following the rules and having a proper conduct with others. He clearly shouldn't be here. I request he be blocked for a short period of time for his wilful violation of rules and especially his unacceptable comments and rude behaviour towards others."
- Please also note that after the complaint was closed, Spacecowboy420 continued to mock me here and specifically insulted me here and called me "Mr. Angry". Please also note that he said that he does not believe in good faith of other editors in this comment, doubting their good faith over mentioning the victim's name and witholding the rapists even though he was told they were simply following rules as the victim's family had given permission but there has been no permission for that of the rapist. He plainly states he does not assume good faith that too over plain incorrect allegations which is a violation of rules. I ask that he blocked immediately as he does not deserve to be here. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at several of the links and saw nothing that came close to deserving a block. While I'm not sure the name should be included, that's a content dispute, and you are not helping your case by spending so much time complaining about imagined slights. Please drop the "insult" issue, and concentrate on the content issue. (Not here, of course).(FYI, I have a personal rule - if you intend on providing a dozen links to demonstrate , make sure the first one is solid. When I get to the third or fourth and still haven't seen anything worth mentioning, I stop looking.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please also note that after the complaint was closed, Spacecowboy420 continued to mock me here and specifically insulted me here and called me "Mr. Angry". Please also note that he said that he does not believe in good faith of other editors in this comment, doubting their good faith over mentioning the victim's name and witholding the rapists even though he was told they were simply following rules as the victim's family had given permission but there has been no permission for that of the rapist. He plainly states he does not assume good faith that too over plain incorrect allegations which is a violation of rules. I ask that he blocked immediately as he does not deserve to be here. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user attracted my attention several days ago since they add their signature to Government Polytechnic Soron Kasganj and also add list of "stuffes" [129]. They behave like a bot, i.e. they just return and reinsert the edit without any attempts to modify it. I went to their talk page to see whether they are indeed a bot, and found their talk page full of warnings including, surprisingly, a 6 month block administered by me for persistent removal of a deletion template. My conclusion is thus that the user is incompetent to edit Wikipedia. I would just block them indef, but since technically speaking they are edit-warring with me, and their edits are not pure vandalism, I would prefer someone else to have a look. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The six-month block expired less than a month ago and after that, they resumed their problematic edits. Zero acknowledgement of the disruption they're causing. Indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 06:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OnerFusion[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OnerFusion has been doing cross-namespace moves of his user and talk pages. I can't fix this on my own, so I need an admin to sort it out. --Slashme (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- A short Google search has told me that been violating the username policy as both a promotional username and a username implying shared use. I'm reporting their username, as they were warned waaaaay back in 2012. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've reported the username. Since the topic is still open here, can an admin (maybe NeilN) take care of that? -- Gestrid (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll let another admin decide that. The name seems to be more of an Internet handle of a single person as opposed to a company name. --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've reported the username. Since the topic is still open here, can an admin (maybe NeilN) take care of that? -- Gestrid (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! --Slashme (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple personal attacks by StanTheMan87[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made multiple personal attacks against blocked user Krzyhorse22 - diff1, diff2
Although warned, this kind of behaviour is not something expected nor permissable from any editor here -- samtar talk or stalk 12:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyright violator and edit warrior[edit]
A user has been using multiple IPs to make persistent disruptive edits to three different articles (Julia Carpenter, Ben Reilly and Madame Web). The only reason I didn't file a WP:SOCK investigation is because the user claims that their IP address changes regularly by itself (while also confirming that the IPs are indeed the same user). The user claims that their edits are "good faith", but edit warring, violating copyright, adding persistent original research, and refusing discussion are far from good faith.
The IPs (so far)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:2054:D684:E128:A53 (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:79A8:AD2E:ED04:EEE9 (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:5E8:6321:5A0B:9018 (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:244E:3EF2:6FFC:4FAF (talk · contribs)
- 2602:306:CDD9:9480:1589:9185:7E57:2DCE (talk · contribs)
The situation started when a separate user left uncited original research at Julia Carpenter, which I removed ([130]). Then the disruptive editor re-added the original research, clearly unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines ([131]). I reverted it, before leaving a message on the user's Talk Page asking for a reliable source ([132], [133]). The user then outright refused discussion ([134]) before deciding to edit war on the Julia Carpenter page until BOZ protected the page and reverted the user ([135], [136]).
The disruptive editor then decided to revert a seemingly random edit I made to the Ben Reilly article, likely through my user contributions ([137]). Then the user decided to violate copyright by adding a copyrighted image to Madame Web that was uploaded for another article ([138]), which I removed ([139]). The user then decided to edit war again by re-adding the copyrighted image twice ([140], [141]).
When page protection expired on Julia Carpenter, the user reverted BOZ and continued edit warring, only to be reverted by myself and Crazy runner ([142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]).
This continued even after I left this warning on the Talk Pages of all the IPs (though two more IPs surfaced since then). The user replied with this. This was my final reply ([148]). The user has called me a troll and a vandal, but the age old "ignorance of the law" excuse doesn't stretch very far with this user considering I left links to Wikipedia's guidelines on their Talk Page very early on ([149]). DarkKnight2149 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your complete report, Darkknight2149. I don't have time to take a proper look at the editing involved — I'm not well at home in these topics, and I want to go to bed — but I'll mention that so far that's only a /65 range. If another admin finds cause, I'm pretty sure the individual can be blocked without any risk of collateral damage, by simply blocking the range 2602:306:cdd9:9480::/65. There's no need for an SPI report, IMO, as this isn't strictly "socking" (but certainly is a single individual). Bishonen | talk 22:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
Strange edits and attacks against me[edit]
Special:Contributions/95.49.123.170 has posted an attack aganist me and posted a nobots template to prevent bots editing the sandbox but I going to remove it anyway. Any comment? KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have a comment. I was very close to blocking them, and still might yet. This user has been trolling the sandboxes, template documentation, and Wikipedia pages for quite some time now. They have been blocked a couple of times that I've seen. I am not convinced that nobots will work in the sandbox[150], but personal attacks from this user should not be tolerated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly familiar with Wikipedia,[157][158] probably a banned user evading his ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Previous blocks include User talk:95.49.250.107 and User talk:95.49.108.84. They've used various other IPs in the same range. I tend to think their experimentation days should be drawing to a close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly familiar with Wikipedia,[157][158] probably a banned user evading his ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe a rangeblock is needed for ban evasion. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If someone can discover a relevant ban I'd be happy to act accordingly, but I haven't seen one yet. Banned Polish users anyone? It's quite a large range to block, but block-and-revert on sight could be considered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did some test edits to see if the bots clean it but that IP has done the same edits. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 19:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If someone can discover a relevant ban I'd be happy to act accordingly, but I haven't seen one yet. Banned Polish users anyone? It's quite a large range to block, but block-and-revert on sight could be considered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe a rangeblock is needed for ban evasion. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Back at it as 95.49.107.224. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now already blocked. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Problem editor at Marilyn Monroe[edit]
User:EditsOrArticles continues to add material to the article which is already in it. I have only edited the article to revert vandalism. This editor has continued to re-add the material and template another editor and myself about edit warring with him. The editor is new and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. We hope (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- because I added nicknames and religion to her Infobox? That's the case in any article.EditsOrArticles (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were asked by both of us to discuss at the talk page and instead continued and accused us of edit warring. We hope (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. He asked me to discuss subsection title change. I stopped changing it. He permitted the Infobox change because everybody knows it duplicates data that is already shown in-article. Are you new to Wikipedia? EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are apparently not. We hope (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not new to Wikipedia? Should I show you all the Infoboxes of each and every article to prove my point? Of course not. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are apparently not. We hope (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. He asked me to discuss subsection title change. I stopped changing it. He permitted the Infobox change because everybody knows it duplicates data that is already shown in-article. Are you new to Wikipedia? EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were asked by both of us to discuss at the talk page and instead continued and accused us of edit warring. We hope (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
EditsOrArticles also violated 3RR after receiving an edit war warning. I have been preparing a 3RR report but will hold off until we see what comes out of this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Diff We both reverted the editor twice--not 3 times. This account has only been around since July 12 of this year. We hope (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- None of you meet the 3RR, because each one of you reverted for a different reason.
- You both use this block to avoid Talk page discussion on the relevant article.
- One of you used ad hominem as per article Talk page for why any addition shouldn't apply. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That is not an ad hominem attack. It is advice that you would be wise to follow. I count five reverts on your part, so explain to me why I shouldn't block you for edit warring to keep you from doing it some more. Katietalk 02:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now EditsOrArticles has begun removing others' talk page comments, in this current discussion and on the talk page for the article under discussion here. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- And again here. Then changing another editor's comments above here. So far that's four incidents of refactoring talk page comments in about five minutes, and after warnings not to do so. This is getting out of control. Sundayclose (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The first one reverted because I changed one subsection header. The second one reverted later because I added data to her Infobox. A discussion is currently underway and they appear to prefer triggerhappy blocks over serious on-topic discussions.EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I warned them both for harassment[159] and edit warring[160] prior to them. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project and you're making it a bettlefield when you can't have your own way. We hope (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Still waiting for the explanation. I don't care if you think you're right or they're wrong. I don't care what the content was unless it was a BLP or copyright violation, and it wasn't. You're edit warring and I want to know right now if you're going to continue or cease. And if you refactor others' comments on talk pages again, I'll consider it willful disruption, because again, that is NOT an ad hominem attack or a threat or harassment. Katietalk 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support boomerang for all three editors and possible full protection for the article with the WP:WRONGVERSION left in place. Each of them are edit warring and behaving horribly at the Marilyn Monroe article and the article talk page. The article editing history says it all: [161].
- WeHope and SundayClose have been tag-team edit warring at the article since July 17, 2016 and that's pretty much what they are doing right now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you show the admins the evidences of WeHope and SundayClose edit warring every new editor at Marilyn Monroe EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I guess the third editor is in error in his comments also....We hope (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did that for the WP:SOCKPUPPETRY investigation I'm about to request for both of you. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I guess the third editor is in error in his comments also....We hope (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently EditosOrArticles has a classic case of WP:IDHT because he reverted for the sixth time. Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. As always, open to review and discussion, but this is clear. Katietalk 02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
WikiWiz[edit]
Some site owners who happen to be editors here have received emails from a company called WikiWiz. The website confirms this is paid editing. What can be done about this? I've posted relevant info below from a closed discussion:
Email addressed to Lugnad
|
|---|
From: David <info@wikiwiz.net> Subject: Wikipedia Editor Message Body: Hi, My name is David and I am an editor on Wikipedia. I represent a group of people that has been editing Wikipedia articles for over six years. We decided to get in touch with websites like yours, to open the possibility of having a Wikipedia page or a backlink created specifically for you. Wikipedia is ranked top 3 on Google for almost any keyword, because Google loves this high authority website. Therefore, if your website had a backlink pointed from Wikipedia, its authority would significantly increase in the eyes of Google, and thus, your search rankings would greatly improve. Similarly, it will make you more trustworthy in the eyes of prospective visitors. In addition to that, Wikipedia is the #7 top visited website in the world. Millions of people read articles every day and having your link there can get you highly targeted, permanent and organic traffic. Moreover, many publications on .EDU or .GOV domains use Wikipedia references. Which means that if your website is among the referenced sources, there is a high chance of it being added on other .EDU sites, and therefore, get you high authority backlinks for free. There are a lot more benefits I can talk about, but in case if you're wondering how you can get a Wikipedia backlink pointed to your site - we opened a website where we share our Wikipedia editing services for a small fee. Please go ahead and visit www.wikiwiz.net We would be happy to cooperate with you on boosting your website's authority! Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reply to my email. Kind Regards, David |
Email discussion I had with Wikimedia Legal
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Another editor, Clpo13, confirmed that OTRS had received a complaint about an email similar to the first one above.
My question is: What specifically can be done on our end to connect users to WikiWiz (if that makes sense) and do we know of any editors currently connected to it? If any editors are found to be connected to WikiWiz, what should be done? A paid-editing warning? A block? What?
Yes, some of this content was taken from #Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm above. The initial post of the email was off-topic, and the discussion was closed, admittedly by me (a non-admin), per WP:SNOW, so I thought I should start a discussion specifically regarding this.
-- Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hehe, Lugnad. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is much like the case involving Wiki PR which was a company that offered wiki editing services, and got hit with a site ban. Also look at the Orangemoody case. Basically any editor found to be tied to the company will be blocked and their edits nuked. The only way to link accounts is to request a CheckUser so there needs to be some pretty solid evidence. Blackmane (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the OTRS ticket I was referring to, for anyone with access: VRTS ticket # 2016061310006803. clpo13(talk) 15:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blackmane is correct. We should run every single sock thru SPI (make sure you have evidence), nuke every page they have made and revert every edit, and make sure that the SPI or (inevitable) LTA subpages are linked in the block and deletion logs. Something like this is a block-on-sight offence for any of a litany of reasons (ToU violation, spamming, WP:NOTHERE). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sea Lions[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We appear to have an infestation of Sea Lions over at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment". Several experienced editors have concluded that the sea lioning is disruptive,[162][163][164][165] but I am not sure what, if any, administrative action is needed. I and pretty much everyone else has completely disengaged on the NPOV board but the steady steam of sea lion posts continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- If it is from off-site canvasing, that is generally considered an area where 500/30 protection can be applied. I don't know off hand the present state if this requires ArbCom to state it is covered,
but I would also add that "electronic harassment" easily could be interpreted under the Gamergate controversy ArbCom ruling, which 500/30 is an option for admins to apply already.Nope, check that, this is not the article I was thinking of. Definitely not under GG. (Please note that I have not reviewed the discussion and can't make a statement either way if that's off-site canvassing, only just noting this option for stopping disruption does exist if that is the case). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is a precedent for applying WP:ARE topic bans for advocacy and disruption centered around this article, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't under gamergate discretionary sanctions, but it is under pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Plus, the notion that the opinions of mental health professionals should be given equal weight with the delusions of the patients they treat is *cough* insane. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The TRUTH is out there... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- So that's still around, the old "black helicopter" thing about the UN trying to take over the US from bases in Canada. I remember seeing it on the 'Net a long time ago... Thomas.W talk 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) (I've been on the 'Net since before the September that never ended, taking part in many discussions on mailing lists and Usenet long before the World Wide Web existed...)
- The TRUTH is out there... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jed Stuart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.235.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.235.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.234.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 149.254.224.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 87.6.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 87.1.117.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 82.59.56.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Above are a number of accounts devoted to persistent, long term lobbying on the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lot of people. Is this a canvassing issue or are some of these people long-term participants? I visited some of the IP addresses shown and they look like they only came here to make those posts. Some of them have other posts in the past but that may be multiple people with the same IP over time since they are from years ago. I do think this approach to editing is concerning; they have a right to their opinion but it's not really reasonable for the weird opinions of mentally ill people to be given the same weight as medical evidence just because a WaPo reporter gave them a forum to speak. Alicb (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- NPOVN has been used as a forum on mind control since 8 June 2016. The section should be closed, and kept closed, with blocks for anyone who persists. The corresponding articles and their talk pages also need firm attention to stop the current excitement because it is not reasonable to expect experienced editors to endlessly explain WP:FRINGE to enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No Personal Attacks[edit]
'Sea Lion' is a personal attack, those are not allowed on Wikipedia. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the removal of your comment. Being completely, uselessly off base is not grounds for removal. "Sea lion" may be pejorative, some might say petty, but it hardly clears the WP:NPA threshold that the community routinely applies in practice. Take that policy literally and 90% of editor time would be spent at ANI. An uninvolved editor will probably archive this subsection shortly. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Told you, Dude. Sea lions. Don't mention them. Jonathunder (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which type of Sea lion (disambiguation) is being talked about here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Resulting from the Gamergate controversy, "sea lion" became a term used by those that argued against those that supported GG towards those same supporters, based on the above linked Wondermark cartoon; it was used because these GG supporters (gamers, generally) would inject themselves into conversations on social media whenever gamers were mentioned, in a way that would disrupt the conversation and in an unwelcomed way. It slowly then morphed to mean, derogatorily, anyone sympathetic (or apparently sympathetic) towards the GG supporters, which has included some of us here on WP like myself. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a different meaning to the term? I'm struggling to see the applicability here, given that the article in question has nothing whatsoever to do with Gamergate (granted I have only vague ideas about what Gamergate is). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's this meaning, but that's completely off the rails. I think this was just a term thrown out in reference to a cartoon, and wouldn't read too much into it. Jonathunder (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a different meaning to the term? I'm struggling to see the applicability here, given that the article in question has nothing whatsoever to do with Gamergate (granted I have only vague ideas about what Gamergate is). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Resulting from the Gamergate controversy, "sea lion" became a term used by those that argued against those that supported GG towards those same supporters, based on the above linked Wondermark cartoon; it was used because these GG supporters (gamers, generally) would inject themselves into conversations on social media whenever gamers were mentioned, in a way that would disrupt the conversation and in an unwelcomed way. It slowly then morphed to mean, derogatorily, anyone sympathetic (or apparently sympathetic) towards the GG supporters, which has included some of us here on WP like myself. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which type of Sea lion (disambiguation) is being talked about here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Told you, Dude. Sea lions. Don't mention them. Jonathunder (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I take it we don't have an article on this use of "sea lion". Why that term, is hard to figure. Maybe because they "bark" en masse? As for Gamergate... like you, I know almost nothing about it, and I intend to keep it that way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No first-hand knowledge of any use of the term, but sea lions are loud, travel in large groups, and rudely use their size to run off other species. I wouldn't want a sea lion as a pet. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough that that take on the zoological aspect of sea lions would apply to calling a group of IP editors acting in the same manner, but that said, editors probably should be aware of the use of the term towards some WP editors here as a result of the GG controversy (there's a site dedicted to such), and that some can see it as derogatory. I wouldn't call it a personal attack necessary at a random editor, but that said, I would hope editors recognize that it has been used offensively around WP and should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Trolls with flippers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough that that take on the zoological aspect of sea lions would apply to calling a group of IP editors acting in the same manner, but that said, editors probably should be aware of the use of the term towards some WP editors here as a result of the GG controversy (there's a site dedicted to such), and that some can see it as derogatory. I wouldn't call it a personal attack necessary at a random editor, but that said, I would hope editors recognize that it has been used offensively around WP and should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No first-hand knowledge of any use of the term, but sea lions are loud, travel in large groups, and rudely use their size to run off other species. I wouldn't want a sea lion as a pet. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I take it we don't have an article on this use of "sea lion". Why that term, is hard to figure. Maybe because they "bark" en masse? As for Gamergate... like you, I know almost nothing about it, and I intend to keep it that way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Romanian-and-proud?[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am wondering if this is the above editor:
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:60F0:3200:D9A1:98C2:D226:55A9
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:60F5:BE00:F950:FD98:18FA:3CBC
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:6045:3500:D9A1:98C2:D226:55A9
Archived discussion of the prior incident can be found here: Disruptive IP editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- All three quack like a duck to me. Blocked all three for two weeks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need opinion from an administrator here.Manjulaperera (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) You probably need to discuss this a bit further on the talk page, and then go to WP:3O if you can't reach a resolution. This discussion board is for more serious matters. This is Paul (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Manjulaperera A thread with only two posts is not an admin matter. Now an admin could comment could comment on the thread as a regular editor but your best bet is to post this link at the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. MarnetteD|Talk 15:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Refer to WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE for what are considered appropriate links. Does Nihal have an official site? if so then that should definitely be linked. The current external link doesn't appear to be their official website and I'm not entirely sure that it is entirely appropriate. As for administrator action, accusations of COI aren't really acceptable as far as I am aware. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Editors - @This is Paul: , @MarnetteD: and @Mr rnddude: for your time and advice. Since another editor reverted on the basis "....it's legalese unintelligible to the average reader", I don't want to re-add the External link back.Manjulaperera (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Based on @Mr rnddude:'s advice, I am adding possible official website www.consultants21.com of the subject on the External link section. Please feel free to revert it if it is inappropriate.Manjulaperera (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I thought you are serious at your Edit Summary and not joking at all.Manjulaperera (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Jennifer_Nettles[edit]
I started a discussion about Template:Jennifer Nettles at User_talk:Jax_0677#Template:Jennifer_Nettles, as @TenPoundHammer: reverted my attempt to create it. Two of the articles proposed for the navbox were not envisioned until well after the navbox was created. User:TenPoundHammer threatened to report me to WP:ANI if I created the navbox again, despite WP:G4. Should User:TenPoundHammer send the navbox to WP:TFD once again, or should the discussion ensue, despite the fact that it may likely remain dormant where it is at? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This seems like a content dispute, which doesn't belong on ANI, especially since the talk page section in question only has four comments on it (meaning it's hardly been discussed). Unless evidence shows that this does belong at ANI, I suggest closing this thread as a content dispute. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - @Gestrid:, unless my latest comment about Template:Jennifer Nettles here or on my talkpage gets a reply, I am going to move the discussion to WP:TFD, as I do not see another avenue for this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
81.157.87.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Narconon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Putting this here just because there so much involved it doesn't clearly belong anywhere in particular.
