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.
Has a history of disruptive edits and pushing an agenda (see their user talk page), adding very little real content. Has today resorted to abusive messages over an editing war onWhite Africans of European ancestry. Have tried to engage on article talk page and on user talk page with little success. --BenBezuidenhout (talk)13:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't the first time a user has had an issue with your edits, your entire user talk page is just you arguing with other users. Your edits add little to no content to these articles and waste our time reverting your vandalism and political ideologies. Please stop --BenBezuidenhout (talk)14:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Untrammeled: From what I can tell, the title has been stable since 2012. Although it was dumb for BenBenzuidenhout to get into a edit war over it instead of seeking help the first time you re-implemented the move, you made an undiscussed bold move and it was reverted. So you need to start aWP:RM and not redo the move without discussion, let alone redo it 3 times. Frankly you're lucky not to be blocked. And so I wouldn't start complaining about other editors if I were you.Nil Einne (talk)14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
It has been stable because people with at least valid thinking weren't engaging it until now, or engaged it and got ignored others from 2008, people get tired of discussing stupidity, do as you pleas, make as if I never changed or talked of that page, what I know not everyone is dumb to dull levels, imagine pushing political agendas while the fact is European immigration to Africa, not such a thing as White African just made up shit worse of all there's no consensus for the term and you think I'm a vandal, funny.Untrammeled (talk)14:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I DGAF why it was stable. It was stable. Therefore any disputed move should have gone toWP:RM. Anything else is besides the point of ANI unless you're asking us to block you. If you're so convinced you're right according to our policies, guidelines and the sources you're able to provide, you should have to courage to prove it via a RM. If you're not willing to use an RM but instead just want to yell at everyone, the obvious conclusion is that you know you will never get consensus. And I never said you were a vandal. I agree that neither of you two edits in relation to this dispute were vandalism, and so it was inappropriate forboth of you to call them so. I considered calling you both out for your incorrect accusations of vandalism earlier, but frankly couldn't be bothered. You'd note I also haven't mention your other uncivil language in the edit summaries.Nil Einne (talk)16:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Wow. Y'all got the page completely locked. Impressive. @BenBezuidenhout:this was not vandalism. Just because you don't agree with another user's contribution doesn't make it vandalism (WP:AGF). Your edit warring and labeling instead of calmy explaining our policies to Untrammeled are the reason you got into this mess. @Untrammeled:this was notWP:CIVIL. Next time just start amove request and followWP:BRD. Even if you think something is common sense, if someone objects to a change then you have to discuss it.(edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖15:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Untrammeled. You are lucky I've been busy and didn't see this until just now. If I had you would have been blocked. You movedBantu peoples in South Africa six or seven times to several different names as you couldn't decide on the correct name. Ending up with the page move protected. You opened three move requests atTalk:Bantu peoples in South Africa all with different names. You made several posts on my talk page while the move requests were in progress saying you had decided what that page was to be called despite me telling you that it was up to the closer and not you or me. When it comes to page moves you are very disruptive. You need to stop moving pages and go directly to a request on the talk page.CambridgeBayWeather,Uqaqtuq (talk),Sunasuttuq17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Facts don't matter hereCambridgeBayWeathe not even the people related to the article, what matters is how an admin FEELS, where is the request moves of White African a made up term, what is White African it overwrote European African based on that it's following something unconfirmed or in consensus, these articles are not of that kind of logic of what's on the right is in the left yet others are allowed, I don't know if it was you who locked in Bantu peoples in South Africa but like a winging person you missed all the facts about these people based on the consensus interest with stupid reasoning you even never looked into the stable term of Bantu speaking before I changed the term as I tried to make it make sense, I admitted peoples was the problem as confused it with people, a meaningful term was found but no admin atleast turned back he article to its previous stable term before I changed it, why, so facts don't matter in Wikipedia what you (admin) FEEL does, you can Block me now see if I give a fuck and I'm interested in deleting this account of mine, please refer this to relevant people or maybe you can universally delete it, make as if I never existed, I'd appreciate it.Untrammeled (talk)18:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked this user. per my rationale on their talk pagehere. I have no prejudice to another administrator overturning it, if this user can show that they intend to communicate and edit in a collegial manner. --Kinut/c19:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a pity that it has come to this, but a block seems nesessary to stop the incivility and personal attacks. I have encounteredUser:Untrammeled before atRacism in South Africa, which, before this editor came along, was in a pretty sorry state, but their insistence first on getting the page deleted and then getting it renamed detracted from the important issue there, which was improving an article on what is a very important topic that Wikipedia should cover.@Untrammeled: you should abandon this batteground mentality that believes that the English Wikipedia is some sort of conspiracy by white Europeans and North Americans to distort history. It is not, even though it is true that most editing here is done by people who meet that description, so if you work collaboratively by talking with others rather than try to impose your own views by edit-warring you can be part of the solution.Phil Bridger (talk)20:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree - not all his edits were disruptive. He had a real nose for sniffing out the often real racial bias in articles. If only he didn't try to fight everybody but work collaboratively.Francoisdjvr (talk)10:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User edit warring with bots/users to revert images to oversized, nonWP:NFC compliant versions, despite repeated requests to start a discussion in the proper place if they wish to attempt to justify an exception to NFC for the images, and clear explanations on their talk page of how to do that, and warnings to stop reverting to oversized versions. No response to any of the requests or warnings except to continue reverting.
I sympathise to a degree, and there could be a case for slightly larger versions of some of the images if procedure was followed, but just stubbornly edit-warring without any communication is disruptive. Given edits like[1] and[2] they may be a younger user, or there may beWP:CIR issues. Some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Begoon13:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully. I'd really not like to see them blocked, but when a user won't communicate at all and just keeps blindly reverting against policy and guidelines the options do tend to become pretty limited. --Begoon22:11, 11 December 2019 (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.
And I've blocked the sock who's been trying to add this for over a year. But the real question is, are we really sourcing this to 'celebsmoney.com'? --zzuuzz(talk)19:50, 14 December 2019 (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 indiscriminately adding a category to musical artist articles
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure why I'd be the best person to ask, and I'm not entirely sure that it's appropriate for AIV, though of course anyone is welcome to block anyone as they see fit. Since I was asked, I will weigh in with some comments. I'm not a great fan of people deciding that someone is not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. SPA is not a policy violation. Unsourced is not a policy violation. The warnings on the talk page are confusing, even to someone like me who knows all the jargon. The main subject here has been at BLPN[3], so it's not as if there's no controversy.This string of edits is not unsourced. Andthis type of thing is plain - how can best I put this - non-explanatory. Since I was asked, I will leave it for others, unless persuaded otherwise. --zzuuzz(talk)16:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Well thanks for the compliment but that's the luck of the draw I suppose. As I said, I'll leave it up to someone else. It's not I see the edits as entirely unproblematic, or pointing to a long and prolific future, but I'd want to see something more to warrant a block. --zzuuzz(talk)23:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attack and application of arbitrary rules
Onceinawhile (talk·contribs) stated that he had read the archives onTalk:Crusades and also witnessed my behaviour during the last few days and he saw "an excessive level of aggression and bullying". He added that I had "edit warred" my "views into this article," I had "ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating [myself] rather than working to consider all sides), and [I had] made numerous aggressive comments." To prevent me from bullying, he introduced new rules, practically aimed at excluding me from editing the article. ([4]) I think I did not bully anybody and I was not aggresive, but if Onceinawhile is right I should be sanctioned. I must admit I am not always kind, because ignorance and PoV pushing can outrage me, but I have never bullied anybody. On the other hand, if Onceinawhile is wrong, he should be sanctioned for personal attack and the introduction of arbitrary rules.
I think the problem was that I dared to question the significance of two of his "pet themes". My understanding of the events can be read below.
Pet issue 1:
1. During the FAC review of the Crusades article,Onceinawhile proposed that the article should be expanded with a text about the pre-Seljuk Turks and their migrations ([5]).
2. Onceinwhile's proposal was accepted and a text about pre-Seljuk Turks was introduced ([6]). It was not verified by a source dedicated to the crusades, but by a source about the history of the Turkic peoples.
3. I realized that specialized scholarly works cited in the article do not mention pre-Seljuk Turks and suggested that those sentences should be deleted from this lengthy article. If specialists can explain the crusades without mentioning early migrations, we should not find our original way of the presentation of the crusades. I deleted the text with the following edit summary: "These facts are verified by a book which is not dedicated to the history of the crusades? We do not write of the Normans' role in European state formations either." ([7])
4. My edit was reverted with the following edit summary "revert unjustified changes". ([8])
5. I again deleted the text ([9]), adding an explanation on the article's Talk page ([10])
6. A lengthy, boring debate followed, because I insisted on a reference to specialized literature (I mean to books dedicated to the crusades). The other editor proposed that a third opinion should be requested ([11]) and I was happy ([12]).