This WP:COI IP editor claims to be manager of Narconon UK, and is repeatedly making WP:POV edits to the article and edit warring to keep in a version that is favorable. The org is related to Scientology and so is covered under WP:ACDS. Each edit is accompanied by what is probably a legal threat, saying that the article was "against copyright laws".
So yeah. Have fun with that.TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well there is also this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IP editor was not advised of the Discretionary Sanctions, I have advised them here --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hasn't someone jumped the gun here? The (apparently) newbie editor was notified on his talk page of the conflict of interest policy and the need to disclose any connections with the artcle subject at 12:43 following his edit to the article at 12:32. Yet having made no further edits at all is dragged to this noticeboard at 14:00. This should be closed as no action. Only if the editor makes further COI edits should this be escallated. --Elektrik Fanne 12:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- At the time they were fairly actively warring, but yes, they do seem to have come off it. Given the history of Scientology and Wikipedia, I figured caution was probably the best route. So long as they've given up the fight, yes, this can probably be closed. TimothyJosephWood 17:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Romanian-and-proud, take 3[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appears to be editing as Special:Contributions/93.122.164.150. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not any more. Blocked two weeks. --NeilN talk to me 11:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attention required about a misbehaved editor[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
John from Idegon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Above user after some unhelpful comments about a move request, I feel, also harassed me in the discussion about a page move. Perhaps I am at fault or too sensitive, but I would like if an administrator takes a look. --Robertiki (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're not being harassed, it just looks like you didn't get the outcome you wanted. Why is that a matter for ANI? Please provide specific diffs of what you consider harassment. Acroterion (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Romanian-and-proud, take 2[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Back as
- Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:60F7:D700:F950:FD98:18FA:3CBC
Editing at Kriegsmarine and Romania in World War II, among others.
K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As usual, you simply refuse to listen. Look, there will /always/ be ways to avoid this block of yours that you are so butthurt about. Yeah, I'm blocked, so? How does that make any new information I have less important, or any source less accurate? I have limited goals and do not intend to edit forever. I'll tell you again, and this time I hope you listen: Just give me a few days free hand to finish my projects! We can wage this stupid pointless war forever, do you really want that? You people just cannot seem to understand that for me to respect your rules, you have to respect my work! Just a few days, a week at most, and I'm gone! It is that simple and easy!2A02:2F08:60F7:D700:F950:FD98:18FA:3CBC (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rangeblocked the /64. Katietalk 20:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I just looked at the closed thread from earlier, and I can get them and this one with a /40 block. Does anyone object to that big a rangeblock? I know the MILHIST people are getting pretty tired of this. Katietalk 20:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I just looked at the closed thread from earlier, and I can get them and this one with a /40 block. Does anyone object to that big a rangeblock? I know the MILHIST people are getting pretty tired of this. Katietalk 20:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick block needed to get someone's attention[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Drrharpe33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Above User has been adding a sports history section to hundreds of Kentucky settlement articles, detailing every accomplishment in state tournament competition the local high schools have had. Despite two editors trying to reach him he has not responded. Now he has taken to writing long glowing tributes to local veterans in the notable section. Whereas I realize these are good faith additions, they are not useful and he ain't hearin' it. Can we get an attention block please. No diffs. It's all the same. Not one useful edit. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Gravuritas[edit]
Gravuritas (talk · contribs) has repeatedly accused me of being part of a smear campaign against people who voted to leave the European Union (see here and here for examples). Although I have urged him/her to be civil and not to make such allegations they have been rehashed and remade on at least two further occasions during a discussion at User talk:Gravuritas. The discussion began as a disagreement over content, but I feel the accusations made by the user go beyond what is acceptable. Gravuritas has also engaged in some minor POV orientated edit warring at Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (such as here, here and here), which is seemingly driven by personal opinion, and is something of which they have been warned about here. User is also removing sourced content from articles relating to the topic without discussion, such as (here) This is Paul (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I think This is Paul (talk · contribs) is being unduly sensitive and bringing our little tiff to this page is an over- reaction. It's also possible that I am being too brutal. I can see that this board is dealing with more serious falre-ups, but if someone here could review the points above and offer an experienced opinion I would appreciate it.
- Gravuritas (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:NOTFORUM, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not really. But it's not a very solid AN/I report. I don't see any blocks for edit-warring for Gravuritas, or any blocks... at all. What remedy are you seeking, This is Paul? Doc talk 09:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- While I realise this episode is not as serious as some mentioned on here, I could find nothing specifically covering the accusations that were laid against me, and I was pretty angry about it. Gravuritas has basically accused me of being part of a political smear campaign, albeit indirectly, and clarified those allegations on at least two further occasions when challenged about them. Such behaviour should not be acceptable, particularly from an experienced editor such as Gravuritas, who has been here since 2013, so should know better by now. I feel he/she should either withdraw these allegations or be reprimanded in some way. We wouldn't accept this kind of behaviour from a newbie so we shouldn't accept it from anyone. This is Paul (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not really. But it's not a very solid AN/I report. I don't see any blocks for edit-warring for Gravuritas, or any blocks... at all. What remedy are you seeking, This is Paul? Doc talk 09:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:NOTFORUM, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- My guess is that your difficulty in finding specifics on how to deal with this derives from the fact that this at root a content dispute. I've found the Independent in the past to be sometimes at the wobbly end of WP:RS, and since the referendum result, they are over-keen on finding problems to report. In this specific case they are reporting someone's attempt get some named individuals prosecuted for 'Misconduct in public office'. The actual story was that somebody had only raised £27000. I therefore believed that the story was too trivial to put on the WP article on such a big subject, and also should be avoided under our policy of being extra careful what we put into an article about living persons. As the Indy only reported that so-and-so had raised money with certain intentions and did not attempt to back up that assertion, that avoids the risk of libel for the Indy but manages to get these individuals into a story with a very serious accusation in it. I think that story amounted to a smear. This is Paul (talk · contribs) is trying to extend that smear by putting it in a WP article, and does not wish to engage with this line of reasoning, beyond a belief that the Indy being generally accepted by WP:RS seems to absolve him from thinking critically about what exactly the Indy is doing in this instance. I assumed good faith on his part, so his repeated wish to participate in this instance of tabloid journalism by the Indy seems inexplicable.
- Gravuritas (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Questioning the notability of a piece of information is fine, as is doing so for the reliability of a source. Accusing someone of being part of an alleged or imagined smear campaign, particularly without evidence, is not. While this falls short of a personal attack, I believe Gravuritas's comments went beyond what would be deemed as an appropriate response, and are quite disparaging. He/she either needs to back up these claims with evidence beyond his/her own personal opinion, or retract them. This is Paul (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking this stage by stage: 1. I've given grounds for my assertion that the Indy piece was a smear, and despite lots of opportunity you have not attempted to dispute those grounds. 2. You repeatedly attempted to introduce this piece into the WP article. Given 1 and 2 choose your own description of that sort of editing. 3. I went unnecessarily far on my user talk page in calling you naïve- twice. I'm happy to say sorry for the 'naïve' description- that was 'beyond what would be deemed an appropriate response', though I don't think that's the bit that worries you: both of us, I think, think that 1. and 2. are more serious. Gravuritas (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think I re-added it once, which is hardly repeatedly. For the record the story to which Gravuritas refers has been mentioned by several newspapers, including the Financial Times and the Express (see here), all of them citing different amounts. I chose The Independent as a source, but could easily have chosen three or four others. I am not certain how a media source reporting the fact somebody wishes to take legal action against someone else constitutes a smear campaign. While I appreciate Gravuritas's partial retraction of their statement, I feel that it falls well short of what should be expected, which is a complete withdrawal of it. This is Paul (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21's ill-considered accusations of impropriety[edit]
In a talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement discussion here, Bolter21 accused me of using socks, writing the following:
- "He is obviously using socks..."
I'm trying to understand the policies, and to follow Wikipedia's advice. According to WP:IUC1.(c), ill-considered accusations of impropriety, Bolter21 clearly crossed that line. Per the same article's advice, I gave Bolter21 the opportunity to correct his/her good-faith mistake here, by striking out the comment and apologizing. However, Bolter21 again reasserted his/her original accusation:
- "I will apologize to a suspected sockmaster." (I think s/he meant to end the sentence with a question mark.)
Bolter21 has now accused me twice of using socks in discussions.
I gave notice here.
Thank you. KamelTebaast 18:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by the accused: There was a discussion in which Kamel and I were involved. Kamel made his point about a user, saying he apparently violated Wikipedia policy in 2012, then suddenly, 20 minutes later, a fresh new user came and supported Kamel's point. That user, under the name "Comment, please" , is obviously a sockpuppet, who came out of nowhere with full understanding of Wikipedia policies and discussion formats and also came to support a comment made by a user 20 minutes ago in the AE talk-page, something that concerns a very small number of users at every given moment (unlike articles and article talkpages) and that user made no edits since. Kamel later cited this dubious user to further support his opinion in a different discussion concerning the same topic. Now I wanted to open an investigation but I didn't do it because I had no time at that moment. Later I saw that Kamel has the opportunity to be a productive user so I just ignored the matter. A week has passed, and now he has turned up with threats, demanding my apology, and I am not willing to give one. Give me a week block? No problem with that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also in my comment on my talk page, I meant "I will not apologize to a suspected sockmaster."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
CommentThis is at best piddling. Kamel is a relative newcomer and appears recently to be using these administrative sites to get at other editors, first Sepsis (whatever the merits of that case), now Bolter, and in the meantime he dropped a note on Blade of the Northern Lights' page asking what is to be done with such outrageous editors like User:Nableezy, User:Zero0000, and of course, myself. I may be mistaken. But after a few of his edits came to my attention, I thought to myself that he's not in here for the long term. You need a tough hide here, and not go screaming for mummy at the first opportunity. He may not sock or be a sock - but there's little here to inspire confidence. He's going after editors and after articles they edit, like a crusading warrior for the just cause. I think this deserves a WP:Boomerang warning to the plaintiff. Bolter may at times use the odd loose language, but has the confidence of all regular editors in the I/P area as a clean, focused, balanced and productive editor, something Kamel has shown no sign of being. Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment For the record:
- Sepsis II came after me, I defended myself, and ultimately what transpired from that was Sepsis II was topic banned.
- Yes, I received advice from Blade and I believe that I have been civil to Nableezy, Zero0000, and Nishidani, when , in fact, some have been less than civil to me (example here).
- All of Nishidani's points are strawman and has nothing to do with the fact that Bolter21 has publicly accused me of sockpuppeting.
- I do not know Comment, please nor have I ever had communication with that user except on the one page cited. In any case, Bolter21 is also accusing Comment, please of being a sockpuppet.
- As written above, in his/her own words, please add two more times that Bolter21 has accused me of sockpuppetry.
Bolter21's bravado to continue with the ill-considered accusations of impropriety ON an administrator's noticeboard (after being warned), shows how deserving of a sanction Bolter21 is. KamelTebaast 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- For clarity, I just looked up Comment, please's edits. There are only a few and only on one page. Therefore, Bolter21 is probably correct about Comment being a sock. However, Sepsis II has many adversaries, of which that sock could have come from any one. KamelTebaast 20:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- 1)
Do you actually think User:Comment, please is not a sockpuppet in general? - 2) The last time I accused you for sockpuppetry was a week ago and I put it aside and continued my work with you on Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier regardless. My comment was to say why I suspected you are a sockmaster and why my comment was not "ill-considered" as you claim it was. As I said, I continued regular business dispite my suspection and already managed to forget it, but now you came to me with threats and now you are propsing sanctions, so I explain why such comments were made, if I really wanted you to be investigated for creating socks, I would do it in an SPI. I am not childish enough to open an investigation against you just because you decided to warn me a week later and I have no intent to aplogize with a knife to my throat.
- 3) If the punishment for every person in Wikipedia who says "bullshit" was beheading, the rate of disconnected heads per capita in Wikipedia was higher than in Iraq.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- In Hebrew we say "Yāẖās Gōrēr Yāẖās", or in English "attitude follows attitude"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- 2) Actually, the last time you accused me of sockpuppetry was today. The first time was a week ago.
- 3) I didn't ask that anyone be punished for that term, but used it as an example of incivility. KamelTebaast 21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, the last time I said you are a sockmaster was a week ago, until you brought it again today, so I told you about my suspection after you threatened me with a report, so your argument is invalid. By all means you are a suspected sockmaster and there is evidence for it, yet I don't report you for, actually I havent reported you for a week and already forgot about it. Don't come to me with a wikipolicy and a smug face and threaten to get me blocked and except nice treatment and me saying "sorry, you are clearly not a sockmaster", such behavior in reality might get you pounched in the face.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Suggest Close with Warning[edit]
I see incivility by User:Bolter21, including idle claims of sockpuppetry, but, unfortunately in my opinion, idle claims of sockpuppetry are not normally subject to sanctions. I suggest that this thread be closed with a warning to Bolter21 that any future allegations of sockpuppetry that are not actually reported at WP:SPI will result in a block. For now, let's close this with a warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Editors have been blocked in the past for persistent accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up" Blackmane (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support The proof is in the pudding so to speak, if you have evidence for an SPI file one if not stop with the accusations. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Am I supposed to say something else than "from now on I will never accuse anyone, publically and directly or indirectly as a suspected sockmaster when having evidence and not starting an SPI"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Bolter21, as far as I am concerned you don't have to say anything, you just need to stop making unfounded accusations. There is no evidence whatsoever that Comment, please is a sock of Kamal (and bringing up a sock in a highly-visible forum is really stupid anyway), and as was said before, put up or shut up. Unfounded sock accusations are frequently used as ammunition in conflicts, but they are a denial of AGF. So don't do it again. What's next? Kamal, you know how to talk the talk: good for you. Comment, please: I'd love to see your evidence of who you think Sepsis is a sock of, and while you're at it, I'm quite interested in your previous history on Wikipedia, particularly your interest in the matter of Iran and its nuclear program. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Bolter21, from now on you must never accuse anyone, publically and directly or indirectly as a suspected sockmaster without having evidence, and without displaying that evidence. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and further personal attacks will result in blocks. Nyttend (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Additional May I suggest a WP:IBAN based on the implied threat of violence above WP:VIOLENCE? KamelTebaast 01:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- You may, and it won't happen. There is no implied threat of violence. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would defend myself but I just want to get on with it so I'll just tell Kamel to not follow the spirit of the recently topic banned Sepsis who tried to bend every policy when he didn't like people.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Urgent assistance requested[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has been filed by someone else at RPP but I would request urgent assistance at Talk:Native American name controversy where a IP hopping sock is persistently vandalizing the page. Thank you 331dot (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent vandalism of the user Sad9721[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Sad9721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is doing disruptive edits on the page List of European countries by average wage and Economy of Italy. The user waited to be an autoconfirmed user just to make disruptive edits. It's making false edits without any loyal sources (and those last 2 days even without sources, this user is just keeping to delete the numbers of Italy of the page of List of European countries by average wage because he doesn't like the data from the source). Before this, he was just changing the numbers of Italy inside that page without sources, or just putting "istat.it" which is the main website of ISTAT, without referencing his changes. I am warning him just as other users, then we created a talk page in the page of List of European countries by average wage, but he doesn't want to collaborate and just says redundant and nonsense things and keeps reverting or changing the consensual aspect of the page. He is also shouting on the talk page, and now he created a talk page on the page of the user Absolutelypuremilk to shout to him again and to put redundant and nonsense things, while he keeps changing , reverting and doing what he wants on the later mentioned page and in the Economy of Italy page. I've warned him several times; the last time was yesterday. And he doesn't care, today he made 3 different reverts again to change the consensual aspect of the page. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing, edit warring and ignoring good advice. When Bishzilla swoops, lightning stands still. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
- In your face, Empire State Building! :) Muffled Pocketed 17:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cadejoblanco and machine translations[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried this first at WP:ANV, but along with other reported users, it was not deemed "actionable", so I am taking this to ANI. Cadejoblanco (talk, contributions) has been repeatedly warned over the course of several weeks that machine translations are not welcome. He/she was blocked twice, but continued this behaviour asap and refuses to communicate at all. He/she even started creating nonsense pages, so I have reason to believe that this account, with over 3000 edits of experience on es-wiki, might be compromised. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to try to fix up David Adolfo Flores Valladares, but it was nearly impossible to understand. The few sentences that did make sense were very promotional and completely unsourced, so I stubbed it. Feminism in Honduras looks a little more comprehensible, and it's got some sources. I think a patient editor could copy edit that enough that it would make sense, though I can't understand some of the sentences. I'm a little worried that if I guessed at the meaning, it might be wrong. At the very least, we need to convince Cadejoblanco to stop creating new articles and fix the ones already posted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any great value in machine-translating masses of articles and plopping them into the Wikipedia for readers to puzzle over (and perhaps get actually wrong information from) until other editors come along to do the actual work of creating the articles, if they ever do. A bot could do this if we wanted. Better for User:Cadejoblanco to work on translating articles from the English Wikipedia to that of his native language, where he ought to be a lot more successful. Hopefully having been summoned here he will now respond to our advice and/or explain what he's doing. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- After numerous attempts at communication and two blocks I've given up faith that they intend to communicate and raised the block to indefinite, until such time as they choose to talk to us, this mass creation of dozens of horribly translated articles is helping nobody. If anybody can help with the articles, stubbing & redirecting may be valid options for many, please do so, WP:PNT has a massive backlog of bad translations already as it is--Jac16888 Talk 22:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any great value in machine-translating masses of articles and plopping them into the Wikipedia for readers to puzzle over (and perhaps get actually wrong information from) until other editors come along to do the actual work of creating the articles, if they ever do. A bot could do this if we wanted. Better for User:Cadejoblanco to work on translating articles from the English Wikipedia to that of his native language, where he ought to be a lot more successful. Hopefully having been summoned here he will now respond to our advice and/or explain what he's doing. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated BDP violations by Dream Focus on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling[edit]
- Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shooting of Alton Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dream Focus has made repeated WP:BLP (in this case WP:BDP) violations on Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling ([171], [172], [173], [174], [175]) despite warnings and discussion (see the article talk page and the user's talk page). There is no excuse for this for a user of 9 years.
Examples (see diffs above) of the violations include accusing the person of:
- not paying child support
- raping a woman
- "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them at all"
- "Also he isn't a "victim" if he was reaching for a gun before getting shot." from the talk page
EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kindly look at the current version. Talk:Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling#5_children_mentioned.2C_but_not_details I reworded it be statutory raping, instead of just raping, since that's the term used by the federal government, and the name of the Wikipedia article for it. I have shown news articles mentioning he didn't pay child support, and did four years in jail for having sex with a 14 year old he got pregnant. Dream Focus 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I already eliminated "certainly didn't care about them or help raise them", and added references to the information I posted, before he brought the issue here. Dream Focus 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It took you 11 edits, multiple warnings, a mild personal attack, and an ANI to get you to adhere to basic policy? That's not acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its not acceptable you couldn't just state that you believed the information I mentioned needed a reference, despite people mentioning it in previous sections without references, instead of edit warring without explaining the reason why you thought it justified to do so. Are you going to go through the rest of the talk page, and start deleting valid discussions there too? Dream Focus 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't know that contentious BLP material needs references? Katietalk 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I've been busy IRL. That others violated BDP does not mean you're allowed to. I made it clear what I meant, namely that you need a ref. WP:BLP specifically says violations must be removed. I even asked on your talk page to ask your question without the violations being tacked on. That you didn't is not my fault. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is not what you said on my talk page. [176] You didn't mention references at all there, just stated incorrectly that nothing offensive could be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't mischaracterize my comments please. I didn't say you couldn't say anything "offensive". I specified which items you wrote were BDP violations. You're correct, however, that I didn't mention the need for sources on your talk page. I mentioned on the article talk page here. Again... you didn't know you needed sources??? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- And after you did that, I made some fast edits in a row, adding sources. So what's the problem here? I see no reason to bring it here. Also [177] you edit warred out my comment again after I gave you the first link to news sources of the information, I then reverting you and adding in additional ones to make it even more obvious how many sources there are. Dream Focus 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- A google search link is not a source. See WP:3RRNO. Also you removed one of my comments in the process. The problem, now, is that you apparently don't realize why this is an issue and it took this ANI for you to fix your problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I had already added sources before the ANI started. This had nothing to do with it. And you removed my comment many times, so me hitting undo from your unfair removal that time, which took out something you said in the process, isn't anything you should be whining about. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- A google search link is not a source. See WP:3RRNO. Also you removed one of my comments in the process. The problem, now, is that you apparently don't realize why this is an issue and it took this ANI for you to fix your problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- And after you did that, I made some fast edits in a row, adding sources. So what's the problem here? I see no reason to bring it here. Also [177] you edit warred out my comment again after I gave you the first link to news sources of the information, I then reverting you and adding in additional ones to make it even more obvious how many sources there are. Dream Focus 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't mischaracterize my comments please. I didn't say you couldn't say anything "offensive". I specified which items you wrote were BDP violations. You're correct, however, that I didn't mention the need for sources on your talk page. I mentioned on the article talk page here. Again... you didn't know you needed sources??? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is not what you said on my talk page. [176] You didn't mention references at all there, just stated incorrectly that nothing offensive could be mentioned. Dream Focus 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I've been busy IRL. That others violated BDP does not mean you're allowed to. I made it clear what I meant, namely that you need a ref. WP:BLP specifically says violations must be removed. I even asked on your talk page to ask your question without the violations being tacked on. That you didn't is not my fault. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't know that contentious BLP material needs references? Katietalk 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its not acceptable you couldn't just state that you believed the information I mentioned needed a reference, despite people mentioning it in previous sections without references, instead of edit warring without explaining the reason why you thought it justified to do so. Are you going to go through the rest of the talk page, and start deleting valid discussions there too? Dream Focus 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It took you 11 edits, multiple warnings, a mild personal attack, and an ANI to get you to adhere to basic policy? That's not acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do any of your sources explain which of those alleged crimes come with a death penalty? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- My question was "Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him?" It seems bias to mention some information and not others. Since neither things have anything to do with the shooting, I removed that bit from the article. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The message that info sends to the public is that somehow he "deserved" to be shot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its just the facts. People determine on their own what they believe someone deserved. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get that in the article, just pointing out the bias by mentioning something that sounded positive about him, without mention the entire story about that information. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's POV-pushing hiding behind "facts". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Baseball Bugs is absolutely correct. This is indeed POV pushing, not unlike what's typically done after the stereotypical shooting of a black man by the police: any criminal record is broadly displayed, any previous arrest is mentioned, as if the shooting was deserved after all. That the man had five kids is easily argued to be pretty relevant, I think, and many editors are always eager to get the children into any biographical article; the circumstances of these children are not immediately relevant and speculating about them is easily a BLP/BDP violation. Saying something about how someone didn't care for their children is pretty vile, Dream Focus: such speculation on-wiki is a blatant violation. If it's about "the facts", then I expect you to start speculating in the same manner about the three police officers who were shot today, to keep it fair and balanced. I'm kidding, DreamFocus: that's a violation as well. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's POV-pushing hiding behind "facts". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its just the facts. People determine on their own what they believe someone deserved. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get that in the article, just pointing out the bias by mentioning something that sounded positive about him, without mention the entire story about that information. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The message that info sends to the public is that somehow he "deserved" to be shot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- My question was "Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him?" It seems bias to mention some information and not others. Since neither things have anything to do with the shooting, I removed that bit from the article. Dream Focus 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do any of your sources explain which of those alleged crimes come with a death penalty? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Nothing DreamFocus pointed out in Evergreen's first two points is untrue at all and easily sourced (and has been). Way too premature for ANI. Capeo (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- the issue isn't that the comments are false or not (though the last one cannot be sources), it's that the editor wouldn't abide by policy when when informed of it repeatedly. A veteran editor should need 11 edits to get something this fundamental correct. I didn't call this a content dispute either. It's behavioral. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Where the hell you getting this "11 edits" number? Last I checked, he'd only made 3 edits to the page in question, each different and over the span of a week. Evergreen, I think you've blown this out of proportion. pbp 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pay attention and you'll see it was on the talk page and those edits are linked above. You should read before you comment.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- He can comment on the talk page all he wants for all I care. No harm in doing so. pbp 04:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89 I admit to sometimes blowing things out of proportion, despite my best efforts. Perhaps this ani was premature as capeo says. But there were more than the three edits on the article. Blp applies everywhere even talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89. You need to learn the basic (BLP) rules first - then comment (maybe).--TMCk (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know if this was premature; I'm not going to block based on what I've seen yet but I haven't seen everything. I do think it's a good idea for the community to be aware of the issues discussed here, and I think they are indicative of some bigger problems that are coming to the surface in the US. Do we include criminal records for victims such as Castile or the child-rearing circumstances such as Sterling? For Castile we know he had a long records of being stopped for minor traffic violations--and we can end the sentence there, or we can add that according to many reliable sources such a record is indicative of how minority communities in the US are being policed. In other words, the simple "a fact is a fact" clearly doesn't mean we're being neutral, as Baseball Bugs indicated earlier. This is not a discussion for ANI, I know that well, but I encourage editors to make more better deeper contextualized considerations when adding what appear to be naked facts--which seems not to have been the case in this particular instance. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whaddayaknow, Shooting of Philando Castile had precisely what I was afraid it had--just "the facts". I'm hoping someone will add context to the "Police" section--since it turns out that "minority drivers [in Minnesota] were more likely than white drivers to be both stopped and searched, even though officers found contraband more often when searching white drivers", according to a 2003 study on racial profiling commissioned by the state. We really need to be doing better than this. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: In reply to some of your statements. Firstly, these are events, not biographies. The number of children is not relevant to the event and seems designed to invoke pity. It's not relevant how many children the deceased had, just as it isn't relevant how many children the officers went home to, either. Second, the use of the term "victim" is premature. They are deceased. Whether they are "victims" is POV. Certainly, the officers that shot Sterling believe they were assaulted and are the victims and Sterling was the perpetrator of felony assault. NPOV means we take neither position. Thirdly, child support is not relevant but a felony crime that makes a person a prohibited possessor of a firearm is definitely relevant if a firearm is alleged to have been felt, seen and/or found. A prohibited possessor with a firearm while on probation is facing substantial prison time (possibly a life sentence) and speaks to a motive for not wanting to be searched or be arrested if that is reported by reliable sources. It is as relevant as disciplinary history for officers or history of previous shootings. Fourth, broad studies from 2003 being applied to a single instance is classic WP:SYNTH. Do you have a source that would link that particular 2003 study to the officer? The officer might have been 12 years old at the time of the study. I doubt he read it. Broadly applying studies of macro-social ills to an individual to imply they are in fact exhibiting those behaviors is a gross BLP violation and I hope you aren't condoning incorporating that material in any way that that speaks to the individuals involved. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- DHeyward, I'm not following. It's a biography in an article on an event. I'm a minimalist and prefer to mention as little as possible, but if you're going to mention something it should be done properly. The classic SYNTH you are talking about is not applied by me, but by the well-developed articles in the very reliable sources that are used to supply the material for the addition I made. It's not my synthesis, therefore it's not synthesis as in SYNTH. So please look before you leap. And as far as I know someone who was killed is a victim--which is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition ("Anyone who is harmed by another"). Frankly, your suggestion that a man shot by police officers is somehow not a victim until proven...something? is profoundly distasteful. And I'm not even making any assumptions about the reasons these officers gave for shooting a man. Shooting him dead. I think life may be cheaper for you than it is for me, but a victim remains a victim, whether they're a cop or someone killed by a cop. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's biographical detail in a historical event. We don't need details like how many children or how many arrests from any of the parties. SYNTH is SYNTH and they aren't very well developed or high quality or BLP compliant if they are used to paint any individual as a criminal or a racist when they are talking about broad studies. And I find your insinuation that I somehow value life less than you quite repugnant. If this were an article on a woman that shot and killed a person who was allegedly about to rape her, would you call the alleged rapist the "victim" because they were harmed by another? I would hope not. Reliable sources avoid the word victim for people that are potentially justifiably killed. The shooter at the LGBT club in Florida is not a "victim." It's quite demeaning to those he killed. To be neutral, we have a shooter and the deceased. "Victim" implies an innocence or injustice that is not our place to conclude in cases where it's contested about who was right and it demeans the concept of who victims are if the view is so broad that it includes "anyone who is harmed by another." You can try saying the Orlando club shooter is victim because he was killed by police, but your logic is lacking. "Homicide" and "murder" are likewise terms that denote a person killed by another person but they have vastly different uses and connotations (note the title of the article is "shooting" and not "killing" or "murder."). --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: @DHeyward: The discussion of how to cover events like these belongs somewhere else than here. We seemed to have digressed from the issue of whether or not DreamFocus did anything wrong, and to me it's clear he hasn't. So he strongly advocated for a somewhat-controversial position on the talk page? That's fine, he can do that. As for his edits to the page itself, they're BOLD and they're not edit-warring, so it's OK. pbp 14:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's biographical detail in a historical event. We don't need details like how many children or how many arrests from any of the parties. SYNTH is SYNTH and they aren't very well developed or high quality or BLP compliant if they are used to paint any individual as a criminal or a racist when they are talking about broad studies. And I find your insinuation that I somehow value life less than you quite repugnant. If this were an article on a woman that shot and killed a person who was allegedly about to rape her, would you call the alleged rapist the "victim" because they were harmed by another? I would hope not. Reliable sources avoid the word victim for people that are potentially justifiably killed. The shooter at the LGBT club in Florida is not a "victim." It's quite demeaning to those he killed. To be neutral, we have a shooter and the deceased. "Victim" implies an innocence or injustice that is not our place to conclude in cases where it's contested about who was right and it demeans the concept of who victims are if the view is so broad that it includes "anyone who is harmed by another." You can try saying the Orlando club shooter is victim because he was killed by police, but your logic is lacking. "Homicide" and "murder" are likewise terms that denote a person killed by another person but they have vastly different uses and connotations (note the title of the article is "shooting" and not "killing" or "murder."). --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- DHeyward, I'm not following. It's a biography in an article on an event. I'm a minimalist and prefer to mention as little as possible, but if you're going to mention something it should be done properly. The classic SYNTH you are talking about is not applied by me, but by the well-developed articles in the very reliable sources that are used to supply the material for the addition I made. It's not my synthesis, therefore it's not synthesis as in SYNTH. So please look before you leap. And as far as I know someone who was killed is a victim--which is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition ("Anyone who is harmed by another"). Frankly, your suggestion that a man shot by police officers is somehow not a victim until proven...something? is profoundly distasteful. And I'm not even making any assumptions about the reasons these officers gave for shooting a man. Shooting him dead. I think life may be cheaper for you than it is for me, but a victim remains a victim, whether they're a cop or someone killed by a cop. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- He can comment on the talk page all he wants for all I care. No harm in doing so. pbp 04:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pay attention and you'll see it was on the talk page and those edits are linked above. You should read before you comment.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I encourage Dream Focus to add to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers that one of the dead officers was a white supremacist.[178] After all, "[i]t seems bias to mention some information and not others." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- If he were accused of shooting a black person, then yes, include it. It's ludicrous to have an article about a police shooting where you can't mention that the person shot had a record and was a prohibited person. After all, the police claims they shot the person because they reached for a weapon, so of course you need to mention the facts that he was unable to legally own a weapon. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do try to keep up. This discussion is about his children and his alleged history of nonpayment of child support, not his gun. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Purplebackpack, I have already stated my position on Dream Focus's edit, and it seems to me I'm not the only one who thinks that it was at the least very selective editing. Sir Joseph, it isn't about the gun, but "inability to legally own a weapon" was probably not printed on a bumper sticker. DHeyward, you can spin all you want, but the definition of "victim" I cited was the secondary meaning of the definition we have in Wiktionary--the first is "sacrificial victim". The OED lists a similar meaning, "One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss, is badly treated or taken advantage of, etc." The dead man suffered injury. Whether you want to call the Orlando shooter a victim or not is up to you, but NPOV requires that, well, NPOV.
What's at stake here is editorial judgment and discretion, and in this particular case that judgment should include how much context to give. It is plain to see that in the US, traffic stops are frequently based on race. There is little point denying that, and thus it is an integral part of what was just now again presented in the article as neutral fact--I have undone an edit in Shooting of Philando Castile that moved this context to the "Reactions" section, as if a cause for his record is nothing but a "media response". DHeyward, I will tell you once again, that any "synthesis" involved was executed by reliable secondary sources, not by a Wikipedia editor. As for Shooting of Alton Sterling, I see that the children as well as the other stuff are not there in the first description of the victim (I did not write that heading for that section) right now. But again, if we are not going to give extensive biographical information in an article on an event, why is the 2009 conviction in there, unless the officers knew about all that and it determined their cause of action? The implication is he'd done something wrong before and this is why he did it again, which implicitly justifies the shooting. There is a thin line between editorial judgment ("presenting facts") and BLP violation in cases like this. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Drmies here. We don't need anything that PBP and Dream Focus are trying to add here. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to add anything. I wanted to remove information about him having 5 kids, and have already done so. Mentioning he had five children, to make people feel sympathy for him, without mentioning the negative details concerning those children (he didn't pay child support and one of them he fathered with a 14 year old girl he did jail time for statutory raping) is bias. So no reason to mention it at all. Not sure how this conversation just took off with people talking about other things here, instead of on the relevant talk page. Dream Focus 21:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, to a point: you're trying to remove information about Sterling's children, and remove a picture of him smiling, and basically remove anything else that might make him seem, you know, human. On the other hand, you're also adding a lot of nonsense to the talkpage to the effect that this man didn't care about his children. And in your ideal world, you'd have us say that these incidents have nothing to do with race or racism, even though you acknowledge that reliable sources state otherwise ([179]). As Drmies and Black Kite have mentioned, we can do better in our coverage of these incidents. And frankly, "doing better" would start with excluding people like you, with your track record on race-related subjects, from participating in editing them. MastCell Talk 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- A black Harvard professor published a study showing "Racial bias is not a compelling contributing factor in police use of lethal force". [180] Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue. [181] After watching the video footage, I don't know why anyone would think race had anything to do with this particular shooting. Not sure what "track record" you are referring too, nor do I care. The article should be about the shooting, not things unrelated to it. No reason to add in bias things to try to get sympathy from people. Dream Focus 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That track record would include things like pointing to a report, by a local TV station, about the mother of one of Sterling's children, who said it's not a race issue, as evidence supporting your statement that "Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue". It demonstrates either a certain carelessness or a shortage of understanding of editing principles, and it doesn't do a lot for your credibility in these matters, or in Wikipedia editing in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Harvard study only found no statistical significance for race in police shootings in Houston. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or poor media reporting of social science, but need to stop citing that as "proof" of no bias. See WaPo summary. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is also a mention by the BBC here. Although their summary states while the best data came from Houston, the overall study included data from 10 cities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Harvard study only found no statistical significance for race in police shootings in Houston. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or poor media reporting of social science, but need to stop citing that as "proof" of no bias. See WaPo summary. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That track record would include things like pointing to a report, by a local TV station, about the mother of one of Sterling's children, who said it's not a race issue, as evidence supporting your statement that "Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue". It demonstrates either a certain carelessness or a shortage of understanding of editing principles, and it doesn't do a lot for your credibility in these matters, or in Wikipedia editing in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- A black Harvard professor published a study showing "Racial bias is not a compelling contributing factor in police use of lethal force". [180] Many reliable sources say the shooting was not a race issue. [181] After watching the video footage, I don't know why anyone would think race had anything to do with this particular shooting. Not sure what "track record" you are referring too, nor do I care. The article should be about the shooting, not things unrelated to it. No reason to add in bias things to try to get sympathy from people. Dream Focus 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, to a point: you're trying to remove information about Sterling's children, and remove a picture of him smiling, and basically remove anything else that might make him seem, you know, human. On the other hand, you're also adding a lot of nonsense to the talkpage to the effect that this man didn't care about his children. And in your ideal world, you'd have us say that these incidents have nothing to do with race or racism, even though you acknowledge that reliable sources state otherwise ([179]). As Drmies and Black Kite have mentioned, we can do better in our coverage of these incidents. And frankly, "doing better" would start with excluding people like you, with your track record on race-related subjects, from participating in editing them. MastCell Talk 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to add anything. I wanted to remove information about him having 5 kids, and have already done so. Mentioning he had five children, to make people feel sympathy for him, without mentioning the negative details concerning those children (he didn't pay child support and one of them he fathered with a 14 year old girl he did jail time for statutory raping) is bias. So no reason to mention it at all. Not sure how this conversation just took off with people talking about other things here, instead of on the relevant talk page. Dream Focus 21:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, @Drmies:, you need to understand the root meaning of "victim" which derives from "holy" and implies an absence of any responsibility for harm that comes to them. Spin it all you want, but in cases where we are discussing possible crimes covered by WP:BLPCRIME, the legal definition of victim is the one we are seeking, not common definitions. A victim is a "person harmed by criminal acts" or an "attack target." We must be very careful in how we use words so as not to create a criminal act where it hasn't been determined. I'm sure you are able to see other examples of words that can have the same common meaning but have entirely different connotations and impacts for the actor (i.e. "his death was a homicide" vs. "he was murdered" are entirely different statements when the actor who caused the death is known). There is no dispute over who caused the death's of Sterling or Castile. Using a backdoor way to call it a crime is simply not acceptable until it's been established. And no, we don't allow synthesis from even reliable sources to infer a living person is illegally profiling or was a crime when none if it has been established as legal fact. That's the heart of the BLP policy and covers living police as well as the recently deceased. You seem able to discern what is not relevant with regards to Castile and Sterling, even though published in reliable sources, but don't see it for the case of the police. None of it belongs in case you were wondering. There is no moral high ground of portraying any of the subjects as "more human" than another (your argument is even less convincing when you try to extend it to portray certain editors as "more human" than other editors). I believe your selective reasoning as to what's relevant is rather obvious but not malicious. I understand your point about why you don't think a prior felony is relevant to what the police knew at the time. The same is true for a concealed carry pistol permit, though. I can also understand that the police may not have realized they stumbled into an ongoing commission of a felony (prohibited possessor) that Sterling was aware he was committing - that is the argument that makes it relevant along with the felony reported through 911 - but that need not be covered, either, if the article sticks to BLP and known facts about the encounter and doesn't dip off into the weeds regarding speculative motives of the police or the subjects - nor should it be feeding speculation about editors motives. --DHeyward (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. "Victim". Look it up on Wiktionary. 