7. Instead of requesting a third opinion, the other editor reverted my edit ([13]) and I requested a third opinion ([14],[15]).
8. Although my request was improperly formatted ([16]) we received a third opinion ([17]), suggesting that pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the lengthy article. Everybody seemed to accept the third opinion ([18],[19]) and the text was deleted in accordance with the third opinion ([20]).
9. Four day later the other editor changed his mind and again realized that the text about pre-Seljuk Turks is important ([21]). He restored the deleted text with the following edit summary "restore explanation of who Mamluks inexplicably edited out" ([22]). On the same day, Onceinawhile again appeared on the scene. He offered to provide a third opinion, claiming that the previous third opinion was misinterpreted ([23]) and provided a third opinion ([24]).Yes, Onceinawhile, who proposed that a non-highly relevant info be inserted, offered to provide a third opinion on the same issue and provided a third opinion on the same issue.
10. I sought dispute resolution ([25]), but Oceinawhile found two crusader-specific books (one about the relationship between the crusaders and their neighbors and the most detailed monography of the crusades) that mention the pre-Seljuk Turks ([26]). Secretly I thought the pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the article, because most books cited in the article ignore them, but I did not want an edit war and accepted the restoration of the text ([27]).
11. Onceinwhile not only restored the text, but also introduced huge explanatory footnotes with the edit summary "minor clarification" ([28]). I agreed with an other editor that the lengthy footnotes are obviously excessive and deleted them - I did not delete the restored text, but only the lengthy footnotes! ([29]).
12. Onceinwhile reverted my edit saying "please bring this to the talk page. It was added in order to help clarify per your request, and will help others unfamiliar with it" ([30]). I reverted Onceinwhile's edit because I did not request lengthy quotes and there was an uninvolved editor who also opposed it (see point 11 above) ([31]).
Pet issue 2:
1. Onceinwhile practically cloned a sentence in the article, repeating its core both in the first and in one of the last sections of the article ([32]).
2. I edited the text, because duplication of the same info can be useful in a poem, but not in an encyclopedic article ([33]).
3. Onceinwhile realized that I am a bullying aggressive vandal.
Borsoka, I would never say that you were a vandal, as your FA and bunch of GAs ably demonstrate your contributions to the project, but as someone uninvolved in the topic area who took a quick glance at the Crusades talk page (where there's a dispute between you andNorfolkbigfish), I do think your communication style could be improved. You're calling them names in a way that others might consider off-putting and aggressive. At a glance, I see the following comments from you to Norfolk that might be construed as overly personal:
December 6: OnNorfolk's talk page, you questioned their ability to edit the Crusades article. Three days later, you gave them a warning for edit warring under the heading "WP:NOTHERE".
December 9: Onyour talk page, you say to Norfolk, "you are telling lies again", and call them "manipulative" one more time.
You're calling the other user manipulative, a liar, and questioning their competence. Without evidence, these arepersonal attacks and you should refrain from such statements in the future. Even if there are problems with the editing of other users, insulting them in your critiques does nothing to encourage collaboration.Giants2008 (Talk)20:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank youGiants2008—it has been an unrewarding few months on Wikipedia and it is welcome to have this acknowledged. It is worth noting thatOnceinawhile has always acted within the spirit of Wikipedia and has remained consistently polite. In content terms at FAC he raised a perfectly valid point that WP:WORLDVIEW should apply with wider coverage given all the ethnic and religious groups involved in the Crusades. Specifically in content terms that Mamluks, who ultimately destroyed the Crusader States should be explained in terms of who they are, where they come from and why they came significant players in Islamic politics. It is clearly wrong to conflate the Seljuks with all of the other Turkish tribes, and the Turks with the Arabs and all the other Muslims. This was raised as a dispute by the complainant but rather than wait for this to be resolved this case was raised instead. We can only imagine why.Norfolkbigfish (talk)23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
There was a content dispute about theCrusades pending atDRN. I have closed the dispute because this thread is also pending here. I am not commenting on the substance of either a content dispute or a conduct dispute at this time. If there is a content dispute after this conduct complaint is resolved, a request can be made to open a new thread atDRN.Robert McClenon (talk)00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008: I did not want to involveNorfolkbigfish in the debate, because I respect talent. His literary skills are outstanding. However, I maintain his knowledge of the crusades is limited, his communication style is manipulative and he is a PoV-pusher.
November 4. Norfolkbigfish actually duplicates content debates. Example 1. On28 October he opened a new section "Vexatious tagging" listing a number of issues which were being debated (and explained) in section "Review by Borsoka" ([34]). Example 2. On31 October he started a new debate about the survival of Christians in Palestine, although it was already being discussed in the same section ([35]) and I explicitly asked him not to open new debates on the issues already under debate ([36]). Example 3. The background of the November 4 issue is the following: he started a new debate on the deletion of a text claiming that I "was unaware of" a historiographical debate when I deleted the text, although I had already explained the reason in section "Review by Borsoka". Do you think the duplication of debates is the proper way of communication?
Manipulative communication (multiple remarks): he often states falsely that I wanted to achieve something or I stated something (please read the links you provided, I clearly explained). The latest example of his manipulative communication is his last message above: he refers to the contenct dispute that I summarized under "Pet issue 1" and implies that I did not want to wait for the resolution of the debate. Actually, as my above summary under "Pet issue 1" shows, it was not me who broke a consensus. I think when he writes of my raising the issue he refers to my request for comments ([37]). Is this a problem? Do you think I should have accepted Onceinawhile and Norfolkbigfish's "consensus" although an uninvolved editor had already made it clear that their "consensus" is unacceptable ([38]). The latter editor repeated his view during the RfC ([39]).
Limited knowledge of the crusades: if it is necessary I can prove it with multiple examples - his lack of deeper knowledge is the principal reason of our content debates. Please let me know if I have to verify my statement.
Telling lies: he accused me of edit warring on my Talk page several times - if he proves that I was involved in edit warring, I will apologize.