1. Sacrificial victim. [obviously not how we use it in everyday English.] 2. Anyone who is harmed by another. [Obviously how we use it in everyday English, regardless of culpability.] 3. etc. The rest is you spinnin'. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Wiktionary over Black's Law Dictionary and any dictionary providing the root meaning. Brilliant sourcing. And like you noticed with the dead Orlando shooter, you declined to name him a victim despite being harmed by the police (hint: you know criminals are not victims exactly because of culpability and naming a victim takes a side). I think your argument is intellectually dishonest if you won't reconcile the cognitive dissonance - it's okay to take a side, just recognize you are doing it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Any dictionary providing the root meaning..." You mean like Merriam-Webster, which says "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else"? It's always good to check before making blanket declarations like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wiktionary should never be cited as an authoritative source for any definition, any more than Wikipedia should be cited as an authoritative source for its topics. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no provision for verifiability; there are no citations. It's okay for casual use, although I don't know why anyone would choose it over better dictionaries that are just as accessible. Me, I always go to M-W unless I'm specifically looking for BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- SBHB, M-W provides the root word "victima" meaning "holy." It's why the primary definition is "sacrificed." It's connotation is that "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed" with emphasis on "by someone else." Meaning, there is no shared responsibility for the action. That's the common understanding and plain meaning. It's why the press avoids the word victim without a crime being established. It's why the Orlando Pulse NightClub shooter, and Nice truck driver are not called "victims" despite a death as a result of a confrontation with police. The Boston Bomber spent many months gravely injured by police bullets in the hospital....still not a victim as that word implies the police are culpable and liable for those injuries. This is doesn't seem to be a difficult concept so I am wondering where the disconnect is. Note that this is not comparing Castile to terrorists, its affording the officer the same presumption of innocence as the other officers that were involved in police shootings. No one is casting Castile in a negative light. He is treated as innocent as well. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Get off the "holy" horse. The etymology is obviously irrelevant here, unless you want to get into some real allegory. I wasn't talking about the Orlando shooter, you were--I'm talking about the victims of police shootings who, until proven otherwise, did not deserve to be sacrificed. You're going along the "innocent until proven guilty" line and that's fine, but presuming the cop's innocence shouldn't meant that in the meantime you take away victimhood from the person who actually died in the encounter, as if we'll wait and see if he didn't actually do something at some time to deserve it. And if you don't want to compare such victims to terrorists, then I have a suggestion: just don't do it. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the problem that DHeyward has with this, is the implication that the police who shot him are therefore guilty of murder (or manslaughter or what have you). Wikipedia already has a section on Alton referring to him as the "victim" of the shooting. We don't know (even though I assume most think) that he is. I'm inclined to do so to be entirely honest. Alton was pinned down, how precisely he's going to harm either of the policemen is beyond me. What bothers me is that several news outlets are already spinning this as another police against black crime, I think it is in this case, but what point is the justice system if we presume guilt over innocence. "I'm talking about the victims of police shootings" think about this for a second, this includes everybody immediately at the moment of them being shot by the police (incl. criminals). Yes, it's a way of presuming innocence, but, it does so by at the cost of establishing the police as guilty of "shooting an innocent victim". Sorry, but, no. This ought to be neutral. Alton Sterling was shot by police officers. No guilt, no innocence, no victim, no criminal. Until we have absolute confirmation otherwise Alton is not a victim and the police are notguilty of shooting an innocent victim. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Get off the "holy" horse. The etymology is obviously irrelevant here, unless you want to get into some real allegory. I wasn't talking about the Orlando shooter, you were--I'm talking about the victims of police shootings who, until proven otherwise, did not deserve to be sacrificed. You're going along the "innocent until proven guilty" line and that's fine, but presuming the cop's innocence shouldn't meant that in the meantime you take away victimhood from the person who actually died in the encounter, as if we'll wait and see if he didn't actually do something at some time to deserve it. And if you don't want to compare such victims to terrorists, then I have a suggestion: just don't do it. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- SBHB, M-W provides the root word "victima" meaning "holy." It's why the primary definition is "sacrificed." It's connotation is that "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed" with emphasis on "by someone else." Meaning, there is no shared responsibility for the action. That's the common understanding and plain meaning. It's why the press avoids the word victim without a crime being established. It's why the Orlando Pulse NightClub shooter, and Nice truck driver are not called "victims" despite a death as a result of a confrontation with police. The Boston Bomber spent many months gravely injured by police bullets in the hospital....still not a victim as that word implies the police are culpable and liable for those injuries. This is doesn't seem to be a difficult concept so I am wondering where the disconnect is. Note that this is not comparing Castile to terrorists, its affording the officer the same presumption of innocence as the other officers that were involved in police shootings. No one is casting Castile in a negative light. He is treated as innocent as well. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wiktionary should never be cited as an authoritative source for any definition, any more than Wikipedia should be cited as an authoritative source for its topics. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no provision for verifiability; there are no citations. It's okay for casual use, although I don't know why anyone would choose it over better dictionaries that are just as accessible. Me, I always go to M-W unless I'm specifically looking for BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- A "law-dictionary" (like Black's, who describe their dictionary as "the trusted legal dictionary of law definitions and terms") can't be used outside the narrow field of law since the definitions of words and terms used within he legal system sometimes differ from the everyday definitions of the same words and terms, as in this case. Which is why there's a market for such dictionaries, alongside Merriam-Webster's and others... Thomas.W talk 15:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- In general usage, people who are injured while committing a crime are not labelled victims. In the US if you shoot a burglar, they are not labelled victims. Outside of occasions involving police brutality etc and at that point it *does* become a legal definition. 'Was the person the victim of unlawful killing or did they die as a result of their own actions?' That is a legal question. Not a common usage one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Any dictionary providing the root meaning..." You mean like Merriam-Webster, which says "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else"? It's always good to check before making blanket declarations like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Wiktionary over Black's Law Dictionary and any dictionary providing the root meaning. Brilliant sourcing. And like you noticed with the dead Orlando shooter, you declined to name him a victim despite being harmed by the police (hint: you know criminals are not victims exactly because of culpability and naming a victim takes a side). I think your argument is intellectually dishonest if you won't reconcile the cognitive dissonance - it's okay to take a side, just recognize you are doing it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. "Victim". Look it up on Wiktionary. 1. Sacrificial victim. [obviously not how we use it in everyday English.] 2. Anyone who is harmed by another. [Obviously how we use it in everyday English, regardless of culpability.] 3. etc. The rest is you spinnin'. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Drmies here. We don't need anything that PBP and Dream Focus are trying to add here. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Purplebackpack, I have already stated my position on Dream Focus's edit, and it seems to me I'm not the only one who thinks that it was at the least very selective editing. Sir Joseph, it isn't about the gun, but "inability to legally own a weapon" was probably not printed on a bumper sticker. DHeyward, you can spin all you want, but the definition of "victim" I cited was the secondary meaning of the definition we have in Wiktionary--the first is "sacrificial victim". The OED lists a similar meaning, "One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss, is badly treated or taken advantage of, etc." The dead man suffered injury. Whether you want to call the Orlando shooter a victim or not is up to you, but NPOV requires that, well, NPOV.
- Do try to keep up. This discussion is about his children and his alleged history of nonpayment of child support, not his gun. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- The complaint here is about what was said on a talk page. It's not normal to have to cite statements made in the course of discussing an article – it would be too complicated and recursive. Notice that the complainant repeats the facts in question in his complaint but does not produce citations either. This demonstrates how difficult it is to have a sensible conversation about such matters if one can't plainly state the facts in question without a lot of qualification or red tape. See the stoning scene in Life of Brian for a good parody of this problem. Dream Focus seems to have been acting in good faith in discussing the content of this controversial topic. It's the actual editing of the article that matters, not the discussions about it. If we are too quick to cry BDP in such cases, then our work will become impossible. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Andrew, have you ever posted anything that was not a knee-jerk reaction to an AFD, a "friend" from the ARS being criticised or an irrelevant, badly contrived BlueSoup reason to keep stuff just because. (Apart from the "because I can" opposes at RFA, obviously.) I'm sure you must have, but I'm getting old, and can't recall specifically. Yes, DreamFocus is your friend. I see little in your rationale beyond that. Begoon talk 13:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Dream Focus's editing was entirely out of line here. "He did this", so "deserved what he got" has no place here. This is not the supreme court of partisan internet bickering. Dream Focus should count themselves lucky that the prevailing din obscured their actions, and enabled them to dodge a bullet. They may not be so lucky next time. Begoon talk 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, I must disagree that he ever will be held accountable. There are too many here who share his outlook. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Begoon , I never said that, or anything like that. I said its ridiculous to mention he had 5 children, without mentioning the negative aspects of that, that clearly bias. I'm not sure why everyone is twisting my words around so. Mentioning he had 5 children, without mentioning he didn't pay child support, and fathered one by raping a 14 year old girl, is bias, you selectively giving out only part of the information to make people sympathize with him. Either tell the whole story, or don't mention it at all. The situation was dealt with shortly after the debate started, this thing just stretching out needlessly. Can we close this thing already? Its going nowhere. Dream Focus 03:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- The intention of those edits was clear, and disgraceful. Of course you'd like discussion closed. So would I if I'd said such odious things and those statements had then been called out for what they obviously were. To the charge of your edits being of the "he deserved it" nature, you say "I never said that, or anything like that.", followed by "you selectively giving out only part of the information to make people sympathize with him." I think I rest my case. Having dodged the bullet you did, I'd keep my head down, rather than reflexively popping it up just to provide more evidence. Just saying. Begoon talk 13:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed TBAN on Ocdgrammarian[edit]
Ocdgrammarian, a new editor, seems like he could be a fine contributor to Wikipedia but I am concerned about a pattern of highly unusual behavior on Frank Gaffney by him, as well as a string of statements that seem to belie an ability to exercise good judgment. To wit:
- Here [182] the editor blanks the entire lede of the article in violation of a unanimous RfC decision made by Beeblebrox. After the blanking is undone, he immediately re-blanks it. [183]
- Here [184], here [185], and here [186] (and other places too numerous to list) the editor says various sources like CNN and so forth can't be used in the article as they're "leftist". At one point ArbCom member Doug Weller counseled him that none of the sources he'd identified as "far left" were, in fact, such but it didn't appear to ameliorate his concerns at all.
- Here [187], rather out of the blue, the editor seems to announce his belief in a "dastardly conspiracy" [sic] by Barack Obama to put "Muslims" in control of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency: "It's strange how well the US Missile Defense logo matches up with the Islamic Crescent. Unless Obama's supporters defend him instead of attacking Gaffney, there's enough there to prove a dastardly conspiracy."
- Here [188] the editor appears to accuse me of being a member of the Communist Party. (?!) That seemed so odd that I thought he was joking, but then he called me a "Stalinist" [189] which makes me suppose he might not be? Not sure. He also [190], accused me of of being part of the "mean girls club" which, I'm guessing, must be some kind-of Communist Party front group or fifth column.
- The editor has repeatedly announced he's a "refugee" [sic] from the Soviet Union (here [191] and here [192]and so forth); while I, of course, want to give GF assumption as to the veracity of that claim, there seems something a little off-kilter in the way this biographical note is repeatedly sprinkled into the conversation that gives me pause. For instance, as unsolicited proof of his refugee status, he tacks the words "Call of Duty" (as in the video game) onto the end of a post in Cyrillic script [193], which would kind-of be like a Syrian refuge randomly adding "حمّص" (hummus) to the end of his post.
This is a very delicate BLP on a current events topic and the above pattern of editing is a kind-of bull in the china shop approach which is not, how can I put this diplomatically ... helpful. I reluctantly propose a 90-day WP:TBAN on Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy be applied.
Amendment: I further request an IBAN be applied against the editor vis a vis both myself and RunnyAmiga. Since this very civil ANI has opened, the editor has:
- repeatedly linked ([194] / [195]) two off-Wiki Attack pages targeting me and several other WP editors, specifically two reddit threads where the last group of socks that I helped block gathered to have a "***** session" about myself and other WP editors including User:JzG, User:Robert McClenon, User:TheRedPenofDoom, etc. ([196] and [197]).
- He/she has also directed off-color insults against RunnyAmiga and myself in Russian, apparently to circumvent WP:CIVIL attention (see the sub-thread, below),
- and - in off-page discussion - referred to us as trolls [198]
- see, also, the previous accusations editor has made against me, charging that I'm a member of the Communist Party (above)
I am not asking for an IBAN as a punitive measure or WP:CIVIL complaint, but because the above pattern of conduct suggests the editor's continued involvement in pages we edit will create general havoc and chaos. Both RunnyAmiga and myself are prolific editors and this newly minted editor's continued engagement with us is likely to result in high level disruption to the project, through no fault of our own. I am pinging everyone who previously !voted (RunnyAmiga and Roxy the dog™) so they can change their !vote if they feel it is no longer reflected by this amendment.
LavaBaron (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Support[edit]
- Short comment, since you're proposing that Ocdgrammarian be banned from two pages for 90 days, I could suggest amending your request to Page BAN (PBAN) rather than topic ban. I'll take a look at the pages, but, from your diffs, a PBAN from both pages seems reasonable to be honest. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support (no regrets). LB has provided an excellent summary. Indeed, if this were an article the points raised would make an adequate lead, and the body would be easily written, sourced to the Gaffney Talk page. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support. Over and over, Ocdgrammarian has inserted text at Frank Gaffney that fails to comply with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and since neither LavaBaron nor I can revert because of 1RR, he's gotten away with it. At this point, Ocdgrammarian has been pointed towards SYNTH enough times that I'm going to start reverting violations of it as vandalism and whatever will be will be. Bishonen's casual dismissal of the ton of evidence LavaBaron compiled and posted at SPI was truly strange; this behavior is a lot more similar to that of other blocked users than just having a confrontational approach and a less-than-mainstream opinion or two. And Ocdgrammarian's defense of his activity has consisted entirely of refusals to answer whether he's a user who has previously been blocked alongside truly bewildering attacks against LavaBaron that sound, for lack of a better way of putting it, like stuff Frank Gaffney would say. It's really, really pathetic that decent editors are this hamstrung by a bad-faith actor who is gaming the everloving hell out of 1RR. This discussion shouldn't be necessary but then, a CU at SPI shouldn't have been necessary either. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
Discussion[edit]
Wow, I had no idea of the kind of sesspool I waded into here:
<links to offsite attacks removed>
I see this is a rigged game. I'll leave the pettiness for the petty. Peace, kids. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
I have to admit I didn't know about the rules re blanking, but the remaining accusations are pretty laughable. For example, the "dastardly conspiracy" post [199] is obvious sarcasm, which the admin to whom the post was addressed understood immediately and responded to with "Fair enough." I don't know what's so bad about writing in Cyrillic or being a Soviet refugee, but the rest of his accusations are just as weak
Meanwhile, LavaBaron has been engaged in a campaign of harassment against editors on this page long before I got there. Arm Chair General called him out on it yesterday: (sorry, I don't know how to link the diffs) "Why do I get the feeling that you'll only be satisfied if the lead reads: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953): American conspiracy theorist, Spy for Israel, and probably eats baby's.?"
Almost as soon as I started editing the page, LavaBaron He went into personal attacks on my talk page, accusing me of being a Gaffney employee in some conspiracy theory of his: "If, like your previous userids . . ." . . . ". . .as I've previously communicated to your other personalities." . . . "In the meantime, many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office, that simply shotgunning this same line that hasn't worked the last 20 times, repeatedly, in hope it will work the 21st time, is tedious for all of us." He then threatened me with and ultimately filed an SPI on me just because I disagreed with him. I've previously kept my contributions on Wikipedia mostly to grammar edits on science and history articles I like to read, and I am not used to either Wikipedia customs or how to deal with hostility and personal attacks from other editors.
For some reason, he called me a "loose one" on the article talk page, and engaged in lots of other uncivil behavior. If anyone should be blocked from editing the article, it ought to be him.
Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian.
- True; actually my exact quote was "oh boy, we gotta loose one" [200]. This was in response to Ocdgrammarian's quoting a long passage from The Fountainhead (in response to a routine WP policy comment by RunnyAmiga) and then claiming the "Islamic Crescent" was hidden in the logo of the USMDA. Given this context, I feel "we gotta loose one" is probably an accurate analysis of the situation. LavaBaron (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was Atlas Shrugged and the "Islamic Crescent" "claim" was obvious sarcasm riffing on Gaffney's claims and how similar they are in nature to your accusations of me being a sock in some conspiracy theory of yours. The admin to whom I made that sarcastic joke got it - and I'm sure you did too, but are just misrepresenting it to get me blocked. Your response, claiming that I'm "loose," was extremely uncivil and rude. You should be blocked from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was Atlas Shrugged and the "Islamic Crescent" "claim" was obvious sarcasm riffing on Gaffney's claims and how similar they are in nature to your accusations of me being a sock in some conspiracy theory of yours. The admin to whom I made that sarcastic joke got it - and I'm sure you did too, but are just misrepresenting it to get me blocked. Your response, claiming that I'm "loose," was extremely uncivil and rude. You should be blocked from the page, if anyone is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note, by "harassment campaign" I think he/she is referring to eleven different socks [201] I've got blocked who were active at this page (all of whom also blanked the lede repeatedly and complained that CNN was "leftist"). LavaBaron (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nah, I'm talking about this, champ:
<Links to offsite attacks removed>
- Comment - When Lavabaron's misconduct at Did You Know became an issue [202] I brought attention to the WikiInAction post detailing Lavabaron's misconduct at Frank Gaffney and Did You Know. Lavabaron responded by falsely accusing me of being a Gaffney employee and a sockpuppet of Zeke1999. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- The above IP editor's other comments in this thread have been administratively deleted as trolling [203]. LavaBaron (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, LavaBaron, I removed the comment and warned the individual. I left the post above on the page deliberately, as arguably relevant, but the one I removed, along with this one on Talk:Frank Gaffney (also removed) were definitely trolling. People aren't supposed to log out from their account in order to disrupt sensitive discussions, especially not in this type of area. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC).
- The above IP editor's other comments in this thread have been administratively deleted as trolling [203]. LavaBaron (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE[edit]
Please consider moving this proposal to WP:AE. LavaBaron, I believe you do misunderstand this post by Ocdgrammarian; it's a parody of the immediately preceding post by RunnyAmiga (note, not by LavaBaron, and no, RunnyAmiga is not an admin), not an actual suggestion of a dastardly conspiracy by Barack Obama. OCD is making a rhetorical point. I won't comment on your other points, as I prefer to remain uninvolved here. However, I have advice for you both: LavaBaron, I think your proposal would go better on WP:AE. You can refer to the discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and for biographies of living people there, compare my formal alerts on the user's page. And Ocdgrammarian, being unable to create diffs really hamstrings you in these kinds of discussions. I urge you to read the instructions in the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC).
- Nah, arguing with conspiracy theorists about whether or not someone else is a conspiracy theorist is mindnumbing долбоёбье. (Use an accurate Russian translator next time Lavabaron.) You're a good and fair person Bishonen, but the mob rule and leftist dishonesty here reminds me of another place I left for good. Peace. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
- Am I reading this correctly? Are you officially recusing yourself from editing Gaffney's page? Am I good to go on there and try to fix it without having to worry about you undoing any of my edits or adding more WP:SYNTH violations that I won't be allowed to revert without risking a block?
- And Bishonen, if you're still here, to make it perfectly clear: the false claim of "leftist dishonesty" and the policy-violating remarks that LavaBaron, myself, or both of us are "conspiracy theorists" and/or "долбоёбье" are clangingly obvious tells that Ocdgrammarian has been here before under a different identity. I'm still trying to understand how you missed this stuff. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)RunnyAmiga: folks who tend toward conspiracy theories are often urged to use Occam's Razor. Perhaps the reason why I sound similar to other critics of yours is not because I've been sent here by Frank Gaffney on an important mission to argue with you kids - his greatest nemeses, but rather it's because 1) you do tend to think in conspiratorial ways about folks who disagree with you on Wikipedia, and 2) that your arguments and prejudices are indeed leftist. Judging from your user page and your comments about Ayn Rand, for you to deny that is indeed dishonest. Complaining of NPA as you personally attack me as a sock and LavaBaron calls me "loose" is also pretty rich. As I understand it, you've been an editor for three months. I've edited (very minor grammar stuff, but pretty often) for a year and a half. I would posit that perhaps it's you who's a sock. You do sound very similar to LavaBaron. . . Perhaps he created you to win votes in his Gaffney fights and his various purges of other users. I don't know, a well-meaning editor can be forgiven of accidentally accusing you. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian.
- долбоёбье (Dolbo[ё]bye) I can approximate that to meaning a dunce or stupid donkey (ass). Russian is not my native, but, I am familiar with cyrillic (the e with umlaut over it is new to me though). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know that's what the Google Translator incorrectly says,
so no need to pretend that you know Russian.The actual meaning is something more of what the Hump Robot from Robot Chicken does. "Dolbit'" is to hit repeatedly, and often uselessly, and "ebat'" is to fuck. That's what I feel like I've been engaging in over the past day arguing with conspiracy theorists and dishonest leftists. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian- Umm... I said I could translate the cyrillic approximately Ocdgrammarian and looking at google translate it goes for stupid ass whereas I first suggested dunce... not the same thing are they... let me tell you something. Odjebi -> Одjeбi -> fuck off. Negovori mi koji jezik ja mogu ili ne mogu pricat, razumjes? (don't tell me what language I can or cannot speak, understand?). Add; worth mentioning that this is Serbian/Croatian/Srpskohrvatski and not Russian. These are my native languages. Sub-add; don't take that personally, I am not actually telling you to fuck off, I meant that to illustrate a point, a little heated admittedly. I wouldn't claim to speak a language I don't and it's not the only bit of Russian I have dealt with recently, refer to [204] this page where I translated several pages worth of Russian, and not one or two words. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck through the thing about you not knowing Russian, my apologies. People are so aggressive on Wikipedia and I couldn't help but notice you took LavaBaron's side in his deeply unfair witch hunt against me. But, in any case, no offense taken, pichka. Don't take that as a personal attack either - in Russian, pichkat' means "to coddle." Just goes to show you that not all Slavic languages are the same and sometimes when you think you're translating something approximately, you can can get in a lot of trouble. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
- Ocdgrammarian All good, I'm also fine with being called a cunt or 'to be coddled' in Russian. I am for the time being refraining from involving myself in the vote, for several reasons. I'll mention when you said Dolbit and Ebat, I understood Ebat (Jebat in my language) immediately, Dolbit would be Udarat in my own language (quite different). There's some similarity between our languages but obvious differences as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck through the thing about you not knowing Russian, my apologies. People are so aggressive on Wikipedia and I couldn't help but notice you took LavaBaron's side in his deeply unfair witch hunt against me. But, in any case, no offense taken, pichka. Don't take that as a personal attack either - in Russian, pichkat' means "to coddle." Just goes to show you that not all Slavic languages are the same and sometimes when you think you're translating something approximately, you can can get in a lot of trouble. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
- Umm... I said I could translate the cyrillic approximately Ocdgrammarian and looking at google translate it goes for stupid ass whereas I first suggested dunce... not the same thing are they... let me tell you something. Odjebi -> Одjeбi -> fuck off. Negovori mi koji jezik ja mogu ili ne mogu pricat, razumjes? (don't tell me what language I can or cannot speak, understand?). Add; worth mentioning that this is Serbian/Croatian/Srpskohrvatski and not Russian. These are my native languages. Sub-add; don't take that personally, I am not actually telling you to fuck off, I meant that to illustrate a point, a little heated admittedly. I wouldn't claim to speak a language I don't and it's not the only bit of Russian I have dealt with recently, refer to [204] this page where I translated several pages worth of Russian, and not one or two words. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know that's what the Google Translator incorrectly says,
- Nah, arguing with conspiracy theorists about whether or not someone else is a conspiracy theorist is mindnumbing долбоёбье. (Use an accurate Russian translator next time Lavabaron.) You're a good and fair person Bishonen, but the mob rule and leftist dishonesty here reminds me of another place I left for good. Peace. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
- Whether or not he was joking on this point, or in fact all of them, I don't think ameliorates the disruption that's occurring (and, in fact, may even underscore it). Talk is a place to discuss edits to the article, not practice a stand-up routine. LavaBaron (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: re your deleted post. WP:AE is the place to ask for discretionary sanctions by admins, specifically TBANs. A report there is unlikely to lead to a block. By putting your proposal on ANI, you are in effect asking for community sanctions, a more complicated and less efficient procedure. But do as you will, I'm kind of tired of this. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC).
Personal attack from User:Judor92[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, I reverted Judor92 (talk · contribs) at Fire in the Rain for adding a non-ranked song to a charts section, which he restored a second time despite being told the Ultratip chart in Belgium does not rank songs below 50. He was reverted again, and despite no contact with him for the better part of a week, I woke up to a personal attack to the effect of "FUCK YOU FROM MANS ZELMERLOW :)))))))" on my talk page. I'm sure he is well aware of WP:NPA and I really get the feeling he will do it again when a user does something he doesn't like. Ss112 03:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've warned @Judor92:. [205] Let me know if there are any other problems and a block may be in order. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest Lowlihao sockpuppet[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could somebody please block User:Hidup Raja 1000 a blatant sockpuppet of globally locked User:Hidup Raja, which was in turn a sockpuppet of User:Lowlihao - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --NeilN talk to me 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editguy111[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editguy111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm feeling WP:INVOLVED (though it may be because I'm fighting some serious heat exhaustion), otherwise I'd just indef him, but Editguy111's past few edits include:
- Undoing what bastard liars and moderators conspiring with them keep reverting i.e. Vandalism, while accusing others of Vandalism, it is sourced -- after coming out of a block for edit warring to cite some religious texts and a 20th century philosopher for an ethnological claim about a prehistoric peoples.
- I'm not the Vandal, you two are, the references are valid sources, there's no reason Gendun Chophel would lie, you two are the ones who are lying
- You're lying out of your ass, Vandal.
- You are outwardly lying, both are attested works of history, if you revert again I will report you for vandalism.
Before this are years of being reverted for inserting original research and fringe edits (typically unsourced, sometimes edit warring over the content) to religion related articles. His talk page is ample proof of this. This is not the first time he's been uncivil over his attempts to edit war.
I'm seeing little use in keeping him around. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- A block just for edit-warring would still be a good block even if you performed it yourself. Muffled Pocketed 17:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked 72 hours for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incorrect Info[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user MariusEllingsen47 recently edited the birthdate, name & residence on the Scott Cawthon page and the information is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcawthon (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed (or hidden) all unsourced bio info at Scott Cawthon. This doesn't seem to require Admin attention, and can be closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Note: @Jcawthon: has not notified, MariusEllingsen47 of this discussion as required, I have done so HERE --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user keeps adding unsourced information in Drake (musician), ignoring WP:SYN (by adding "widespread success, critical success" on lead) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE[206] (by adding feuds and "beef" with other rappers, already removed weeks ago). He already ignored my message on his talk page. All the pictures he added to the article (claiming those were his own work) have been proven copyvio and removed from Commons. [207][208] Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Cornerstonepicker: - should we leave a notice on her talk page to let her know that an ANI investigation has been declared on her? I can do that if you want. Alicb (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Alicb: Please do. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- You should always notify a user of an ANI report if it's filed against them, per the orange box:
"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."
Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- You should always notify a user of an ANI report if it's filed against them, per the orange box:
- @Alicb: and ::@Cornerstonepicker: I believe my reply on Cornerstonepicker's talk page would now see that the edit warring is nonsensical and is without merit. Please do see it. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @PsychopathicAssassin: I have made a modification to the article. I can see Cornerstonepicker's point that "critical success" was WP:SYN. I have left the commercial success in as I believe there is merit based on the Billboard source. Dane2007 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Alicb: Please do. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP User:68.224.250.108 - Disruptive Editing on The Conjuring 2[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP User 68.224.250.108 has made multiple edits inserting contested and unsourced information into The Conjuring 2. I have reverted the edits as they are unsourced and/or incorrect, started a discussion on the talk page in an attempt to gain discussion/consensus and issued warnings to the users talk page. The user is adding Supernatural fiction to the lead which is not the case as the events described are based on truthful reports from Enfield, England. The user is also misinterpreting a spin off film as a continuation in a series. The user has not responded on their talk page or the pages talk page, as of the writing of this post. This user has also made contested genre changes in the past to a different films wikipedia page (Predator 2).
- Party seems to be over. IP editor has made other changes to other articles, but none that I looked at were negative. Let's close this. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ilovetopaint[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems to be adding songs to categories they do not belong to and changing genre's to own personal liking. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Who decides these categories? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- The genres are all sourced in Progressive pop#Notes. Some of them I didn't get the chance to source in the infobox. And for that Pink Floyd edit, I was trying to maintain consistency with Dark Side of the Moon, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, etc.. Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band." Er..what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- What else have they been since 1971-2??? Muffled Pocketed 09:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to additionally register my astonishment and confusion with that bizarre statement, so: Say, what, now? They seem to be mentioned here a bit, and rightly so, although there's some odd "Bill Martin" thing (who he?) that seems to beg examination. Begoon talk 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band." Er..what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pink Floyd is a rock band that has shifted from psychedelic rock to progressive and art rock. Revelatory, I know.
- "The Beatles are primarily a rock band, not a psychedelic rock band."
- "What a bizarre statement! What other kinds of music did they play... after 1967? Of course the Beatles are a psychedelic rock band and nothing else!"
- --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- No lets get this straight, you said "Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band". Every album since their first has been either Prog Rock, or Prog+something. The 'shift' took place so early in their career, both in years and in output, it is a relative blip in their discography. You cannot make the statement 'Pink Floyd are not primarily a prog rock band' and expect to be taken seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Being taken seriously does not seem like a priority for this editor. They have a strange opinion to impose, and a visible place to do it. They should understand that the latter can disappear very quickly. And they should understand that right now. Begoon talk 15:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I stand by that they are not primarily a progressive rock band. Look at how many writers refer them to "art rock", a related but nonetheless distinct genre. And calling their psychedelic era a "blip" in their history is absurd. Just because you think the prog era eclipses the psyche era doesn't make the psych era any less valid. Again, it's like discounting the Beatles from Merseybeat and inflating their importance as a psyche rock band, "because the albums before Rubber Soul were just a relative blip in their discography". Pink Floyd were a psychedelic rock band between 1965 and 1970, recording 5 LPs that have been designated "psychedelic rock". Who decided that those 5 years and records are now a "blip"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- What was it I said above? "Being taken seriously does not seem like a priority for this editor."? I'll leave it there, I think. All the best. Begoon talk 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't respond to my perfectly reasonable arguments if you have nothing of value to add.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't respond? Value? Seems a bit subjective to me. Nevertheless, please don't imagine this was anything more than a playful reaction to an utterly pointless display of pouting. I had fun. I hope you did too. Carry on with your important work. Wish you were here. Begoon talk 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to know a lot about "utterly pointless displays of pouting". One thing's for certain: you're not a Barrett fan.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Ilovetopaint: Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to know a lot about "utterly pointless displays of pouting". One thing's for certain: you're not a Barrett fan.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't respond? Value? Seems a bit subjective to me. Nevertheless, please don't imagine this was anything more than a playful reaction to an utterly pointless display of pouting. I had fun. I hope you did too. Carry on with your important work. Wish you were here. Begoon talk 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't respond to my perfectly reasonable arguments if you have nothing of value to add.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- What was it I said above? "Being taken seriously does not seem like a priority for this editor."? I'll leave it there, I think. All the best. Begoon talk 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- No lets get this straight, you said "Pink Floyd are not primarily a progressive rock band". Every album since their first has been either Prog Rock, or Prog+something. The 'shift' took place so early in their career, both in years and in output, it is a relative blip in their discography. You cannot make the statement 'Pink Floyd are not primarily a prog rock band' and expect to be taken seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see how a note/reference on the article Progressive pop can validate adding songs to Category:Progressive pop songs. Maybe @SummerPhDv2.0: would like to weigh in on your Pink Floyd rational. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really have much to say here. My revert on WYWH was strictly based on GWAR. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- GWAR covered Pink Floyd? That had to be interesting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really have much to say here. My revert on WYWH was strictly based on GWAR. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint: I think you should read WP:CATDEF. Categories must be sourced in an article. If you add "Category:Progressive pop songs" or "Category:Art pop musicians" in an article, then make sure you add the genre and a reference to support it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I just added sources to all of those articles and got yet another warning saying to stop my "disruptive editing". Thanks @Mlpearc:, you're doing an outstanding job.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ilovetopaint, please stop your disruptive editing. Thanks. See above. We'd rather not have to stop it for you, but genre warring, ugh. Really. Begoon talk 16:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- When did adding reliably sourced content become "disruptive editing"? This incident report was made by somebody who never bothered to check that I did add sources to my edits.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know. Life is so unfair. Especially on important matters like this. Can we settle on "progressive", or is it not just the capitalisation that bothers you? I'll bow to your punctuation. Begoon talk 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- If this is an unimportant matter then close it already. Mlpearc refuses to let me add back prog pop with citations. This is backwards genre warring. Also I have no clue what you mean by "progressive" or its capitalization. Am I missing something?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know. Life is so unfair. Especially on important matters like this. Can we settle on "progressive", or is it not just the capitalisation that bothers you? I'll bow to your punctuation. Begoon talk 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- When did adding reliably sourced content become "disruptive editing"? This incident report was made by somebody who never bothered to check that I did add sources to my edits.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ilovetopaint, please stop your disruptive editing. Thanks. See above. We'd rather not have to stop it for you, but genre warring, ugh. Really. Begoon talk 16:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent vandalism of the user Sad9721. Again, he didn't wait 24h to expire his block to start doing his acts again![edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sad9721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is doing disruptive edits again on the page List of European countries by average wage and Economy of Italy. The user waited to be an autoconfirmed user just to make disruptive edits. It's making false edits without any loyal sources (and those last 2 days even without sources, this user is just keeping to delete the numbers of Italy of the page of List of European countries by average wage because he doesn't like the data from the source). Before this, he was just changing the numbers of Italy inside that page without sources, or just putting "istat.it" which is the main website of ISTAT, without referencing his changes. I am warning him just as other users, then we created a talk page in the page of List of European countries by average wage, but he doesn't want to collaborate and just says redundant and nonsense things and keeps reverting or changing the consensual aspect of the page. He is also shouting on the talk page, and now he created a talk page on the page of the user Absolutelypuremilk to shout to him again and to put redundant and nonsense things, while he keeps changing , reverting and doing what he wants on the later mentioned page and in the Economy of Italy page. I've warned him several times; the last time was yesterday. And he doesn't care, today he made 3 different reverts again to change the consensual aspect of the page. He went through a 31 hour block, but now, he is doing exactly the same. Deleting the sources, deleting the numbers from the above mentioned page and editing according to his personal likings, not accepting the sources. --TechnicianGB (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I understand you mean well, TechnicianGB, and thank you for protecting Wikipedia, but please don't copypaste your old report; instead link to it. Also, it's always worth checking what a disruptive user is doing elsewhere before reporting. If you'd looked at his contributions, you'd have seen me talking to him. I've blocked him now. This report can be closed. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
- True, I could link it instead of copy it here. Thanks, for the next time, I will know it better. I thought it was enough to copy and paste it because it didn't pass even 48h from the report... Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) with archiving. Thank you, TechnicianGB. It's very good that you reported the first time, or no admin would have known. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
- True, I could link it instead of copy it here. Thanks, for the next time, I will know it better. I thought it was enough to copy and paste it because it didn't pass even 48h from the report... Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bishonen: now sock-puppeting as 151.40.22.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Regards, HandsomeFella (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: also sock-puppeting as 151.40.73.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I request that the pages Economy of Italy and Power (international relations) to be protected to auto-confirmed users; also I will put it in the page of requests of protection. Probably it's using a mobile device on mobile internet which changes of IP every 5-10 minutes.
- Comment - Clear, repeated legal threats in 151.40.73.239's edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Self-confessed sockpuppet needing CU?[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Danratedrko (talk · contribs) is thoroughly blocked (hence no point notifying him) but one of his last posts admitted he was engaged in sockpuppetry. I honestly can't remember if I've seen this issue crop up before (Juzumaru (talk · contribs) did the same, but I didn't notice until the data was already stale...).
What to do?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hijiri 88 - Are there other accounts that this user shows evidence of being a sock puppet of? If so, have you opened an SPI case? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: No idea. If I did, I would open an SPI. How do we normally deal with a user who has admitted to being a sockpuppet but didn't mention their main account's name, though? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- SPI, of course. That's where the CheckUsers dwell. ;) Kurtis (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- An SPI without a master/puppet account wouldn't work -- samtar talk or stalk 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that kind of what you're looking for, though? Kurtis (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Samtar is correct. An SPI case requires three things: A sock master account that you're reporting, the sock puppet accounts (or IPs too, sometimes) that you believe that the sock master is editing under and in violation of WP:SOCK, and you need evidence. You should not file an SPI case without having all three items first (especially item number three - evidence). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that kind of what you're looking for, though? Kurtis (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- An SPI without a master/puppet account wouldn't work -- samtar talk or stalk 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: I would ask a CU to perform a check, which can be done here or by contacting a CheckUser directly. Most CUs would perform the check as there are "credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing" -- samtar talk or stalk 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- SPI, of course. That's where the CheckUsers dwell. ;) Kurtis (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: No idea. If I did, I would open an SPI. How do we normally deal with a user who has admitted to being a sockpuppet but didn't mention their main account's name, though? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do admire someone going out in a blaze of glory. The "Fuck off and block away, loser" line made my day, hehe. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- A checkuser could be asked to look for "sleeper" accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No action is how you deal with this. If he edits another group of articles in good faith, then no action is needed. Some admins have gone all crazy by starting to block editors that seem to think alike or have nothing in common than isp.89.164.239.52 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- How would you know something like that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Gagz7[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Gagz7 just WP:3RR'ed at Isaac Barrow. There has been continual reverting at Isaac Barrow by User:174.3.155.181 who puts up a screed of text mixed with personal accusations against any editor who he/she thinks opposes him/her diff, diff. This ain't 174.3.155.181's first rodeo, being blocked for "bigoted attacks" old talk. 174.3.155.181 was blocked for reverting (several times) the results of the RFC he/she called for diff. After the block, account User:Gagz7 suddenly came to life backing 174.3.155.181 edits diff using 174.3.155.181 arguments and even 174.3.155.181 talk formatting diff, and taking up 174.3.155.181 causes at another article diffdiff. Gagz7 also did 174.3.155.181's bidding here diffdiff, followed on by another reverting IP diff. Personal attacks/screed now spread to here diff. If this needs to go on to other forums please let me know since it spans WP3RR WP:SOCK WP:DISRUPT. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This probably does belong here since this user has violated multiple policies. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at 174.3.155.181's talk page history. He's been reverting warnings he's received for a while. Also note that the IP user is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Pinging David Eppstein, the blocking admin. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- actually, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if you did your research you'd have looked in IP edit's history a bit more to realise that there is no secret here; only you think it's a secret. you have refused to answer IP's original inquiries when he provided multiple sources, both primary and secondary, to which you refused. he then procured two excellent sources using gregory's own words that took additional time and effort to find. you have arguably disrespected the tenants of this site by refusing to invest time to justify your reversion, which has now predictably lead you to report me.
- both IP and myself have asked you many times to argue content and you have ignored this, hoping to coast off reputation of the institution you presumably graduated from whilst editing pages of "Rich people".
- it is both inconceivable and inappropriate for non-experts such as User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr to make edits they have no business doing. when engaged, this individual refused to properly participate, yet expected their voice to carry equal weight without evidence. such conduct is the antithesis of the spirit necessary to productively contribute to an online encyclopaedia. please continue editing your "rich people" pages. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagz7 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Gagz7 was already blocked in April for block evasion as an obvious sock of User:174.3.155.181, by Floquenbeam. And the repeated reverts and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from both the IP and Gagz7 are suggestive. Another longer block-evasion block might be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record: User:Gagz7 has now made six reverts within the last 24 hours (with an obvious sock) though the revert history has been going on longer.