Giants2008 refers to my communication style, so I must raise other issues as well, that I did not want. 1. Norfolkbigfish's first message on my Talk page was the following: "Please calm down on the FAC for this article. I will work with you but you need to give me something to work with. The article does stand up against current anglophone academic opinion, I can assure you. It may not be perfect but you are close to vandalising it and breaking its hard won NPOV." Background of his accusation of vandalism is the following: I started the review of the article. My review demonstrated that the article was a large mass of original research, original synthesis, PoV-pushing and copyvio (the details can be read here[40] in sections "Review by Borsoka" and "Vexatious tagging?"). 2. On 14 October, Norfolkbigfish approached one of the other reviewers of the article and stated that I seem to "intent on reworking" the article "to match" my "middle European Catholic view of history" without pinging me ([41]). Just a side remark: I am not Catholic. 3. I realized from the beginning that the article was highly biased towards the Turks without verification - if it is necessary I can provide evidence.Borsoka (talk)02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly Onceinwhile stated on my Talk page that "You and Norfolk have been doing some excellent work together. The fact that you disagree on many areas is making the article better than ever, through healthy debate and iteration." ([42]) Actually, this is why I did not want to involve Norfolkbigfish in this debate and I have not taken him to AN: our cooperation has significantly improved the article, because he can fix errors derriving from my awful English and I can fix errors derriving from his limited knowledge of the crusades. Norfolkbigfish does not like central Europeans and their broken English, so I must be really bold to convince him to abandon his unverified ideas, but the article has significantly improved. I emphasize his disdain for Central Europeans is not an issue for me, because I love living in my region and I am a proud Central European. :)Borsoka (talk)02:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish does not like central Europeans and their broken English, so I must be really bold to convince him to abandon his unverified ideas, but the article has significantly improved. I emphasize his disdain for Central Europeans is not an issue for me, because I love living in my region and I am a proud Central European. :). Well that is good, but as you personalise this I think it is better that that I articulate my opinion rather than have it misrepresentated. I have no animus to Central Europeans or any other social, ethnic or religious grouping, instead coming from a pluralistic and multi-cultural perspective. The comments I made were not personal, although I would accept that they were not sufficiently well phrased. We all bring a paradigm to our editing, it is unavoidable. Broken English, I can fix—although I would not claim mine to be perfect. The challenge is the clash of paradigms: yours is one I characterised as Central European. This is compounded by what I can only guess, is a position where you understand perfectly what is written in the sources, but fail to fully grasp the meaning or the intent of the authors. There are no unverified ideas in what I have written in this article—in this what you describe as my limited knowlege of the subject is in fact a strength. Everything I write comes from the sources used: Asbridge, Prawer, Tyerman, Jotischky & Findley Carter. In fact it is through editing here that other editors have suggested, and introduced me, the use of the Tyerman historiography, Jotischky and Prawer. I have an issue with Lock though—it is useful for dates, figures etc but the prose is partial and badly written and is not comparable to the higher level secondary sources. Where does that leave us? There are things that need explaining for the lay reader that currently do not have enough attention. This includes, but is not exclusive to the Turks, Mamluks, the Crusader backgrounds, the Greeks etc. I would not claim to be totally innocent but asGiants2008 points out above your behaviour has on occasions fallen below the level that makes you a positive Wikipedian. It is not helpful to raise sources to support your position without quoting clearly and appropriately what the source says and adding context to expalain why you are using it—in case that source is unavailable to whoever you are in discusion with. I think you don't consider that persons perspective and are quick to revert/edit your own opinion rather than discuss on the Talk Page or compromise. This article is difficult, a summary covering centuries and a massive geographical spread. There are also few facts & material evidence is limited. That is why the various other articles on the Crusades as a subject area are of such poor quality. History is not a Science, it is an Art. It would be more positive if you withdrew this incident and tried to bare that in mind. The alternative is a judgement that I suspect would not be to your liking.Norfolkbigfish (talk)10:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree, we are not perfect. 1. "We all bring a paradigm to our editing", maybe, but it could hardly be a Hungarian/Central European paradigm in my case. I have never read Hungarian books about the crusades, because Hungarian historians are not really interested in this theme. All my knowledge on the crusades is based on about 20 books published in English by the leading publishing houses. Therefore we can hardly speak about "clash of paradigms" between you and me, although I must admit that I also read some Spanish books about the Reconquista. 2. "...you [that is me] understand perfectly what is written in the sources, but fail to fully grasp the meaning or the intent of the authors": could you provide an example? In return I provide one example when you did not perfectly understand what was written in the sources. (Actually, I am convinced that you have not read any of the sources that you cite, but only parts of them.) I can list, without difficulties, about 20 more examples showing that you did not understand the allegedly cited source.Example: An old version of the article contained the following sentence: "The Jerusalem nobility rejected the succession of [Emperor Frederick II's] son to the kingdom's throne." Everybody who have some knowledge of the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem soon realize that this cannot be true, because it is well known that Frederick II's son, Conrad, and Conrad's son, Conradin, were acknowledged as the lawful (although absent and powerless) kings from 1229. I added a "citation needed" tag with the following reasoning: "Asbridge does not write anything similar. Furthermore, significant parts of the Jerusalemit nobility acknowledged Conrad and Conradin's right to the throne." ([43]) You did not understand the message and reverted my edit, with the following edit summary "More vexatious tagging" ([44]). You also wrote a message to me under the friendly title "Vexatious tagging" - it revealed to me that you do not have the faintest idea about the whole issue ([45]). I had to copy some text from the sources (that you had allegedly read and cited) in order to clarify this simple issue ([46]). 3. I know that you think I reject Prawer and love Lock, but this is not the case. I only want to secure that no scholarly PoVs be presented as facts. 4. "It is not helpful to raise sources to support your position without quoting clearly and appropriately what the source says": could you provide an example? In return I provide an example when you deliberately truncated a quote from a reliable source in order to "verify" a sentence that I debated.Example: The article contained the following sentence: "The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries. During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon." I was sceptical about this peaceful picture and raised the issue during the review of the article, asking whether this sentence contains OR. You stated "Again not OR, pretty much matches the source"[47]. I remained sceptical and stated that "no similarity", referring to the lack of similarity between the allegedly cited source, Findley, and the text ([48]). Norfolbigfish posted the following quote from Findley's book: "a mostly Chritian population....made the eligible to live under Muslim rule as dhimmis.....cultures and creeds coexisted...frontier zone....intermarriage was one of the most prominent themes in this environment" ([49]), adding that "looks similar to me" ([50]). However, it turned out that he copied Findley's original text, but in a truncated form, hiding the words, which proved that Findley did not refer to Jerusalem in the 7th-11th centuries, but to Anatolia in the 1070s. Was this a manipulation of the source in order to push a PoV, or was it a mistake? 5. History is a science.Borsoka (talk)17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice.My summary is the following:Onceinawhile tried to introduce text in the article, pretending that he is a third party ([[51]],[52],[53]), and tried to introduce arbitrary sanctions against me ([54]).Norfolkbigfish's animus against Central Europeans and limited knowledge of the crusades prevent him from understanding the problems that I raise ([55],[56]; the list of about 80% of the issues I raised can be read here[57] in sections "Review by Borsoka" and "Vexatious tagging?" and about 90% of the issues proved valid). I assume but I cannot prove that they maintain communication outside wikipedia, because Norfolkbigfish changed his mind on a consensual edit, restoring a consensually deleted text ([58]) on the day when Onceinawhile who had proposed the text re-appeared on the scene ([59],[60]). Having been convinced that Norfolbigfish's bias and limited knowledge of the crusades is a serious problem, I approached him to offer a cooperation weeks ago ([61], 2nd new paragraph). However, I had to realize that strong statements are my only tools to convince him that he was wrong. Possibly, I should have taken him to AN, but I did not want to achieve a ban, because his literary skills are outstanding and our hard cooperation significantly improved the article (as it was noted by Onceinawhile as well[62]).Borsoka (talk)02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not my dispute,Borsoka raised this againstOnceinawhile. I was only making a comment in his defence and attempting to be conciliatory. All Onceinawhile was attempting to do was improve the article by consensus. Bosoka does not react well to disagreement and has been abusing me on WP for months (see above). He repeated this behaviour with Onceinawhile and in an attempt to unblock this situation Onceinawhile suggested proceeding by majority decision. Bosoka then raised this incident.Norfolkbigfish (talk)10:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, your manipulative tactics are documented above, you have not proved that I whenever was involved in an edit war against you (so your statements on my Talk page were untrue, to use your expression), I proved that your knowledge of the crusades is limited and I also proved that you have been unable to cooperate from the beginning. Your reference to my alleged religion and my "middle European" bias, and your above remarks about paradigms show that you think editors are driven by their ethnic or religious background. Would you document my abusive behaviour against Onceinawhile? By the way,Onceinawhile have not documented that I "edit warred" my views "into the article". Could you help him?Borsoka (talk)10:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I have not cooperated and will not cooperate with PoV-pushers andI will always ready to prevent ignorant editors fromspreading their baseless views in WP articles. I waged no edit war and it was me who sought community support during this lengthy debate. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish:, yes, I am determined to secureWP:NPOV andWP:NOR, because they are our community's basic policies. My edits can be bold and after experiencing the lack of cooperating spirit my words can be strong, but it was not me who pushed my views in the article. I am always ready to seek external advice ([63],[64],[65]). On the other hand, after my proposals you promised to request third opinion ([66]), but preferred to revert an edit ([67]). If my understanding is correct, you cannot prove that I was involved in an edit war against you or against Onceinawhile.Borsoka (talk)02:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I think Borsoka has condemned himself with his own comments. He is refusing to co-operate with more than one other editor and cannot see the irony in that he constantly pushes his own viewpoint while accusing others of the same.Norfolkbigfish (talk)09:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish:,@Onceinawhile: you have not documented that I have whenever pushed my own viewpoint in the article. However, Norfolkbigfish has just reverted one of my edits to restore Onceinawhile's unprofessional edit which duplicates the same information in the same article ([68]). Please also note that I documented above that Norfolkbigfish intentionally wrongly quoted from a reliable source in order to push his own view in the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades&diff=next&oldid=921225454,[69]). Please also note that I documented that Onceinawhile pretended that he was a neutral editor in order to push one of his favorite themes in the article ([[70]],[71],[72]).Borsoka (talk)11:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with the above statement. All the same, I really enjoy your attempts to hide the fact that I have not been involved in edit war against you or Onceinawhile and I have never edit warred my views into the article. Sorry, I will not comment your comments in the future on this page.Borsoka (talk)15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Response from Onceinawhile
The thread above speaks for itself. To add some color: both Norfolk and Borsoka care greatly about this encyclopedia, and are working hard for the benefit of the community. Norfolk has been working on the article in question for many months, interacting with many editors at the FAC with exemplary professionalism and an unusually impressive ability to work with others. Borsoka joined in, with significant knowledge and passion, but without the same ability to work well with other editors. An argument ensued, which has spiraled out of control. I have tried to intermediate, but was almost immediately alienated by attacks of the nature shown in Borsoka’s comments above. And here we are.Onceinawhile (talk)12:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile:, would you document how I edit warred my views into the article as you stated? Would you document the attacks that alienated you? Would you explain why did not you reveal that the text suggested by yourself was the object of the debate which outraged you? How do you explain that a third editor also stated that your text was excessive? Would you explain why do you think that I have to accept the duplication of the same information in the article without any objection (which was the second cause of your rage)? Why do you think you are entitled to force your own rules to other editors? How do you explain that my "aggressive" comments only appeared during the last two weeks after weeks of cooperation with an editor with obvious bias?Borsoka (talk)13:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Borsoka, unfortunately I don't have time to do so. The questions you are asking can be organized into three groups (1) questions you have asked before and I have answered clearly; (2) questions for which the evidence is easily available for you to assess; and (3) new questions. The fact that you are repeating questions without acknowledging the points previously made, and you don't appear to be making the effort to figure out the answer to other questions, makes me unenthusiastic about spending time on the new ones.Onceinawhile (talk)00:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile:, please take the time, because you have not answered any of my questions above. For instance, you have not proved that I edit warred my views into the article and you have not documented a single attack against you. We can approach the question from an other direction as well. You threatened me of AN for alleged edit warring and bullying. Consequently, if your conduct was worse than mine in this respect, we can conclude you should be sanctioned. 1. I was toleratingNorfolkbigfish's uncivil remarks for weeks ([73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79]), some of which also clearly demonstrats the limits of his knowledge of the crusades. Instead of taking him to AN, I offered him cooperation ([[80]]) and reminded him the consequences of edit warring in a friendly way on his Talk page ([81],[82]). What did you do? After I corrected your two unprofessional edits, one of which duplicates information in a lengthy article ([83]), the second introduces excessive information in the same article ([84]), you threatened me to take to AN and introduced arbitrary sanctions against me, practically trying to prevent me from editing the article ([85]). Please note my second edit was fully in line with a remark of an editor who was not involved in our debate ([86]). Furthermore you had implied that it was me who demanded an excessive text from you in an edit summary ([87]). 2. It was only me who sought external assistance during this lengthy discussion, requesting third opinion ([88]), dispute resolution ([89]) and comments ([90]).On the other hand, you ignored an uninvolved editor's clear remarks on the Talk page about your excessive text ([[91]]) and restored your text reverting my edit ([[92]]). On the other hand, you ignored an uninvolved editor's clear remarks on the Talk page about your excessive text ([[93]]) and accused me of edit warring and bullying when I edited fully in line with the third party's suggestion. Please also remember that you had claimed (in the edit summary) that it was me who suggested an excessive text, as I demonstrated in point 1. 3. You pretended that you are a neutral editor in a debate about a text that was proposed by yourself ([[94]],[95],[96]). If you compare my and your conduct, who is the bully, who is aggressive and who ignores other editors' views?Borsoka (talk)02:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: if I was to answer you, are you willing to trust my answers to your questions in good faith, and use them to try to improve the way you interact with other editors? If not, it’s better that you listen to someone that you consider uninvolved and neutral. I note thatMediatech492 also tried to give you advice[97], which you proceeded to throw back at him with an accusation of bad faith[98].
As an aside, the modus operandi set out atTalk:Crusades#Behavior is simply the way Wikipedia works.
@Onceinawhile: 1. Yes, of course. 2. Editors cannot introduce arbitrary rules in order to push their views. 3. Yes, I should have taken a PoV-pusher, ignorant, biased editor to AN, instead of trying to solve the issue alone. It was my mistake. 4. The content dispute to whichMediatech492 refers can be readhere.Borsoka (talk)02:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The rules are not arbitrary. They are set out atWP:CON.
For instance, editors who falsely quote reliable sources to "verify" their claims and editors who pretend that they are neutral in a debate about a text that had been proposed by themselves. I know two of this type.Borsoka (talk)12:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In our previous [| discussions] you were asked multiple times to provide any source for your assertions, which you repeatedly refused to do. Ultimately you resorted to manipulating a false consensus to push your baseless POV. For you to now accuse other of doing this same thing is shameful hypocrisy. The rules are there for everyone, and you seem to think you can ignore them at your pleasure. Most editors, like myself, simply provide sources and move on. While you resort to endless arguments ad nauseum to push your unsourced POV. The evidence is there on every article you've touch. I was not wanting to get involved with you further, but since you persist in mentioning me in discussion I am obliged to make sure the truth is heard.Mediatech492 (talk)19:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
1. Nobody provided any source during thediscussion. I simply appliedWikipedia:BLUE, without citing it. 2. No "false" or "real" consensus was established. 3. It was not me who first pinged you. I did not want refer to our discussion about "Soviet volunteers" without pinging you because it would have been really uncivil. 4. Could you refer to evidence for your statement "on every article you've touch" under a separate subsection in this thread? Especially, because during the debate on the Crusades' talk page it was me who quoted reliable sources (if we ignore an other editor's truncated text allegedly presenting a historian's views). 5. Could you explain this edit of yours and your edit summary, which implies a "personal attack":[99]?Borsoka (talk)01:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: you unilaterally restored your edit that I described above as unprofessional, duplicating the same information in a lengthy article ([100]). If my understanding is correct this is an application of your arbitrary rule: if you two agree, you can ignore my concerns. Why do you think this approach is fully in line with our community's rules?Borsoka (talk)02:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I made it clear that the duplication of the same facts is my principal concern ([102]). I accepted that you want to present the information in the "Terminology" section as you clearly stated ([103]). You restored the duplication.Borsoka (talk)12:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a content discussion. And a misunderstanding. I will respond on the article talk page.
No. This is not a content discussion. I have never opposed the content of the text. I only wanted to avoid the duplication of the same information in the same article, because it is unencyclopedic. Sorry, I will not comment your remarks on this page any more. We explained our position in details.Borsoka (talk)01:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AFD is closed with a lengthy rationale left by the closing admin, which directly addresses many of these concerns. Further discussion should probably happen atWP:DRV if necessary. --Jayron3218:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This may be the messiest AfD I've ever seen.
The subject of the article has allegedly, based on comments at the AfD, put out a call to his followers to flood the AfD with keep !votes. The problem is that some well-meaning editors—and I do think they're acting in absolutely good faith—have deleted the !votes that they feel were solicited. (@KidAd: I do think you're doing what you think is the right thing and acting in good faith, but it's making a bad situation worse.)
The mess is so bad that I considered ending the AfD early: I don't think we'll be able to get a meaningful consensus, and whatever the outcome of this AfD is, it's probably doomed to DRV.
C.Fred, I just edit-conflicted with you: you were doing a good thing, by tagging one of those SPAs, but I chose the blunter tool: a NOTHERE block, given not just their SPA-ness, but also the personal attacks. (I have no qualms about just blocking and removing their comment if it's that obvious...) Thank you,Drmies (talk)00:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: I wasn't ready to immediately block that user, but I did think about{{rpa}}'ing some of their comment. Given that they're now blocked, I think this is a case where removing the comment entirely is in order. —C.Fred (talk)00:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting old, C.Fred, and haven't yet had dessert. I'll cut you a piece of buttermilk pie in a moment. I'm looking at the other comments, and this one clearly stood out, blockably in my opinion.CompactSpacez, for instance, isthis close to a block, but at least one can claim they actually commented on content, once or twice.Drmies (talk)00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm bleeping annoyed at that AFD (which I discovered through this ANI report), that A) my 'vote' keeps getting placed into aPoV (IMHO) sub-section, that taints my vote & B) that annoying subsection title keeps getting re-added.GoodDay (talk)02:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
An 'explanatory note' to the sub-section title has been added. If it remains, I'll reconsider. Just peeved that somebody moved my vote around.GoodDay (talk)02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking the sub-section wasn't so much a sub-section, as.... You know how some discussions get so long that there's an arbitrary break added? In this case, it wasn't arbitrary. But it's more just a break in the flow rather than a true subsection. —C.Fred (talk)02:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As I stated on my talk page, the header (which I did not create) was originally intended to divide votes cast from the point the page was nominated on December 12 from those submitted by Kulinski fans who largely came to vandalize the page (intentionally or unintentionally) after the release ofthis tweet. While I do think the header is useful and should remain in some form, I am more than open to tweaking the language.KidAd (talk)03:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It should indeed be tweaked to aneutral name. I'm not a Kulinski fan who was contacted to try & save his bio article, which is what the current 'name' suggests.GoodDay (talk)03:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the notice, but I would suggest formatting it as regular text instead of a section header so that new !votes will not appear on top of it. –dlthewave☎03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The close will be key here. Fortunately the canvassed !votes are all based on obviously non-policy-related arguments, so they can be dismissed out of hand and consensus assessed from the remaining legitimate comments. If this had been done at thesecond nomination, we wouldn't be here. –dlthewave☎03:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@KidAd: Judging by the above discussion, it seems that GoodDay agrees with me on the comment beneath the break. It seems you are the only one opposed to this. What issue do you have with the comment?CompactSpacez (talk)04:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you aren't adding new comments to the bottom of the discussion. It would really make this easier to follow. I don't agree with the comment beneath the header because you're attempting to gloss over fact. A large flood of people came to the page after Kulinski tweeted about it. Some editors that were not IPs or SPAs contributed their votes, and I think proper distinctions have been made on the page. The header still provides a visual representation of the turning point in the discussion, a sort ofAnno Domini. It doesn't need to be sugar-coated because you and GoodDay are offended.KidAd (talk)04:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
One of the most vocal keep !voters,CompactSpacez (talk·contribs), previously madethis edit that reinstated vandalism under the guise of removing it. I thought that maybe it was a mistake, but the editor says it wasactually a joke. As the user notes, that disruptive edit was made two years ago. In fact, it was their last edit (under this account anyway) prior to earlier this month. A few hours ago, CompactSpacez receiveda warning for making personal attacks and thenissued the exact same warning (including the customized "Tone it down, please. Seriously." message) to another user only 8 minutes later! I think Wikipedia was better off without this NOTHERE editor and suggest that they be involuntarily returned to their long-term absence. They don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia.Lepricavark (talk)03:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lepricavark:@KidAd: This is a baseless smear. Wikipedia has disciplinary measures in place for what I did. In my case, I was given a warning. That's it. End of story. Bringing it up two years later in an effort to discredit subsequent edits is silly. I've made a number of other edits on Wikipedia, all of which have been productive. It seems, in this case, that the editors in the Kyle Kulinski discussion (namely, KidAd and Snooganssnoogans) don't have an actual refutation of the solid arguments I (and other "pro-keep" editors) have raised, so they resort to such personal attacks. It's ridiculous, frankly. All I'm seeing are accusations and personal attacks. Similar accusations and smears were leveled in theBernie Sanders Media Bias AfD, to all editors in favor of "keeping". Little substantive discussion. These folks claiming to be defending "Wikipedia policy" evidently have not read up onWP:GF.CompactSpacez (talk)03:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, you disappeared for two years after that bit of joke (er, racist) vandalism, so there aren't many subsequent edits for us to discredit. Anyway, you've a fine job of discrediting yourself with your battleground behavior over the past two weeks. I notice that you provided no explanation for why you copied-and-pasted a warning for your own talk page to another editor's talk page.Lepricavark (talk)04:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The mention of the Wojcicki edit isn't to discredit, but to provide context for how you edit. Edits likethis andthis don't lend to your credibility either. You also display clearWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with edits like this:[104]. With all of your arguing andwhataboutism, you refuse to accept the clear notability standards established in Wikipedia policy, and are willing to blame others for advocating for it.KidAd (talk)04:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: The reason is quite simple: I felt the content of the warning applied to said user. The user in question, Snoog, was involved in systematically leveling baseless accusations against all of the "keep" voters, not only in the Kyle Kulinski AfD, but also in the Sanders Media AfD a few weeks ago. He implied that all of the "keep" voters were somehow illegitimate. He's attempting to discredit votes by claiming that certain users hadn't posted in a certain number of years (I was never aware that you need to be editing everyday for your votes to count). In brief, I judged his behavior to be acting in bad faith. Notice that the majority of his comments on the thread rarely addressed thesubstance of the debate, but almost exclusively focused on attackingindividual editors.CompactSpacez (talk)04:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@KidAd: The edits you've cited in the above comment seem reasonable. I do not see the issue with them. At worst, they are provocative. Regarding "notability standards", it is established precedent on Wikipedia that notable YouTubers may have their own Wikipedia pages. Abiding by precedent is not "whataboutism". It is only reasonable to ask that the standard you set for Kulinski is no different from the standard set for others.CompactSpacez (talk)04:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
So it's just a coincidence that numerous people who hadn't edited in years were randomly showing up in those discussions? I don't believe that and neither do you. Many of the keep !votes are illegitimate as they were canvassed and are not based on policy. It is appropriate, and even desirable, for those editors to be identified. You had no grounds for warning Snoog and your behavior could be reasonably described as harassment.Lepricavark (talk)04:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
When or why an editor chooses to restart editing is his or her decision. Wikipedia editors are volunteers. They may edit as they please, so long as it is does in good faith. I believe that the points I (and others) have raised on the Kulinski AfD and the Sanders AfD two weeks ago were reasonable, sound and civil. A small subset of trolls were indeed present, but they were swiftly removed by KidAd.CompactSpacez (talk)04:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I try my best. Regardless of your reasoning, your return to Wikipedia after two years to actively participate in two active, controversial pages will remain suspect. Still, this ANI thread is aboutthe Kulinski AFD, andMedia bias against Bernie Sanders should remain a separate issue. I have purposely stayed away from that page's drama for a reason.KidAd (talk)04:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
To be on the safe side, I have s-protected the discussion (which is a helpful option when a discussion is flooded with new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards).BD2412T03:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Your precautionary protection is slightly odd, there weren't that many non-constructive IP-edits on the project page. Now the closing admin will not only have to wade through some "sorted" AFD-page with lots of December 16 comments before December 12, but also has to check the talk page fornew arguments, i.e., not the 1001th repetition of 700K subscribers orJustice Democrats. –84.46.53.194 (talk)23:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
User:CompactSpacez needs to be removed from areas of conflict, clearly; but how? A Tban? But from what—BLPs, ARBAP2, XfD? That's too much for a simple topic ban, so unfortunately they must be indefinitely blocked.——SN5412913:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well.KidAd (I'm a big fan ofKid A, but that's another matter), thank you for linkingthis edit by CompactSpacez, which is worth citing, at least in part:"As for your other points, note that while I am of course critical of boomers, I must say that millennials need to be held responsible for making "whataboutism" a common parlance. This is just a semantic trick used to justify hypocrisy and selective censorship. The standards need to be the same across the board; you can't have different standards for your political opponents, like Kyle." Not only do we have there a bunch of FORUM-y nonsense about boomers and whatnot; moreover, if I read this correctly it says that "Kyle" is KidAd's political opponent and because KidAd is a millennial they apply different standards in articles depending on whether they like the subject or not. That's a violation of NPA, of NPOV, of AGF, of a bunch of things. (I'm skipping over the ridiculous justification for that anti-semitic smear.) And that comes within an hour of my warning them for a personal attack, a note they reverted without commentary. I am inclined to block them indefinitely, but for now I'm blocking for a week, for the duration of the AfD I suppose, so at least that disruption will stop.
Why not indefinitely? Good question. It's their first block, and I could be wrong. The other day I blocked someone for a short period, andBlack Kite thoughtI was being too lenient. If that's the case here, I think CompactSpacez will either run out of rope soon, or someone else will overrule and make it indefinite.Drmies (talk)16:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: First, thank you for being one of the first to understand my username. Second, I think a 1-week block is a good place to start. The best thing for an editor like this is to step away and think aboutwhy they edit. If they return in a week's time (which will be right in the thick of the holiday season when many editors are spending time with their families) and continue to displayWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and disregard forWP:NPOV, I think a longer block or indef will be appropriate. In part, I can relate toCompactSpacez, and was given numerous chances by admins and other editors to shape upmy behavior. I hope thatCompactSpacez can return as a productive editor.KidAd (talk)18:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not the Kulinski article ends up deleted or made into a re-direct, isn't something that'll make me loose sleep. I was just upset that another editor at that AFD was messing around with my 'vote', via relocating it againstmy objections.GoodDay (talk)19:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I would like to formally apologize if I did move your vote during all the excitement yesterday. It was not my intention, and I apologize if my accidental re-order of your vote gave you the impression that your vote was lessened in some way. I was only trying to weed out trolling and repeated vandalism from IPs and SPAs, and there were many more of them than editors trying to maintain the page's structure. Sorry again.KidAd (talk)19:59, 17 December 2019 (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.
Fictitious flag added on the basis of a bad source
OP was directed to better venues to deal with his problem; discussions have been started on the article talk page and atWP:RSN to deal with the issue. Nothing more for admins to do here. --Jayron3216:24, 17 December 2019 (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.