- 20:28 (on 24th) as 174.3.155.181
- 23:41 (on 25th) as 174.3.155.181
- 03:44 (on 26th) as 174.3.155.181
- 03:54 as 174.3.155.181
- 04:01
- 14:50
- 14:58
- 15:40
All on 26th July 2016. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- briefly User:Elektrik Fanne: if people want to refuse facts, which is that the new sources used to justify infobox insertion were never mentioned in the RfC (except the original one, [3]), and these new sources do not require consensus due to their verbose and incontrovertible nature, so be it. punctuate the affirmation of such a mentality by banning me. i am here to discuss facts and evidence, and i feel my edit history is demonstrative of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagz7 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- top o' the morning dr eppstein!!
- actually, as i've maintained throughout, the newest sources used are incontrovertible. i would say that the sources used in the original RfC, while sufficient, did leave a very small sliver of doubt which User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr tried to exploit. However, as stated many times, the new sources used are in Gregory's own words and of sufficient calibre to justify infobox insertion.
- further, i have repeatedly requested Bryn Mawr to actively engage in the discussion, but they have not. i don't blame them, i wouldn't want to get into a fact fight with me, either.
- the only time they engaged was contesting the original insertion by IP claiming primary sources were insufficient, to which four (or five) (!) additional sources were given, excluding the two that were added yesterday (in conjunction with the original). this conversation has repeatedly focused on the old sources, instead of the new ones, in order to uphold the unjustified reversion.
- this duplicitous conduct is to be expected on a site that has ulterior motives, but i cannot blame you specifically dr eppstein; you have done a great job of trying to stay out of it, but your hands are eventually bound by the "powers that be" who do not want the insertion to stay. IP and myself's contributions to this site speak for themselves, and i suspect if you look at IP's even *earlier* contributions, you'd see that this individual focuses on content. the facts presented are quite clear and demonstrative of an infobox-calibre insertion (on par with what is used to cite Barrow's influence on Newton [feingold ref]). Gagz7 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit history (and that of 174.3.155.181) shows only obvious WP:SOCKPUPPETry and violation of the WP:3RR bright line rule. How right or wrong you are is totally irrelevant at this point. I can only forsee that an inevitable block is on the way. --Elektrik Fanne 17:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Three months for both Gagz7 and their IP. --NeilN talk to me 17:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
137.110.196.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This IP editor continues edit warring on articles related to Pearl S. Buck (diffs:[210][211]) despite warnings from multiple editors (myself, Chris troutman and Dschslava) on their talkpage and they continued making similarly disruptive edits (diffs: [212]) after my attempt to point them in the direction of WP:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Place names. It looks like there might have only been one more edit a few minutes after I posted a link to the MOS on their talkpage, but I was pretty sure their edits to Anchee Min were after I posted on their talkpage, but that is not reflected in the timestamps and IDK how accurate those are. If the timestamps are trustworthy, then maybe this is premature. I think the editor meant well, but the lack of response on the talkpage is worrisome IMO because some of these are kind of obscure articles, so unless the IP responds to acknowledge they understand the naming conventions style guide, I worry there's a good chance similar edits in the future could fly under the radar. Is blocking an IP address an option? And are there other options besides blocking that I'm not thinking of besides blocking? —PermStrump(talk) 04:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Permstrump: The IP has already been blocked temporarily. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ooops. Nothing to see here. :) —PermStrump(talk) 04:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Goodbye[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am resigning from Wikipedia because I refuse to help a site that appoints stupid pedantic idiots like User:Huon into administrative roles for which they are wholly unqualified. Goodbye. Naz | talk | contribs 08:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, this does not appear to be an actionable complaint. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nazcheema: sorry to hear that, but as mentioned above, if you have a specific complaint we may be able to at least talk it through - who knows, we may even be able to straighten out whatever dispute you have with Huon -- samtar talk or stalk 08:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This maybe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- IINM, they were in #wikipedia-en-help earlier today; Huon attempted to help them to the best of their ability. this is rather illuminating. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Totally unacceptable to go around casting aspersions about "stupid pedantic idiots". Pot, meet kettle. They also put such polemics on both their UP & UT. Disgraceful. Rgrds. --64.85.216.94 (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good-bye-ee! Muffled Pocketed 09:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User: Moon King disruptive AfD[edit]
"New user." First thing he does is add auto-AfD scripts to his userpage js and css. A new user shouldn't even know where those are, much less be able to know exactly how to find and add script content. The next thing the user did was nominate an article I created, Suzuka Naval Arsenal, for deletion, without even providing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument [213]. What that diff also shows is that whatever the script was didn't even work, because it took a second edit to get the template in seven minutes later, and 10 minutes total to execute the AfD in reverse order, just about if you look at the contribs, plus he botched the usernotice. So there's no "script" at work here.
The only thing the user has done since registering the article is comment on the AfD. I couldn't SPI because I don't know who the master is, and I don't buy a single word of the user's statement that he's a longtime reader who "just decided to get involved" over this article. I have provided not only a Google search with 7000 hits, but also specific sources with translation, to which the user replies "it looks like a directory." It clearly isn't, the user is WP:NOTHERE and WP:POINTY, and should be banned. At no time since registration has he ever bothered to make a single edit anywhere else besides the AfD. MSJapan (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article is about a non notable factory. The user has failed to provide multiple reliable sources about the subject. He provided one which he hasn't explained why is reliable or what it is exactly. I gave it a cursory look and it looks like a directory to me. --Moon King (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Messing up the AfD nomination process would actually support Moon King being a longtime lurker and new editor. It's plausible that a new user might genuinely register to AfD something and be aware that there are scripts to do this (like with many things on the internet). In this case the script posted on their js and css pages is the first hit when searching "WP:AFD script". That being said, it is a bit strange, but unless you have specific accounts in mind (for behavioural comparison or checkuser), or if the AfD becomes problematic, I don't see how this is actionable. We just have to assume good faith in this case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Echoing Patar Knight here, Assume good faith. Welcome to Wikipedia, Moon King. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's problematic because there are several sources in the article, WP:NEXIST has been met, and to alleviate the specific claim of "there's no sources about the factory", I've provided a full page, in-depth source that goes so far as to trace the history, the products manufactured, has pictures, talks about what the site is used for now, provided a translation of it, and Moon King insists that it's a directory, when it clearly is not. His rationale is "it looks like a directory to me", without any reasoning why that is, and now I apparently have to "explain what the source is." This is outright a competency problem, or deliberate trolling. If you want to allow that, go right ahead, I guess.
- I'm fairly certain he's not going to get the article deleted by any means, but the extent of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is far too high for a new user, and as I said, he's got no other focus than to get this article deleted, as evidenced by a total lack of editing otherwise. I see no reason to AGF. There's no reason for a new user to have this kind of focus. You want me to assume AGF? CU the user and prove he's not somebody else, because I'm sure he's well aware that he can't be CUed if there's no suspicion of a specific sockmaster. Better yet? Have the user make some other actual contribution to the encyclopedia, and show me he has the least bit of understanding about a single policy, because I haven't seen a single policy-based statement yet. I will AGF when behavior warrants it, and behavior does not warrant it. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- If it's that obvious of a keep, then the AFD will bear that out. When most of the referenced content is a list of what was built there, I get the directory comparison. And the titles of the three sources listed don't actually refer to the arsenal itself - not saying that they don't discuss it, I haven't checked, but if you go by the titles there's not a "History of Suzuka Naval Arsenal" or whatever. So I think I understand why it was nominated. If you've got additional information that might hint at something for an SPI, we can take a look at it - but in the absence of evidence, I don't know what we would do here other than keep an eye on things. There's nothing actionable as such - it's a valid AFD nom. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- To add to that, looking at the AFD... It's running solidly toward a Keep result. So it's not like there's a flawed nomination and multiple editors got suckered into following along - Moon King made reasonable arguments, incited you into providing an additional source, and other editors !voted Keep on the merits. That's precisely how AFD is supposed to work. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Ultraexactzz. I looked over the 3 sources in the article and they're a bit on the weak side. If one searches through the Gbook, there are 4 mentions of Suzuka in the available text and only serve to verify that the statement about the aircraft manufacture and testing. The other 2 sources do the same, verifying the that the machine guns are licensed versions of types manufacture elsewhere. If it weren't for the all Japanese source that MSJapan posted at the AFD, I'd be hard pressed to vote keep. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, this. MSJapan decided to take a shot in the dark and accuse me of being the puppeteer of Moon King, with little or no basis for that except that we frequent AfD and edit within the same 18-hour period of the day. The discussion was closed as disruptive and groundless; anybody could easily tell Moon King and I are two different people. When I look at MSJapan's behavior, I'm seeing flashes of recent attempts he made to have User:Kvng sanctioned (though some of Kvng's edits were considered questionable, there was never any stomach for the sanctions MSJapan repeatedly pushed for). While MSJapan does make sensible contributions from time to time, he has a troubling history of attempting to punish those with whom he disagrees. pbp 16:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @MSJapan:, any comment? Filing SPIs like this, with no evidence and no real indication of AGF, is problematic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be blunt. I looked at it, and the tone and focus of the users on particular points in a discussion, as well as the edit timing of both users (within the span of a few minutes at times) looked pretty plausible to me. They both evade questions pretty much the same way, too. Now, if the CU I had asked for in the first place had been done for an obvious sock, I wouldn't have to "guess" to try to get some action, but I was left no choice. There is no AGF when a new user does nothing but focus on an AfD to the extent of not even bothering to participate in the outside world of the encyclopedia - it's classic sock behavior.
- @MSJapan:, any comment? Filing SPIs like this, with no evidence and no real indication of AGF, is problematic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're seriously going to tell me that some random person randomly saw my article on Suzuka Naval Arsenal, and that was his magic shining moment where he decided to "get involved" and rather than edit it to make it better, this "new user" decides AfD is the way to go for "the betterment of the encyclopedia", despite never having used AfD before. Then, instead of reading the AfD instructions, he decided to go get an AfD script, despite not having ever registered here before to know we had scripts, finds the js and css, puts together an AfD out of order (thus by hand) in about 20 minutes, also despite having never done it before? Really? Doesn't sound plausible when put that way, does it? Not only that, when he gets to AfD, he has no policy-based reason to send it to AfD, and then apparently needs me to explain sources to him. I explain the sources, and he refuses to accept the explanation - it's a directory, not because it is, but because he thinks it is. So at what point does it take for somebody to go "Gee, this is a bit weird, isn't it?" That's what I have a problem with - it is obvious this is a bad-faith sock with a personal ax to grind, and it's being ignored for no reason apparent to me. If the community doesn't want to follow its own rules, that's fine, but last time I checked, a bad-faith AfD was disruptive editing, sockpuppetry wasn't allowed, and people weren't allowed to lie their way out of things when the truth was obvious. If I'm totally mistaken, let me know, and I certainly won't expect anyone to do anything I ask ever again. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laying on the melodrama a bit thick don't you think?Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. I've been here a long time; it has only been recently that I really feel like it's pulling teeth trying to get any sort of remedy unless it's an open-and-shut case where it's a major problem like NLT, suicide threat, etc. Other than that, no matter what's presented as evidence or how obvious that evidence is, editor conduct is not being addressed like it used to be. It's not just me, either; I've seen plenty of users reported here three and four times for the same thing, and nobody does a thing about it despite the same complaints coming up. These complaints are often from different people, so it's not like it's always one person or the cabal. If a report was made, someone looked at it, and something was usually done one way or the other. Now we have threads with no response for days, and all of a sudden we have a preponderance of sock farms, COI, and other editor misbehavior that somehow nobody ever noticed before, and it often affects dozens of articles before someone notices. It can't all be griping when different people bring up the same problem independently. In short, I think we're letting a lot of things go (administratively speaking), in the hope that they will resolve on their own, and they don't. I'll avoid the laundry list, but it really does beg the question of "why should I even bother asking for help", doesn't it? There's clearly been a paradigm shift somewhere, even though the status quo is that nothing has changed, and maybe that's the problem. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- MSJapan, while this may be a troublesome editor, you majorly goofed by thinking he was me. Your article's going to get kept, isn't it? And if you're worried about this editor, try to get him on conduct, not socking. If he's an SPA, he'll leave when the AfD is over, and if he's just a general nuisance, you can get him later. pbp 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, MSJapan, it occurs to me that Moon King may be upset about the topic rather than about you. Regardless, if you create ANI threads that come off as punishing people for disagreeing with you, you're probably not going to get much of anywhere. pbp 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Try to get him"? ... "get him later"? An interesting, illuminating couple of suggested approaches to the realities of collegial editing as you see them... Begoon talk 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- What can I say, @Begoon:, except that MSJapan has a history of trying to "get" people. He tried to "get" me because he I thought I was Moon King. And, at least when this was posted, there was a fair amount of evidence that Moon King was a disruptive SPA, though I've gone through his edit history of late and he does appear to now be turning to interests other than the AfD. BTW, the AfD has been closed as Keep. Perhaps it's time to close this as well with no action taken except an admonition to MSJapan not to use SPIs to fish. pbp 13:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Try to get him"? ... "get him later"? An interesting, illuminating couple of suggested approaches to the realities of collegial editing as you see them... Begoon talk 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. I've been here a long time; it has only been recently that I really feel like it's pulling teeth trying to get any sort of remedy unless it's an open-and-shut case where it's a major problem like NLT, suicide threat, etc. Other than that, no matter what's presented as evidence or how obvious that evidence is, editor conduct is not being addressed like it used to be. It's not just me, either; I've seen plenty of users reported here three and four times for the same thing, and nobody does a thing about it despite the same complaints coming up. These complaints are often from different people, so it's not like it's always one person or the cabal. If a report was made, someone looked at it, and something was usually done one way or the other. Now we have threads with no response for days, and all of a sudden we have a preponderance of sock farms, COI, and other editor misbehavior that somehow nobody ever noticed before, and it often affects dozens of articles before someone notices. It can't all be griping when different people bring up the same problem independently. In short, I think we're letting a lot of things go (administratively speaking), in the hope that they will resolve on their own, and they don't. I'll avoid the laundry list, but it really does beg the question of "why should I even bother asking for help", doesn't it? There's clearly been a paradigm shift somewhere, even though the status quo is that nothing has changed, and maybe that's the problem. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laying on the melodrama a bit thick don't you think?Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're seriously going to tell me that some random person randomly saw my article on Suzuka Naval Arsenal, and that was his magic shining moment where he decided to "get involved" and rather than edit it to make it better, this "new user" decides AfD is the way to go for "the betterment of the encyclopedia", despite never having used AfD before. Then, instead of reading the AfD instructions, he decided to go get an AfD script, despite not having ever registered here before to know we had scripts, finds the js and css, puts together an AfD out of order (thus by hand) in about 20 minutes, also despite having never done it before? Really? Doesn't sound plausible when put that way, does it? Not only that, when he gets to AfD, he has no policy-based reason to send it to AfD, and then apparently needs me to explain sources to him. I explain the sources, and he refuses to accept the explanation - it's a directory, not because it is, but because he thinks it is. So at what point does it take for somebody to go "Gee, this is a bit weird, isn't it?" That's what I have a problem with - it is obvious this is a bad-faith sock with a personal ax to grind, and it's being ignored for no reason apparent to me. If the community doesn't want to follow its own rules, that's fine, but last time I checked, a bad-faith AfD was disruptive editing, sockpuppetry wasn't allowed, and people weren't allowed to lie their way out of things when the truth was obvious. If I'm totally mistaken, let me know, and I certainly won't expect anyone to do anything I ask ever again. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm done with my AGF. The editor(Moon King) is clearly being pointy and disruptive now. PRODed and then AfDed an article I created because I warned them about edit warring. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I nominated the articles because they are non notable. I came upon them because of our discussion. It had nothing to do with the minor misunderstanding we had.--Moon King (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- How did you come upon the articles "because of our discussion"? We didn't have any prior discussion about the article or show me the diffs if we had.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- This comment shows that you are simply being disruptive or wasting others time. I will caution you as it is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE/WP:CIR territory. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is wrong with nominating similar articles in one AFD? Seems efficient to me. --Moon King (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you read that comment twice you would find what is so wrong in it - but you apparently you don't realise. This is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE or a WP:CIR. I'm going to stop posting as this is simply a waste of time and totally disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Lemongirl942, MoonKing's behaviour on the AfD is tending rapidly towards WP:Battleground behaviour (dispute with another editor and holding a grudge for no apparent reason). Going after a series of articles just because one editor created them. Your allegation that you learned about Pulau Saigon after talking to Lemongirl942 on your talk page is also false, you stalked her edits to do so. On top of that, you outright admit to stalking another editor's edits "You have brought yourself to my attention, I examined your edits, found that particular article, and determined that that particular article is not notable" and then on the actual AfD "I would like to include Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island in this AFD as well." seems awfully like you're breaching WP:WIKIHOUND as per; "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I suggest you desist quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- So now that the same thing has happened twice, not to mention that the edit Moon King made initially at Sun King that triggered the edit war was not only [contrary to policy] as well as pointless (it substituted one redirect to the same article for another redirect to the same article), is it a little more plausible why I didn't AGF in the first place? I brought the issue here so it could be dealt with, not so that it could spread, as it clearly has. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- The edit on the Sun King was to avoid a redirect. the Beatles is not a redirect and is linked that way in every Beatles article. This was explained here. Your decision to start an edit war over this was an extension of your campaign of bad faith as was your improper rollback of a legitimate edit I made. --Moon King (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Patar knight suggested I avoid AFD for a time. I will honor his suggestion. In the meantime, I am writing an article in my sandbox. --Moon King (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- In light of your recent comment and your disruptive AfDs and a severe case of WP:IDHT, I am politely asking you to drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- So now that the same thing has happened twice, not to mention that the edit Moon King made initially at Sun King that triggered the edit war was not only [contrary to policy] as well as pointless (it substituted one redirect to the same article for another redirect to the same article), is it a little more plausible why I didn't AGF in the first place? I brought the issue here so it could be dealt with, not so that it could spread, as it clearly has. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Lemongirl942, MoonKing's behaviour on the AfD is tending rapidly towards WP:Battleground behaviour (dispute with another editor and holding a grudge for no apparent reason). Going after a series of articles just because one editor created them. Your allegation that you learned about Pulau Saigon after talking to Lemongirl942 on your talk page is also false, you stalked her edits to do so. On top of that, you outright admit to stalking another editor's edits "You have brought yourself to my attention, I examined your edits, found that particular article, and determined that that particular article is not notable" and then on the actual AfD "I would like to include Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island in this AFD as well." seems awfully like you're breaching WP:WIKIHOUND as per; "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I suggest you desist quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you read that comment twice you would find what is so wrong in it - but you apparently you don't realise. This is tending towards WP:NOTTHERE or a WP:CIR. I'm going to stop posting as this is simply a waste of time and totally disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is wrong with nominating similar articles in one AFD? Seems efficient to me. --Moon King (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, all using WP:ANI. I must first be apologetic about length of evidence following. Without it, I am thinking you will not be appreciating seriousness of problems being caused by User:Adamsmith. In short, he is a most disrespectful editor who shows complete disregard for other users and for process. I am taking the view that he is disruptive and this I am thinking is being done deliberately, certainly without any due care or respect. I am recommending that he is being blocked as an incompetent and untrustworthy editor. The points below are illustrating my argument and again I must be apologising for the length of this report.
- Denver Pioneers – claiming that it cited no sources (the one line of text was cited) and that it is needing expert attention. The latest update by User:MisterCake only TWO MINUTES earlier and, if he had taken time to check out MisterCake, he would be finding that MisterCake IS AN EXPERT on College Football (I have GA reviewed one of his articles). These tags were placed indiscriminately without any due care and attention, without any respect being shown to the article editor.
- Bangladesh national under-23 cricket team – claiming that the article has no citations, no categories and needs copyediting. None of these claims being true, article already had four citations and two categories. No copyediting needed at all, article clearly marked as a stub and nothing wrong with the narrative.
- 2016 King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes – claiming that it is an orphan (untrue), has no sources (untrue) and fails GNG (untrue, it is a major sportinmg event). Tag being immediately removed by experienced editor User:Tigerboy1966 who commented, "removed tag, it is referenced and notable and its not an orphan". The tag was again indiscriminate with no due care taken and no respect shown to the editor.
- 1955 English Greyhound Derby – claiming that the article lacks citations and fails GNG. It had FOUR citations and it does meet GNG as a major sporting event. Again, lack of care and no respect being shown to a good editor.
- application to be a pending changes reviewer – this being correctly refused owing to "quality concerns".
- TSBD – adding multiple issue tags wanting citations on a disambiguation page being clearly marked as such. This shows an appalling lack of care and of understanding about the purpose of disamabiguation pages.
- Musalman (Pakistani film) – demanding additional citations for a stub already having a citation for its main line of text. Article subsequently "cleanup" by User:JakeR, I am wondering why AdamSmith does not be doing cleanups himself, this would be helping project, Musalman tag being good example of AdamSmith breaching WP:NEWBIES, author of article being User:Nomi brother, only 25 edits.
- David Adolfo Flores Valladares – applying a {{stub}} tag to an article of 6.7kb size with introduction and two main sections of narrative. Again, an unbelievable lack of understanding about article status. He should not be applying stub tags indiscriminately like this when it is clear he has no understanding of what is a WP:STUB.
- Tošic – again claiming "no citations", there being three and it is another disambiguation page though, to be fair, there was no disambig label at that time.
- talk page message – he is here saying "I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Form 1040, and have un-reviewed it again". There being a few examples of these messages. He is not providing rationale for "un-reviewed it again". Is he knowing what he is doing, does he have authority to "un-review" someone else?
- Drag show – claiming that it is an orphan and lacking citation. There is one citation for whole paragraph (it is another stub) and I am not knowing how he can say it is an orphan if he is not even bothering to check "What Links Here", there being a long list there. It is most decidedly not an orphan and again I must be questioning his care taken and his competence.
- Dalarna University College – unnecessary use of the refimprove tag, article being short and with three citations where most needing
- Electric drill – claiming there are no citations. It is a single-paragraph stub having two citations already. Again, indiscriminate tagging and lack of due care being disrespectful to a good author.
- Namrata Sapkota – inserting Facebook links, afterwards being reverted by BOT.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aayush Rimal – had introduced this article, now deleted, that was "Clearly a promotional article. It looks like it was written by the subject himself". Self-promotion?
- Massage Abu Dhabi Services – subject to speedy deletion for "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, etc."
- Prakash Neupane ( Lil' G ) – subject to speedy deletion for WP:CCS
- Girish Khatiwada – subject to speedy deletion for WP:CCS
- Girish Khatiwada (Rapper) – subject to speedy deletion for WP:CCS and please to note that this is same subject as one above, slightly different title, being reintroduced only two weeks after first one deleted.
- Finally, though it being perhaps a minor point, why is he using both User:Adamsmith and User:AdamSmith12?
Once more, I must be apologising for length of this evidence. I am considering that to be trying to sum up in one short paragraph would not be getting the message across. There is above overwhelming evidence that this being an incompetent editor, being at turns disruptive and showing lack of respect to other editors through failure to be utilising WP:Page Curation discriminately and with due care. Yet this also being a person who is wilfully introducing promotional material and is having complete disregard for the speedy deletion process too.
Sadly, I must be recommending that this user be blocked for what is amounting to disruptive editing. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- We've had plenty of socking from Nepalese editors recently. Muffled Pocketed 11:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- My experience with AdamSmith12 (see above) made me think s/he was just clueless and over-zealous (and we were all clueless once, right?). But looking at the rest of the examples it seems pretty obvious that s/he is just being disruptive. Tigerboy1966 11:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- First of all thank you very much for taking time out for writing it all. I have to admit and have to say that your articles do not have proper citation. I have went through each and every articles of yours where not even used proper citation as a topic needed and most of them seems like a fake too. I would love to have constructive debate about it and i hereby appealed to every administrator take a part on it. I have no problem with you as a person but the debate you presented is not seems that way. anyway, as you have brought up the issue up to here, i need to say few things about your articles if you are a good writer or GA rated writer you would not even write poor articles like that and those articles certainly need proper attention from every one. Dear please do a proper research before you present your articles on Wikipedia. I mean those articles certainly having poor citation that is why i had to give that tag on them. if you wish to improve your article or writing skills you wouldn't be here writing all these fake story. anyway i am out from here i wish to not to debate anymore as all the above whatever you have presented is not even true. good luck to you and thanks for being so rude on this platform by putting up all those poor articles.AdamSmith12 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked for 72 hours. Not at all, User:AdamSmith12, I checked out the above and it is true. You have added a lot of inappropriate tags and created quite a few unacceptable promotional articles, without apparently learning anything from the previous ones being speedied. Your comment above, with the "thanks for being so rude" etc, is unacceptable too. I have blocked both your accounts, User:Adamsmith indefinitely since you haven't used it since 2014, and User:AdamSmith12, the account you use, for 72 hours for disruptive editing. I have trouble getting my head round the mess of redirects around your userpages, caused partly by a number of previous usernames. It's not a problem that you've changed your name a few times, but it's certainly a problem that he userpages for User:AdamSmith12, which is the account you actually use, absurdly redirect to User:Adamsmith, which you don't use. I'm tempted to reverse the redirects, but I'm not sure I understand the whole nest of redirects (involving also User:Nepaliwriter123 and User:Rajusharmaofc. Perhaps you can explain it. Thank you for the report, Nazcheema. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
- It is unbelievable to be reading the above. It is absurd to be suggesting that I have been creating hoax articles and that my articles are not having citations, it is so absurd that I can only be laughing and cannot be finding it insulting because it being just so ridiculous. Most of my recently created articles are only stubs, I am organising a task force and needing to create many new articles, for reasons of time they are tending to be stubs. For now. But I can be assuring everyone that all are being genuine subjects and having citations from reliable cricket sources.
- I am still learning much about the site and wondering if all these name changes amount to sockpuppetry and with the comment by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi above that there has been socking by Nepalese editors. Could this Adamsmith be running more than one Nepalese account?
- It is seeming that this is closed now. I wish to be thanking each of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Tigerboy1966 and Bishonen for your help, much appreciated. Thank you, all. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nazcheema, don't worry about the accusations. The post by Adam Smith is quite unconvincing in several ways, so it does no harm to your reputation. (Admins get told worse on a daily basis!) As for the different usernames, it looks to me as if he has changed his username in good order; the userpages have been redirected by admins. It's just a mess, that's all. Currently he has the two AdamSmith accounts, but he is only using one of them. I've indeffed the other one, just to make sure he doesn't get confused and start using it, but I've no reason to suspect socking. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
- It did this similarly on my talk page say its unrewiewed but don't worry, just patrol new pages correctly. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 16:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again, Bishonen. I noticed the message on your talk page, KGirlTrucker81, and am glad it is not a problem for you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 17:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- It did this similarly on my talk page say its unrewiewed but don't worry, just patrol new pages correctly. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 16:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nazcheema, don't worry about the accusations. The post by Adam Smith is quite unconvincing in several ways, so it does no harm to your reputation. (Admins get told worse on a daily basis!) As for the different usernames, it looks to me as if he has changed his username in good order; the userpages have been redirected by admins. It's just a mess, that's all. Currently he has the two AdamSmith accounts, but he is only using one of them. I've indeffed the other one, just to make sure he doesn't get confused and start using it, but I've no reason to suspect socking. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
Unwarranted reversion and failure to collaborate[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently I started to check the notes of WWII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, subdividing the work in five tranches, which I completed after some days. At that point Bgwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intervened in WWII talk page emphasizing that I was changing the notes' style and, in addition, putting some errors on the page (he noted three but in fact there were five errors: three missing <ref> tags, one typo, “sf” instead of “sfn”, and one missing vertical bar in an {{sfn}} short note). These errors are quite easily corrigible, and I would have expected Bgwhite to provide to it himself or to alert me to do so, as this is the usual editors' behavior. I would anyway found out these errors after a short while, being used to perform a diff after check, as I did in the third tranche, finding one error. Instead Bgwhite's attitude was quite different: the last two tranches of my work were reverted, so that the page was returned to a “version without errors”, as Bgwhite put it; in fact the page was returned to a version with:[214]
- more than one hundred erroneous, because unnecessary, occurrences of <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>, with a proportional amount of wasted bytes (quite important in an heavy page like this, ~220,000 bytes), which I had substituted with {{sfn}},
- 11 missing {{pn}}, which I had added,
- many unimproved citations, which I did take care of,
- one double full book citation (in Citations and in References), one of which I had substituted with a short note,
- one long quote regarding “assault rifle” which repeated text fully visible in the linked website, and absolutely irrelevant in an high level page like this, which I had removed from the note.
Isn't just absurd Bgwhite's request that, for these changes to be accepted, a preemptive discussion is needed? This is hyperburocratism. There is also an ethical question: the use of reverting without reason. There was no change in notes' style (it always was of the short note type with link to the full reference, before and after my changes), and after Bgwhite's reversion the page was left in a lesser, not better, state than before. On a more general level, I need to know if normal people like myself are still allowed to participate to the WP effort, which ought to be of a collaborative kind. Carlotm (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why is this thread here? What are you looking to accomplish with it? Doc talk 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm, I think you mean citations since there are only two notes for the article. Currently there are four columns rather than five. Note, the call for a discussion is required especially for such a large and high profile article. Now, since this is a content dispute it doesn't belong at AN/I unless you can demonstrate that it is tied to behavioural issues. Follow the rules of WP:BRD, bold edit, if its reverted move on to discuss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, here I am searching to know if reverting without cause and lack of a collaborative effort are unlawful or accepted/tolerated behaviors.Carlotm (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm The revert was not without cause, refer to WP:CITEVAR which recommends that you don't try to change the citation style without first consulting the talk page for discussion (especially on high traffic, high volume, and high profile pages). To quote CITEVAR; "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If there were errors in the references after Bgwhite reverted you, then those need to be fixed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, surely you are aware that both
<ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>and{{sfn}}are used in the same short author-date citation style to solve two different situations, the former being necessary to bundle multiple short citations into a single footnote. In WWII page all the short citations used<ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>markup even when it was not necessary and, as such, erroneous. My work was eminently about changing this erroneous, or if you will, inappropriate, because it consumes bytes for no reasons, situation. There was no change in citation style, rather a correction within the same citation style context. I even got thanks from Nick-D, who would not have done so if I had showed contempt for WP:CITEVAR. Carlotm (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, surely you are aware that both
- Carlotm The revert was not without cause, refer to WP:CITEVAR which recommends that you don't try to change the citation style without first consulting the talk page for discussion (especially on high traffic, high volume, and high profile pages). To quote CITEVAR; "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If there were errors in the references after Bgwhite reverted you, then those need to be fixed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, here I am searching to know if reverting without cause and lack of a collaborative effort are unlawful or accepted/tolerated behaviors.Carlotm (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm, I think you mean citations since there are only two notes for the article. Currently there are four columns rather than five. Note, the call for a discussion is required especially for such a large and high profile article. Now, since this is a content dispute it doesn't belong at AN/I unless you can demonstrate that it is tied to behavioural issues. Follow the rules of WP:BRD, bold edit, if its reverted move on to discuss it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
AN/I is not the place to solve which ref style will be used in a talk page. Please discuss this on the talk page in question itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Magioladitis, is not about content, is not about ref styles. As I already wrote, the question is if reverting without cause and demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate are behaviors deemed to be celebrated or to be disapproved. Carlotm (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm "But it seems you don't care much about that" your presumption of bad faith here is the most worrying thing written on the talk page of the WWII article. Now you presume that Bgwhite refuses to collaborate because he asked that you have a plan of action before you try implementing it on the article and reach a consensus on whether this change is needed. Is it absolutely necessary to have wide consensus, no I don't think so if all it's doing is saving bytes of space then that ought to be fine without consensus, except that is not the only thing being changed as Bgwhite and Nick-D have noted. Taking Bgwhite to AN/I for this minor friction will go nowhere, no action is going to be taken because none can be taken. You haven't demonstrated that Bgwhite is unwilling to collaborate and you also haven't demonstrated that his reversion of your edits was needless, it introduced a few errors, fix them and then re-implement it. If Bgwhite reverts you again, take it to the talk page. If that fails, then get some outside opinion (Nick-D has already given theirs for example). If all else fails, then and only then bring it to AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that this matter is resolved: over a week ago Bgwhite reverted the changes and started a discussion on the talk page largely on procedural grounds. I've supported the changes, and no-one else has raised any concerns, so they can be re-added with any necessary fixes made. Any further discussion would best belong at Talk:World War II#borked up refs (rude title courtesy Bgwhite) as this is a discussion over article content. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- When people play with rules as they please, a “law and disorder” environment is privileged, and productivity goes down, down, down. Carlotm (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Coming to AN/I with any problem (justified or not) causes an immediate drop in productivity (for all involved). As far as the above discussion has illustrated, there has been no playing with the rules only playing by the rules. You made an edit, Bgwhite reverted on the grounds that it caused errors, and now we're here. Content dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Exclusion from discussion[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AlexTheWhovian has been reverting several editors working on Quantico (TV series) over the past several days: [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], most having to do with a list of episodes. I came across this looking at recent changes and reverted one of Alex's reverts suggesting in the edit summary "Massive reversion like this should be discussed first" so Alex reverted yet again still with no discussion on the talk page. Note that I have no contributions to this article. @Elainasla: took the issue up on Alex's talk page and I joined the discussion. After asking Alex for the specifics of his justification and waiting more than 24 hours without a response from Alex, I reverted Alex's reversion a final time (there will be no more from me) asserting that consensus is against his reversion in the edit summary and continued discussion on his talk page.
Since then, Alex has told me that I may not participate in this discussion twice [221] and [222]. We can talk about edit warring and content disputes all day, but nobody is allowed to unilaterally exclude comments on a content dispute like this.
I should also point out that there was a brief discussion on my talk page which I closed to consolidate it all in one place. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- AlexTheWhovian notified Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Already done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Definitely completely stopped you. And I'm allowed to exclude who I wish on my talk page. If you required an even discussion, you should have opened it on the Quantico talk page. This is just the actions of a disgruntled editor who, when faced with the mistakes he did on the page, knew he had done wrong but attempted to turn it onto another editor. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- My first edit on this article was inviting you to discuss your reversions on the article talk page but you kept reverting instead. The discussion was opened in your talk page by Elainasla and you've asked the community to join there [223] [224]. If you want a community discussion, you can't exclude folks you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Admins. Note that the user at hand refuses to confront their mistakes while editing, all the while knowing what they have done, and yet continues to turn the focus onto other editors. Such behaviour is atrocious when attempting to create such an encyclopedia. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- My first edit on this article was inviting you to discuss your reversions on the article talk page but you kept reverting instead. The discussion was opened in your talk page by Elainasla and you've asked the community to join there [223] [224]. If you want a community discussion, you can't exclude folks you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Definitely completely stopped you. And I'm allowed to exclude who I wish on my talk page. If you required an even discussion, you should have opened it on the Quantico talk page. This is just the actions of a disgruntled editor who, when faced with the mistakes he did on the page, knew he had done wrong but attempted to turn it onto another editor. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This escalated much faster than it should have and it doesn't belong here. I don't approve of user talk page banning, but the practice is permitted or at least condoned. Main idea: MOS:TVCAST outlines two ways to display cast information and neither is a table. I'm not a MOS regular nor a participant in the TV project but that seems conclusive. The MOS doesn't have the force of policy but edit-warring against is a bad idea unless there's a really great reason to. The proper place to discuss this would seem to be Talk:Quantico (TV series). Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mackensen. Does that answer all of your concerns, Toddst1? Alex|The|Whovian? 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not at all. What is your aversion for discussion on your part? Mackensen is right that this should have been discussed on the talk page. Being right or wrong is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's almost like I suggested that it should have been discussed there. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And yet none of which you actually did until it got dragged here and dragged here for good reason. You still have not commented on the talk page. We recently had another editor go through a similar sequence with the edit warring, refusals to discuss the issue sensibly on the article talk page, bans of editors on their user talk page and continued reversions and the general consensus there was "even if you are right, WP:DICK applies as does WP:AGF which includes actually telling people what in the world you're thinking." In the future, I suggest that (a) you actually use the talk page as it is intended and (b) you not cause these pointless reports to be created by putting forth a bit more effort than "you're banned on my talk page and I won't explain to you why but trust me, I'm right." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Amen to that, brother. Luckily, I didn't ban anyone. Reports like these are a waste of good admin time. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the report is entirely an unfortunate but appropriate use of time. It is you who created a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Amen to that, brother. Luckily, I didn't ban anyone. Reports like these are a waste of good admin time. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And yet none of which you actually did until it got dragged here and dragged here for good reason. You still have not commented on the talk page. We recently had another editor go through a similar sequence with the edit warring, refusals to discuss the issue sensibly on the article talk page, bans of editors on their user talk page and continued reversions and the general consensus there was "even if you are right, WP:DICK applies as does WP:AGF which includes actually telling people what in the world you're thinking." In the future, I suggest that (a) you actually use the talk page as it is intended and (b) you not cause these pointless reports to be created by putting forth a bit more effort than "you're banned on my talk page and I won't explain to you why but trust me, I'm right." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that, 1) WP:TVCAST does not "ban" the use of cast tables, and 2) only a subset of WP:TV editors want to "ban" them (i.e. using them or not using them is thus "controversial", and is not a "settled" question). As to the specific circumstances, I'd rather not comment, as I already have a conflict with the editor named in this report, and consider myself tangentially "involved". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You already have commented, and recommended the removal of at least one table, and the moving of both. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's almost like I suggested that it should have been discussed there. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, not at all. What is your aversion for discussion on your part? Mackensen is right that this should have been discussed on the talk page. Being right or wrong is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion started at: Talk:Quantico (TV series)#Cast table. (This is how it's supposed to be done, folks!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Luis Suazo has been a major disruption on the page about Borja Mayoral. He twice [225] [226] removed sourced information of the subject playing for Real Madrid, without any reason. I went to his talk page to try to discuss, he went to mine and just called me a swear word. That alone should be evidence of WP:NOTHERE.
Luis Suazo continues to make unsourced, unexplained edits to the page. He has now reached a halfway house of instead of denying the player ever played for Real Madrid, now saying that he no longer plays for them. I'm getting rather tired of this uncooperation and his lame personal attack against me really means I can not assume good faith or human error. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've warned the editor using {{uw-npa4im}} with Twinkle. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the swear word was several days ago (July 5). I apologized to the user for the late warning on my user page, but I didn't apologize for warning him. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, is there a point at which a conviction is "spent"? I could stomach at first an edit warrior calling me a swear word, but then he returned to the same article and made the same uncooperative edits. That's why I had to come to ANI '''tAD''' (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's no exact cut off when a "conviction" is considered spent, especially for once off occurrences. For a once off personal attack, about a week is probably a reasonable period after which it shouldn't be held over the "perpetrator's" head, particularly if they've acknowledged that they should not do it again. However editors with long histories of attacking other editors, then incidents that date back months even years can be used as evidence of a pattern. Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, is there a point at which a conviction is "spent"? I could stomach at first an edit warrior calling me a swear word, but then he returned to the same article and made the same uncooperative edits. That's why I had to come to ANI '''tAD''' (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the swear word was several days ago (July 5). I apologized to the user for the late warning on my user page, but I didn't apologize for warning him. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Mogomaniac[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mogomaniac (talk · contribs)
Quick perusal of this user's contributions and talkpage (currently [227], with lots of diffs there in the last few sections) give a large history of edit warring to include unsourced information, uncivil behavior, and blatant vandalism. They don't seem to have learned from an AE block from May (which is pretty obvious from the unblock request itself), and have continued the same behavior on articles such as 2016 Munich shootings, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, Melania Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. The user also doesn't seem to want to discuss any of their edits, with no recent edits to article talk pages and only one edit to their own talk page despite the number of warnings there. I think this editor, despite the small amount of good that they've done recently, is pretty much WP:NOTHERE. ansh666 00:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Not watching, ping to notify me please.