Two users (perhaps puppets of some kind) insist on adding a fictitious flag as the ethnic map forZazas[105][106] using a random reference (who is this James B. Minahan?) as source. Surely, it won't be difficult finding a reliable source for an ethnic flag. --Semsurî (talk)13:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Experience tells me that there is no use in encouraging users to use the talkpage if they are keen on pushing for their POV. They usually just explain their move and go ahead and change the article again. --Semsurî (talk)13:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to even try to work it out on your own, why should admins need to step in to help? This is never to be the first place you go to solve a content dispute. We're here to handle behavioral issues, not decide who's version of a particular article is more correct. The first thing to do is to try to solve it among yourselves by having a friendly discussion, and if your attitude is "I don't want to talk to anyone because I don't think it would help", well, I'm not sure you're going to get much help with that attitude. --Jayron3213:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
James Minahan seems to have a bad reputation atTalk:Stateless nation, but what you should do is raise the issue on the article's talk page or atWP:RSN. If the consensus there is that Minahan should not be cited, you'll have consensus on your side. Admins will then enforce it through blocks if necessary. If both sides edit war over this with no attempt at dispute resolution or discussion, the page will likely be fully protected (or someone will end up blocked).NinjaRobotPirate (talk)13:42, 17 December 2019 (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.
Pedrovariant and their IPs: NOTHERE, soapboxing, edit warring, and logged out socking
This user, and the IPs they are using, arenot here to build the encyclopedia, but instead to use it as theirsoapbox, such as by enforcing their language preferences, in order to advance theiractivism. To this end, they have engaged inedit warring,original research, and violations ofWP:SOCK, specificallyWP:SCRUTINY andWP:LOUTSOCK.
Evidence
All the same person
All of the IPs geolocate to Portugal, and are owned by Vodafone. 3 of the 4 IPs start with "148.6". Pedrovariant has editedPortugal andLGBT rights in Portugal, but no other countries.
The two most active IPs have signed talk page posts as "Pedro".[107][108]
Here, at 20:40 on 10 December, they said, "sorry that I forced the changes", even thought the attempt to "force" it was done by the IP.[109]
They all have the same interest, editing articles related to gender and sexuality, focusing on inserting their preferred terminology, and in many cases editing the exact same articles. Which brings us to...
Logged-out socking
Pedrovariant waswarned byFlyer22 Reborn on 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) to not switch between an account and an IP. They edited with Pedrovariant at 20:40 that same day, so they saw the message. I myselfasked them why they continued to edit under an IP on04:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC), but never got any response. Yet, they have still edited under IPs after both warnings.[110][111]
Several articles have been edited by more than one of these IPs/account, usually attempting to add the same phrasing. This often occurs when they engage in...
AtSexual orientation, attempting to rewrite the lead:[115], they were reverted byFreeknowledgecreator and they posted on the talk page, where their proposal was opposed[116], yet they tried to do the same thing with the same edit summary:[117]
AtCorrective rape, attempting to add cisgender or gender expression:[118][119][120][121] (the latter 2 were after being addressed on the talk page and claiming to be sorry about forcing the changes[122])
It is clear that this person is ignoring the warnings given them on their various talk pages, and the opposition of the Wikipedia community, and is intent on engaging in the same bad behavior. I therefore propose that the adminsindefinitely block Pedrovariant andblock the IPs for a good while. Any attempts thereafter to return under another IP or account should likewise be blocked.-Crossroads- (talk)07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Ouch, the activism is very evident—that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The Pedrovariant account was created on 8 December 2019 but the IPs were doing similar editing beforehand—for example, 148.63.244.197 on21 July 2019. Isupport an indefinite block of Pedrovariant and blocks on the IPs for block evasion if similar edits continue.Johnuniq (talk)09:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm using different IPs because it's different devices I use, not because I want to keep going with the edits I did in another accounts, just happens to be in different devices I used and not all in the same. I removed gendered and sexed language to keep more neutral, and be acessible for trans and intersex people, use gendered language is also take a side, so neutral is literally neutral, and I didn't use explicitly neutral language, but variants.Pedrovariant (talk)13:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Support indefinite block for the Pedrovariant account. The account is barely being used anyway. Andsupport block of IPs. Editor recently used87.103.21.55(talk·contribs·WHOIS) to edit war as well. Because the IPs Pedrovariant uses vary, one range block won't stop all of the IPs. And it's doubtful that a range block will be applied to all of them. So, in some cases, it's also best to semi-protect some of the affected articles.Flyer22 Reborn (talk)16:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Not only is that IP definitely them, based on behavior and being from Vodafone and Portugal as it says in the WHOIS, but it shows the person'songoing intention to edit war via new IPs. The edit was on 14:09 15 December,[142]after they commented in this very ANI report at 13:13.-Crossroads- (talk)18:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Support an indef block for Perovariant. As for the IPs, banning the range might affect genuine users so I feel it's a bad idea. Semi-protecting might be a good idea. --Rsrikanth05 (talk)09:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment:This edit to theLesbian article was made by Pedrovariant on 16 December 2019. After it was reverted, he returned @14:13,14:14, and14:30.This comment was posted on the talk page under the 148.63.244.197 IP address on 8 December; followed by asecond comment under the user name on 16 December ("nova secção" is Portuguese for "new section").Pyxis Solitary(yak).L not Q.11:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Editor is still edit warring and POV-pushing, changing wording away from its common or historical usage, adding original research, unnecessary, inaccurate, or awkward wording. Look atthese edits by Pedrovariant to theGay article that I just reverted.The situation is worse now because the editor is autoconfirmed and can edit semi-protected articles. That account needs a block now. PingingGenericusername57, whoreverted Pedrovariant at the Lesbian article, in case they are interested in weighing in here.Flyer22 Reborn (talk)14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you,Berean Hunter. I see that all the IPs mentioned here are blocked for 1 to 3 months as well. If any time in the future another IP pops up that we have reason to believe is the same person, this is considered block evasion correct? And where should this be reported - ANI, SPI, somewhere else?-Crossroads- (talk)20:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Both indeffed (by different admins) for promotional/advertising accounts. Unless Mirror specifically wants the socking aspect considered (in which case, please undo close) it appears resolved.Nosebagbear (talk)10:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BlameRuiner (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly nominating some of my artciles on women's footballers for deleteion although the sportswomen are international and currently playing in the Turkish top-level league. I had noticed him in his talk page about the status. It takes me valuable time to adress the matter. I belive he is not experienced enough and has too much time for doing nonsense. Please help.CeeGee08:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
CeeGee (talk·contribs) seems to be having a hard time understanding the notability criteria defined inWP:NFOOTY, as well as the definition ofFully-professional league andinternational footballer (which in scope of FOOTY project means a player that appeared in Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level, same for managers and referees). The key word here issenior, which means not under-21 or under-anything else. --BlameRuiner (talk)09:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@CeeGee: I see nothing here that requires administrative action.BlameRuiner has made good-faith nominations for deletion of articles that he feels do not meet the notability criteria atWP:NFOOTY. I'd suggest you either locate reliable sources that show that the Turkish women's top-level league is fully professional or generate consensus at the football WikiProject to make players in top-level women's leagues notable whether the league is fully professional or not. In either case, those are matters of content and not things that needs to be addressed to administrators. —C.Fred (talk)16:05, 17 December 2019 (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.
Cathytalledo
Cathytalledo(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) – OnUser talk:Migsmigss: I placed a warning on this user's talk page hoping to arrive at a dispute resolution, but this user only copied and pasted my warning on my talk page, complete with my own signature, as could be seenhere andhere. This user has also consistently blanked their talk page, without engaging and trying to resolve disputes and issues raised by other editors, as could be seenhere andhere. Trying to engage in a reasonable and respectful dispute resolution and discussion with this user is impossible. Thanks.Migsmigss (talk)16:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I've not ever encountered the above user, but I note some serious incivility problems in their edit summaries, just on the first page of their contributions list. They repeatedly use words like "fake" and "vandalism" and "useless" to characterize things others have added, for examplehere where they claimed to remove vandalism, where all they did remove some information from a reference tag andhere where I see no vandalism in the text they removed or changed. The use of the word "vandalism" should not be done in this manner. --Jayron3216:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor has been blocked foredit warring. I agree that their conduct falls below the level of respect andcivility that is expected of users here, as well as the level of communication that's expected when a dispute occurs. I think that we should leave the user a custom message summarizing the issues and concerns and with clear expectations set. Sure, the user will likely blank their user talk page and remove it without care, but we'll at least have given them a fair warning and an opportunity to resolve these matters. Then if this user is "put through the gauntlet" (indef'd), we'll have plenty of evidence to provide that will show that we repeatedly tried other means and allocated legitimate effort and time toward trying to help the user resolve these issues, and to no avail.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has incorrect info. 4Kids did NOT license or produce Blue's Clues and You! or Butterbean's Cafe. They didn't produce Rocket Monkeys either.— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.183.13.4 (talk)01:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I don’t see that Cluebot has ever edited that article but aside from that, the article would benefit from some sourcing imo but that’s an editing matter rather than a administrative matter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)01:47, 18 December 2019 (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.
88.111.132.24
Talk page access has been revoked. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After making 2 unblock requests that were declined, the IP decided to blank and mass spam the entire talk page. Please revoke talk page access. Thanks.theinstantmatrix (talk)14:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Someoneneeds to revoke access. The IP just copied and pasted my entire userpage. I don't know what else to do. EDIT: They have now started to copy me. Please help. I can't do much beyond reverting.☶☲Senny☶☲(☎)15:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Privatesecrate has been addinghttps://www.dskastrology.com/ask-astrologer-ask-question/ to astrology-related articles. As far as I can tell it does not actually provide the information indicate in the edit summary, but rather promotes the services of one or more astrologers. I have reverted two of the additions but do not wish to violate the three revert rule so ask others to examine the rest.
Jc3s5h,WP:3RR only applies to reverts within the same article and doesn't prevent removing multiple instances of spam across different articles. Also, I see at that link that it's the site of "Astrologer Deepanshu Singh Kushwaha", andUser:Privatesecrat identifies himself on his talk page as "deepanshu singh kushwaha", so there's an obvious COI/PAID violation here.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)15:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
That's pretty well cooked their goose then :) For info,Jc3s5h blatant spamming can be reported toWP:AIV, which sometimes gets a faster response (some admins avoid this board like the plague...perhaps understandably!).——SN5412918:09, 18 December 2019 (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 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.
Apart from Ymblanter no-one has suggested that Staszek Lem has done anythingwrong, and they have now self-reverted their close anyway. There is nothing more for admins to do here, unless someone uninvolved wants to close the now re-opened merge request.Black Kite (talk)13:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In Auguste,Staszek Lem merged twiceDonajowsky toPreobrazhensky Regiment[145][146] claiming there is no useful independent content. I reverted them both times, drawing their attention to the fact that this is not a policy-based reason, and since I objected the merge has to go through the merge request. We had some heated exchange at the talk page butno merge request has ever been opened, and, as a consequence, no other editors opined at the talk page. Today they merged the article again,[147], and, when I reverted them pointing out the absence of consensus, reverted me[148] saying that I (?) can not wait for consensus forever. I mean, I am not morally attached to this article, but I do not think anybody can just come and merge it ignoring objections. I would appreciate if the situation is reverted back and the user is advised to start a merge request if they really insist on merging the article.--Ymblanter (talk)20:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
False and misleading complaint. After first disagreement with Ymblanter I did file merge request an explained in talk page. re:merge it ignoring objections -The merge request was posted in August. There wereno arguments in favor of keeping this contentless article (99,5% of it was about different subject, namely the march in question,March of the Preobrazhensky Regiment) nor rebutting my arguments but for wikilawyering. Time for discussion was enough.Staszek Lem (talk)20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
claiming there is no useful independent content. I reverted them both times, drawing their attention to the fact that this is not a policy-based reason -- this is sooo ridiculous logic I doubt Ymblanter is fit to be an admin. If the article titled XXXX is in fact 99% about YYYY, what policy do you want?Staszek Lem (talk)20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, can I propose to delete any article, wait for four months, and then delete it against objections saying that there were no arguments? Is this your understanding ofWP:CONSENSUS?--Ymblanter (talk)20:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Seriously????? The article was MERGED, after a rsonable time waiting forreal objections . If you do not see the difference, you are demonstrating unfintess and admin again.against objections - there was no objections besidesWP:IDONTLIKEIT.Staszek Lem (talk)20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sure, if I do not agree with you, I am unfit to be admin. You know, you are not the first person saying this. I hope someone else will look into this.--Ymblanter (talk)20:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sure, false accusations again. You are unfit because you appear to see no difference between deletion and merging and falsely accusing me of deleting the article. I hope someone else will look into this.Staszek Lem (talk)20:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You are right though that you created a merge request, I confused it withWP:RM where a template is required. I have striken my statement above.--Ymblanter (talk)20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, let me clarifiy as well. You edit-warred, then you opened a talk page discussion (making a number of irrelevant statement including that I inflate my edit count). You dismissed my objections. Then you decided that since you dismissed my objections then you are the only person in favor of the merging, and there is nobody opposing the merging. Therefore the discussion is not contentious, and the provision ofWP:MERGE that a neutral user must close the discussion does not apply. Then you merged the article and edit-warred when I reverted the merging. This is apparently your understanding ofWP:CONSENSUS.--Ymblanter (talk)21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
False again. You did not present any objections besides "you cannot just do it". And I didn't "just did it": I did start merge discussion, and no counter-arguments followed.Staszek Lem (talk)21:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It might be a good idea for Ymblanter and Staszek Lem to step back from this for a few hours (or even days) and let other people discuss this. You have both stated your positions and discussion between the two of you is obviously going nowhere, and whatever point of view you might have about this it's not such an urgent issue that it needs to be resolved immediately.Phil Bridger (talk)21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly my point - we need to revert it to the pre-dispute condition, see what other users have to say, and then have a neutral user closing the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk)21:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
(not my clown car, not my circus, but following a quick look - ) Seems to me that Staszek Lem has the right of it here. They did open a merge discussion (with correct tagging etc.), and laid out their reasons for a merge, to which Ymblanter did not provide any counter-arguments aside from "you can't just do that". Well, they sure can just do that - any editor can perform areasoned merge on their own cognisance; to object you actually have to present some applicablereasons, which I'm not seeing here. SL then waited a few months for further input, in the absence of which they performed the merge. My take is that if Ymblanter wants that not to happen, they had best make some useful arguments that way. It's something of a surprise to see an admin sitting on aWP:IDONTLIKEIT position here. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I just do not find the arguments reasonable. One can merge any article into everything else citing arguments of this sort. LikeNew York City into theUnited States of America. The article has (well, used to have, before it was merged) sources, which are normally sufficient for independent notability. This is not my point though. My point is that it is not ok for a user who opened a discussion to close it.--Ymblanter (talk)21:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
it is not ok for a user who opened a discussion to close it. - it is perfectly OK. I've been doing this many times with no harassment.Staszek Lem (talk)21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) The fact that both Ymblanter and Staszek Lem chose to make further edits after mine just shows that this is a childish playground Russian-Polish spat, rather than a serious issue that either party is interested in being resolved by neutral editors. Just shut the fuck up, both of you.Phil Bridger (talk)21:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I rather agree with Phil here....You both should know better. As for the opener of a discussion closing it several months later after no further participation by anyone else, I see no problem with it. If you had commentedYmblanter, it would have been different. You let that ship sail.John from Idegon (talk)21:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
And I disagree with Phil here. Also, who is fucking he to tell me "the fuck up"? I would not stand false accusations. Besides, I have self-reverted already.Staszek Lem (talk)22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Phil, I agree in spirit but please don't tell other editors to "shut the fuck up". At this point, people are now aware of the issue. Nothing should be done till more input is given. Lem, Wikipedia is not a race. You don't have to rush to merge it if there is no consensus to do so. Neither you nor Ymblanter should be deciding what that outcome is anymore. If you still haven't gotten further opinions, start a request for comment and start bringing in people who edit in the topic area. There's no reason for hostility. Slow down, everyone.2001:4898:80E8:9:AAC3:CA77:40C2:12C (talk)22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You are preaching without understanding what's going on. How can there be freaking "no consensus", if nobody was discussing the freaking article? Don't have to rush? - I was waiting for 4 freaking months!Staszek Lem (talk)00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Would have closed it as merge. Have not seen any reasonable objection at the discussion or here to say otherwise. Independant closers are only needed if the discussion is unclear or controversial in some way. Neither applies here.Only in death does duty end (talk)10:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Lem, it's probably not best to claim consensus over an un-advertised merge discussion that featured only two participants. That 'consensus' was really just you agreeing with yourself while Ymblanter refrained from commenting on the merits of a merge. The article in question was receiving roughly 2-4 page views per day prior to this ANI filing, so it's hardly surprising that nobody else weighed in at the merge discussion. Ymblanter, this would be a good time to stop commenting on the other contributor and explain why you are opposed to the merge.Lepricavark (talk)13:40, 18 December 2019 (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.