As said by Ansh666, this user tried to twice minutes after said section was started, and without giving any rationale, pretty much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Before that, when warned by Majora about disruptive editing ([230] [231] [232] [233]) on the United States presidential election, 2016 article, this was all the user had to say. Then, the user has a small history of disruptive editing at the 2016 Munich shootings article, aggressively removing sourced information ([234] [235]). He/She has also repeatedly moved the article's title many times in a short time-span without even discussing it on the talk page first ([236] [237] [238]). When I moved the article to a suitable temporary title (I could not move it back to the original title at the moment), the user simply moved it back to titles he/she already used, again without talk page discussions ([239] [240]). This is all I know right now. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- In all fairness, half of their edit to the US election page was fine (just unsourced but true nonetheless). The other half, however, was not. Just wanted to point that out. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, he was (half-)right...but we require properly cited sources - not just an edit-summary-"IT WAS CONFIRMED ON CNN". From the talk page history, this is something that Mogomaniac has had trouble grasping. ansh666 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is true. Just wanted to say that since I believe my level 3 warning might have been a little harsh. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, with a history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, I doubt nothing would be harsh to a user like that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is true. Just wanted to say that since I believe my level 3 warning might have been a little harsh. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, he was (half-)right...but we require properly cited sources - not just an edit-summary-"IT WAS CONFIRMED ON CNN". From the talk page history, this is something that Mogomaniac has had trouble grasping. ansh666 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh. It seems like this guy has stopped editing altogether. Did he rage-quit and leave? Parsley Man (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- That which edits twice as fast as most on the most aggressive topics tends to burn bright half as long. Someone more concerned about "being right" and using themself as a source is going to trend a certain way. Hopefully the lesson is learned and it's not "blank the ANI discussion". - Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I move for a close on this discussion. It's pretty clear Mogomaniac won't be a problem at least in the foreseeable future, given he/she has been inactive for the past few days. Parsley Man (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sea Lions Not ![edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am re-starting Guy Macon's topic as I am the person at the top of the list of accused sea lions and only just got to read it and it is now closed. I was on a plane at that exact time going away from computers and only just got back to find that the sea lion topic seems to have resulted in the NPOV topic I started also being closed. Which means the real issue is still not being addressed, which is a clear NPOV issue. The sea lion topic revisted below.
I have limited time on computers so please be patient with my slow response time. In my opinion the editors at the "electronic harassment" are in clear violation of NPOV. All I and others, who have been accused of sea lioning, are doing is disagreeing with them. The NPOV issue:
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_dispute_in_.22electronic_harassment.22
How is it that an undeclared person can turn up and close the NPOV topic without giving reason and without discussion? It should be turned back on so the content question which I put in the appropriate place can be dealt with. The editors block at the "electronic harassment" article have not put up any defense of their position on that. It is not a question of giving equal weight to the claims of TIs and the psychiatric opinion for starters. TIs have very little weight, only a claim that most would not accept as possible. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let me make this very clear: NO. WP:UNDUE is policy. WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE are also relevant guidelines here. TIs will be given no weight, because the best reliable sources give them no weight. The discussions were closed just fine. Drop the stick. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree 100%, Someguy1221. To further answer Jed's direct questions: Firstly, uninvolved editors are exactly those who should close discussions. I was uninvolved. I closed the discussion on this board which, after establishing a clear consensus that the NPOV discussion had become circular, pointless and disruptive, had devolved into a rather tangential discussion about the "marine terminology". I then closed the NPOV discussion, with the reason "Asked. Answered...", on the basis of that consensus, the clear policy-based consensus there, and the fact that it had been open for 6 weeks, continually answering the same point - by now disruptive. My advice, Jed, is that you re-read the DS warning on your talk page, because IMO it is very likely the next step proposed may be a topic-ban to prevent the ongoing disruption. Begoon talk 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Jed Stuart, bringing this up once again is classic Sea Lion behavior. Administrators, if Jed does not drop the stick now, after multiple warnings, then I strongly suggest a topic ban to limit further disruption to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You wont have to ban me I will volunteer to leave entirely because Wikipedia is not continuing with its policy "do not state opinions as facts". I have read the articles that you keep pointing me at and nothing changes the fact that the electronic harassment article is stating the psychiatric opinion as a fact, which is contradictory to how the reliable sources have described the issue. Only one has stated the psychiatric opinion as fact as far as I know and that was the New York Times which more recently wrote up the issue again correcting that error of balance. Wikipedia is a joke if ANI does not insist that the editors dominating that article come up with good reason to change the policy. Maybe there is in this instance but I do not see why. Also, the discussion at NPOV that has been closed was nearly all in support of my opinion and just more of the same garbage from the other side. Guy Macon was the only one making any effort to put a justification for the way the article is. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jed Stuart, bringing this up once again is classic Sea Lion behavior. Administrators, if Jed does not drop the stick now, after multiple warnings, then I strongly suggest a topic ban to limit further disruption to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
-
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sock puppetry and date vandalism[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aliabbashiraqi79 (talk · contribs) is a sockmaster and vandal who specializes in date vandalism to Middle Eastern biographies. These are not heavily watched articles, and it usually takes me a few days to spot each new sock account, though I've now got about 20 Saudi football players on my watchlist. Salehiraqi80 (talk · contribs) is the newest person to go through the same articles and perform the same date vandalism. I filed a sock puppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliabbashiraqi79, but it has sat unexamined for a week. In that time, Salehiraqi80 has continued to change sourced birth dates and add unsourced ones. When it looked liked like the SPI case was going nowhere, I gave him level 3 and 4 warnings for adding unsourced content. His latest edits have continued to add unsourced dates despite the level 4 warning. Could someone please either look at the SPI case (it's short and has diffs) or just block based on the disruption? Thank you. Here are some diffs, in case anyone is too lazy to click on the SPI case: Abu Qatada (Aliabbashiraqi79, Salehiraqi80), Haidar Abdul-Amir (Aliabbashiraqi79, Salehiraqi80), Bassim Abbas (Aliabbashiraqi79, Salehiraqi80). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Maybe you should just ping a checkuser/clerk? Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I blocked for 72 hours for the disruption. I think it's wise to ping a CU like Bbb23 (who ran CU on this cat before). Drmies (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it came about, but someone let Bbb23 go away on holiday for a few days. I've closed the relevant SPI as the account is a confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threatening behavior by user CrashUnderride.[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A75.175.65.141&type=revision&diff=731689659&oldid=731689040 This user falsely claimed that I was "harassing" another user. Actually, that other user had just harassed me, and I responded on his Talk page. Note: This is a recent offshoot of a more complex situation: I am being repeatedly victimized by people, based on editors who act as if they "own" a page, "Dreams From My Father". Fortunately, this matter can be dealt with separately, as this user (Crashunderride) was simply harassing me because I'd complained. 75.175.65.141 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This IP has been warned by users about harassment and this is a way of getting back at User:Crash Underride one of the users who warned them. Judging from their own IP talk page that they have linked for us above, they have been warned by an Admin User: NeilN on said talk page as well for disruptive behavior and harassment of users. This ANI has no merit as there is no evidence of harassment by Crash Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm about to block you for wasting more of people's time (disruptive editing, personal attacks). I'm also going to semi-protect the article, in case you jump to yet another IP (see 216.161.88.111). Drmies (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've decided to adopt this complaint; it looks interesting. The complainant objected to "being repeatedly victimized by people", he then files a WP:ANI complaint, and just a few minutes later he is blocked for no obvious reason, which as I understand it will prevent him from continuing with the complaint. It sure sounds like the harassment he is complaining about. I've already found that user BU Rob13 harassed him and threatened to block him, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.175.65.141&diff=prev&oldid=731677454 One of the comments that BU Rob13 made was "Stop edit warring to reintroduce BLP violations onto the talk page." However, I can't find the BLP violations he's talking about. A good place to start is to ask BU Rob13 what these "BLP violations" are, or why an edit on a Talk page would constitute a BLP violation. 174.25.59.49 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Really??? The only edit this IP has ever done is on this ANI and so happens to be after the other IP was blocked?? This IP as well linked the talk page info which show NO harassment only a warning to disruptive behavior. Drmies you might wanna have a look at this, to odd not to call sockpuppet. [[241]] Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Competence issues, tagteaming and hounding[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Maybeparaphrased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I had first encountered Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased recently during the last ANI about a now blocked editor User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#Exhausted and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#Exhausted_and_Fed_up. Maybeparaphrased was suspected of tagteaming with Fouette and hounding HappyValleyEditor. I now see that Zpeopleheart had joined in as well. HappyValleyEditor has now put up a retired sign and not edited since several days. Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased are now hounding me ever since I got into an argument with Zpeopleheart over here. Ever since then, they have tried to follow me. The reason I'm bringing this to ANI is not simply because of the hounding, but because they both display severe competence issues. Here's an incomplete list.
- Zpeopleheart closing a discussion they were involved in (over the objections of others) and edit warred to close it. Here's the sequence: Z's first close, close reverted by me citing involved, second attempt citing "An admin's wish to close", reverted by Xxanthippe, third attempted closure, reverted by me again. Zpeopleheart also uses blatantly untrue edit summaries to justify their 2nd and 3rd closure - no admin had ever requested to close the discussion.
- Zpeopleheart then decided to "get back at me" and removed a speedy template from [242]. This article btw, was substantially edited by paid editors from the beginning and I was actually trying to explain the COI and paid editing to the latest editor [243] who had started another similar article which I moved to draft Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited to allow an AFC review.
- After speedy was declined, I moved the article to draft space[244] pending clarification of paid editing concerns. Zpeopleheart immediately submitted it for review at AFC [245] and then hilariously moved it to mainspace themselves[246]. Since when do editors accept their own AFC submission?
- Maybeparaphrased seems to have a lack of ability to understand what is notable. (See AfD stats). I tagged an article (created by Zpeopleheart) for speedy A7 [247] and 5 minutes later this was removed by Maybeparaphrased [248] citing "(speedy declined, article asserts signifigance and notability). In addition Maybeparaphrased has never edited the article before, so I find it a bit suspicious that they managed to come and remove the speedy only 5 minutes later. (I do suspect that some offline collusion is happening).
- Maybeparaphrased seems to have a lack of ability to differentiate between A7 and G11. I had tagged the article for G11. Maybeparaphrased declined it [249] (edit summary:Speedy declined again, shows credible claim of significance, take it to AFD if you feel so strongly.) and [250] (edit summary:speedy declined, article asserts signifigance and notability). Zpeopleheart also displays the same characteristic and removed the G11 speedy again:[251] (edit summary:Speedy declined because article asserts a credible claim of significance. In not a single instance was it ever tagged as A7. It was always tagged G11 so I don't understand how can someone remove it multiple times citing an incorrect reason.
- The page in question Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd was also "reviewed" by Maybeparaphrased (even though the page was clearly problematic) due to which I then unreviewed it. This left a message on Maybeparaphrased's talk page and they responded asking me to "BE GONE" [252].
- Zpeopleheart has been accepting AFC submissions even though other more experienced reviewers had expressed concerns over content/notability [253], [254], [255]. I find it strange that an editor whose recent AfD stats indicate a lack of understanding of notability is now reviewing AFC submissions. I also find it weird that Zpeopleheart is allowed to review, considering that they came off after a block of 6 months.
- 2 days after an article had been deleted at AfD (and later draftified), Zeopleheart moved it to mainspace [256]. This was substantially similar to the original version.
- I tagged it for G4 [257],
- this was declined by Mayabeparaphrased [258] with edit summary:speedy delete is declined since new version of article subject has many more added references and is substanially different than a version that was discussed at afd.
- Speedy was restored by K.e.coffman [259] (edit summary:I believe this is reserved for admins -- so restoring, unless I'm completely off)
- again declined by Maybeparaphrased [260] explaining on the next edit "speedy may be declined by a non administrator"
- I reinstate G4 again[261] (edit summary:"Revert. Let an admin decide this please."
- Finally moved to draft by an admin after a discussion is started on their talk page [262] who agreed that the issues were not addressed.
- Both editors are clearly tagteaming and I now noticed an early instance at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Scherman. I find this particularly curious. I mean, the vote doesn't make sense at all. More importantly, Zpeopleheart templated HappyValleyEditor about "not assuming good faith" [263] and then voted this confusing vote [264]. I don't understand what is happening.
- Both editors also keep removing maintenance templates without fixing the problem. They also add back promotional content, move articles unilateraly in violation of MOS Capitalisation and add back unsourced content without providing any citations. (See the history at this article)
- There is some indication that Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased are linked to Fouette. (Zpeopleheart admitted that they are in contact with Fouette and has been instrumental in defending them). I find it weird that they are going to great lengths to defend a clearly problematic editor who is a sock of an editor blocked earlier by community consensus. Btw, Fouette had first come into my radar when they awarded a barnstar to an extemely disruptive sockpuppet.
- There is a current SPI going on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WordSeventeen. Some more information (with respect to suspected socking) maybe available. My main complaint here is however that the editors in question are clearly not competent.
I am now explicitly asking the community to evaluate the evidence. I would like to propose an indefinite block on both Maybeparaphrased and Zpeopleheart (if agreed to, I would actually prefer a ban as WP:REVERTBAN comes into play and it makes it easier to revert clearly questionable editing). This has gone on for long enough and my patience has been exhausted. They have driven one editor off the project and I think it is time to put a stop to it before they drive off any others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Update: They seem to have opened an SPI case against me and several others now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lemongirl942. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I would also like to add that at WordSeventeen's sock puppet case, Zpeopleheart is acting inappropriately. Seemingly anyone who had disagreed with him, he tried to add to the ongoing SPI case, even though there is no real connections between the users. It just shows he is less than willing to collaborate and work with editors if they express a different opinion from his.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support – I fully support Lemongirl942's remarks. I have been following the edits of Zpeopleheart for some time and they are invariably part of a tag team hounding someone. If 1 member is banned then another pops up. (user:WordSeventeen, now banned, user:Jilllyjo sock of WordSeventeen, Fouette (above).) Unfortunately it is difficult to follow the ramifications of the history of these problematic editors. Oculi (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support the proposal up to the ban. I've interacted with both editors, and these interactions have been problematic, and similar to what the OP observed. I'm more concerned that both editors in question frequently move new articles into mainspace. With the issues that are outlined in this ANI, I'm concerned that these articles may be problematic as well. Please see this diff for example. One of the two editors (Zpeople) notifies the user about their article having been accepted, while the previous edit on this page is a warning about COI editing, which is a bit ironic. The other editor (Maybeparaphrased) frequently declines speedy deletion tags, such as in this example of an article previously deleted at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is democraciaAbierta, the main editor is user:FrancescBadia, and the article states "Francesc Badia i Dalmases[9] is Editor/Director of democraciaAbierta". Subtle. Oculi (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- While the ANI is on-going, editor Zpeople removes a speedy deletion tag; pls see diff (already been restored). With zero learning curve, a community ban looks like the only option. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - User:Maybeparaphrased had a good shot at not getting dragged down into this whole mess, but has clearly chosen to not learn from what happened to User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. Neither editor is a net positive to the site, so what needs to be done needs to be done. --Tarage (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment; I think it's worth mentioning that Maybeparaphrased narrowly escaped receiving a block only two weeks ago despite strong calls for a block of up to six months for tag-teaming and harrassment, [265]. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support community ban - might sort things out once and for all here. Hopefully they will find a better hobby after a ban is enforced. Zerotalk 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Maybeparaphrased should have been blocked the previous time, as community consensus was for it. Considering that this user hasn't learned a thing after the previous ANI, an indef block is in order. This harassment will just continue unless Maybeparaphrased is blocked. Zpeople is clearly in communication with Fouette and MaybeParaphrased, and the user's behavior warrants a indef. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The sockpuppet report filed by User:Zpeopleheart is further evidence of what is mentioned above, as it is clearly retaliatory (and obviously unfounded). My interactions with User:Zpeopleheart have been limited so far, but what I've seen has left me unimpressed. I've had less contact with User:Maybeparaphrased, so I can't add any comments about that editor. freshacconci talk to me 12:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support community ban - Looking at the evidence provided above, as well as the previous ANI discussions and the reports filed against other accounts -- I can assert the following:
- Frequent and consistent disruptive behavior have occurred by these users, and to the point that their contributions can be seen as not being a net positive to the project.
- The disruptive behavior has been discussed multiple times by the community, and to a significant extent.
- The users involved have been sufficiently warned about the behavior, and they are aware that they are causing disruption that is ongoing.
- Reasonable, fair, and appropriate actions have been previously imposed in order to prevent further disruption and correct the behavior, and to no avail.
- The disruptive behavior will continue to occur if appropriate sanctions are not imposed by the community.
- A community ban is the logical next step to prevent further disruption to the project, and stop the disruptive behavior.
- I agree that enough is enough, and that (while I absolutely dislike ever having to show somebody the door) it's time to say goodbye and wish these users well in their future volunteer hobbies. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I had opposed any first time block that exceeded a month in that previous discussion with some hope that MBP would take the hint. But they've decided to go entirely the other way. Zpeopleheart's outrageous behaviour is beyond the pale. Thus, Support the ban for both of them. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Community ban - They clearly know what they are doing is wrong. They've been warned and now they've chased away a good editor. Support per Oshwah's analysis and for clear violations of WP:CIR, WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASSMENT. We shouldn't allow these users to create a toxic environment. The fact that they are using WP:SPI as a battle ground for petty vengeance is one of the most concerning things in my opinion. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support a community ban for both. This is a clear example of wiki-hounding and harassment. There's no excuse for this kind of conduct, and this is not an editor that is a net positive for the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support based on the outrageous behavior listed above in conjunction with the frivolous SPI Zpeopleheart has opened here [266]. Obviously, the SPI he filed is in retaliation for this report as well as the SPI filed with him as the suspected sock. I'm not one to go for the ultimate of a ban with users, but his behavior at SPI took it to a whole new level. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support a community ban for both. This is a clear example of wiki-hounding and harassment.They have already chased away one editor and now they are trying to bully another.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Snow support the CBAN, as per all the reasons made cogently and coherently above. Particularly, I am noting how the community's repeated assumptions of good faith have been repeatedly thrown back in our faces. This stops right now.
- I also note that Zpeopleheart has been blocked twice for disrupive editing, the last time for six months, and that Maybeparaphrased only recently escaped a block of similar duration by the skin of. This tells me they are as aware of our procedures as frankly it is possible to be. Muffled Pocketed 17:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support I want to make it clear per my comment above that I support this ban, at least for User:Zpeopleheart. I agree with the points raised by others and I see his/er edits to be disruptive, they add nothing to the project, and his/her interaction with other editors is hostile and petty. I see that the spurious sockpuppet report against Lemongirl942 is now closed (as it should be) and it was clearly bad faith retaliation. freshacconci talk to me 17:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. In the past few days, Zpeopleheart has inappropriately put {{in use}} templates on at least 2 articles and left them up for extended periods of time (~2 days on Frank S. Welsh), here and diffs aren't available for the Welsh article b/c of an unrelated copyvio, causing other editors, myself included, to have to remove them on his behalf. I started following his edits a little more closely after I noticed that he'd placed a bad-faith warning on K.e.coffman's talkpage. Then out of the blue (to me), Maybeparaphrased inappropriately re-inserted an {{in use}} template with a bad faith and absurd edit summary about K.e. being "disruptive" and then reverted K.e.'s good edits and made 3 other minor and blatantly pointless edits, i.e., adding one wikilink, a comma, and to change the template from {{in use}} to {{under construction}}, preventing other editors from working on the article for several hours until Freshacconci finally removed the template today. —PermStrump(talk) 20:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.