Concerning Wikipedia lb sysop named “Les Meloures”
We have no control over other Wikis and other Wikis have no control over us, You'd need to resolve this on luxembourg Wiki, NAC. –Davey2010Talk16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please wikipedia admins, help the luxembourgish community to deactivate the sysop status on lb:Wiki of Les Meloures, because his objections are neither friendly nor helpful, his language is rude, his arguments are unfounded and his contribution is not constructive. Thank You for helping Wikipedia lb.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2001:7E8:C983:7700:749C:2685:4671:4423 (talk)15:41, 19 December 2019 (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's nothing to do here. First, the block of the bot username was a soft block, meaning a new account without bot in the username is permissible. Second, assuming that the second account is owned by the same person, there haven't even been any edits yet.--Bbb23 (talk)19:37, 19 December 2019 (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.
(Non-administrator comment) I'd suggest taking this toSPI if you really think there is a link. But, per Bbb23, you should wait until a) they edit and b) you can confirm there is disruption.Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs)19:55, 19 December 2019 (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, despite numerous pleasfrom myself andother editors on their talk page, continues to add unsourced info to articles.This andthis made after 2 recent final warnings. They have been warned many times by several users and to date have yet to respond in any constructive or collaborative way ontheir talk page to these concerns. Please could an admin remind this user about the importance ofWP:V as warnings don't seem to be working.Robvanvee15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That user has never, not once, engaged in a conversation over their edits ever, and has had numerous opportunities to do so. I have blocked the user pending their response. Once they have agreed to discuss the problems, I will unblock them. Any other admin can also unblock them once they agree to discuss their editing and stop adding unsourced information. The greatest issue is the refusal to communicate; if they were actively discussing this, I would not have blocked. --Jayron3216:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but looking at the young gentleman's Talk Page; it seems as though not one experienced WP editor ever pinged the user to alert him to the page even. In deciphering his username and user page, he seems very young: 11? I would hope that assumptions were not at play here by "experienced" WP editors who think that everyone knows how it works around here. Looking at his edits, they are far from vandalism, and seemed to be worthy of inclusion: a young editor who wishes to contribute but doesn't know how? Certainly not one who is capable of taking on the editors who are experienced enough to block in a discussion. Also, the user's Talk Page isfar from discussion entering for him. They are nearlyall statements, notifications, scolding, action taken in retrospect; none of which require any back-and-forth from the user. TheNovember 2019 was far from helpful, as the internal link didn't even show what source was in question: just a blatant block message on his page. I also see that no discussion was brought up on the Talk Pages about the unsourced edits; and even the summary did not engage conversation. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would have been nice to see more "pings" on that Talk Page; even from the one who blocked him and placed the November 2019. I'm trying to find exactlywhere these "numerous opportunities to do so" can be found? BTW: I do not, as an editor, find this at all helpful to the situation: "You seem to think WP:V doesn't apply to you. Let's see if admin at WP:ANI agree with you." Not very noble; especially if he is only 11 years old. The young man only joined in July 2019. Just my opinion on the matter. Thanks.Maineartists (talk)17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Is a user under 13 allowed to create a username? Thought US Law required parental permission.
His account is 14 years old. So he'd only be 11 if he started editing as a negative 3 year old. If, instead, we presume he was editing at the precious age of 4, he'd still be old enough to be considered an adult under U.S. law. So no, he's not 11. He's an adult. --Jayron3218:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
He is not 11 years old – his earliest edits are from 2005. (I'm trying to work out why you thought he joined in July 2019 – maybe you were looking at his 500 most recent contributions without noticing that there are older contributions than that? That has happened to me before...) --bonadeacontributionstalk18:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
11 years old? Wow that's quite an assumption. So was he 11 when he created the account 5 years ago and therefore 16 now? or was he 6 when he created the account and therefore 11 now (if my maths is correct)? Are you saying with the extensive 5 year experience and 10k plus edits he hasn't figured out how to use his talk page yet? Are you saying that with over 350 messages to his talk page he hasn't once had a red notification at the top of his page? I'll admit my remark on his talk page was a low point but ffs this has been going on for so long with repeated explanatory reversion edit summaries. If you can't be bothered when does one say enough is enough. I think this user has been given a very fair block. Jayron32 has given them the opportunity to show that they can work collaboratively as well as reliably source their edits at which point the block will be lifted.Robvanvee18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Wait, am I looking at the right user? The user linked from the first post has been an editor since 2005, for more than 14 years! If he were 11 years old then (which, as you say, we have no real reason to assume), he'd be 25 now. And he has posted to his talk page once,this dismissive comment in 2006. (And also blanked a bunch of warnings and other posts from it.) I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me here, but fwiw I agree with the block. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. I obviously was missing something. I'm not experienced as y'all. I didn't know how to manage past a certain date likebonadea. I only saw the existing Talk Page and contributions that displayed when I clicked 500. My assumption was incorrect. My apologies. Always trying to look for the good in people.Maineartists (talk)18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So are we. Blocking them doesn't mean we don't think they are a good person. Just that the account the person is running is doing something that needs to be stopped for the time being. Also, the good person can get their account unblocked simply by starting a discussion on their user talk page and assuring us they understand the nature of the problem and that they intend to fix the problems they have been causing. --Jayron3218:25, 19 December 2019 (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 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 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 also do not understand the meaning of the actions ofEl_C in this article. After the anon deleted the source and made a new, dubious statement in the long-time stable article[149], El_C protected this article[150], advised me to go to RSN[151], and when I reported the facts indicating sock-puppeting[152], he just stopped responding. Or did I missed some changes in Wiki-policies?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)You are mistaken, I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I explained myself very clearly on the talk page of Aeroflot Flight 1492. You were using a source from TASS, a state owned Russian news outlet that is known for spreading disinformation, and I rightfully deleted it. You also posted a link to the Moscow Times website, claiming it stated the name of a witness to the accident, when in fact it did not.2601:143:4200:E070:4567:A17C:CCF1:F517 (talk)02:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
One of the articles the IP was warring on has already been semi-protected, and I have done the same for the other one. Either there is some meatpuppetry involved or they appear to be using two separate ranges, one IPv4 and one IPv6, so protecting may be better than rangeblocking at the moment.Black Kite (talk)13:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I was recently T-banned for articles relating to theKnights of Columbus. While I disagree, I respect the consensus of the community and intend to abide by it. As I don't typically engage in these types of conversations, I am not entirely sure what is appropriate and what isn't. (I'm not even certain this is the right place to make the following request.)
However, I would like to appeal the block of the talk pages so that I might make suggestions, similar to aWP:PP. If my idea has merit, a non-banned editor can make the change. If it doesn't, they won't. For example, the Knights was founded to provide insurance for members and has grown into a Fortune 1000 company. However, there is almost no mention of it after the entire section, after being largely trimmed,was deleted. It seems odd to me that a major insurance company wouldn't talk at all about its insurance operation and would like to be able to suggest another editor add content related to it. I don't want to violate my ban, just make a few good faith suggestions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk)21:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, a good part of the rationale for the TBAN was your stonewalling on Talk. I suggest you sit back at least until the article has stabilised with the current cleanup.Guy(help!)23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, I'm sorry about your ban. Since it's only been a few days this is premature and unlikely to pass, but if you are willing to continue editing in other unrelated areas for some time I would support scaling back the ban in a little while.Michepman (talk)03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, I reccomend you edit elsewhere, and come back after (at least) 6 months of good behavior. I know topic bans don't feel good, but they'll do you good in the long run. If you show that you can abide by the community's wishes, you should have the ban lifted without too much fuss. However, if you break it, even accidentally, beware that the community might never lift it. I reccomend you stay as far away as possible from your topic ban until this storm blows over. But I do wish you the best, and smooth sailing,Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓08:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Per all of the above, 3 days is not enough time to demonstrate that you've learned to work with others better. I would recommend as well that the spirit ofWP:SO is followed, and you wait at least 6 months before asking for a modification to your ban. --Jayron3212:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayron, Captain Eek, and Michepman. Even after more than 10 years of editing, this is largely unfamiliar terrain for me. I was unaware there was aWP:SO. --Slugger O'Toole (talk)14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Dilidor Disruptive / Uncivil conduct towards other editors
Hello, I would like to request Administrators review the conduct ofDilidor toward myself and other editors. I believe Dilidor has a long history of disruptive editing and abusive behavior towards editors (including myself) and is not making an attempt to follow Wikipedia policies despite a number of warnings from other editors and administrators. The policies I believe Dilidor regularly disregards and has demonstrated towards me areWP:CIV /WP:UNCIVIL,WP:PA,WP:EP,WP:CON,WP:LISTEN andWP:DE. He also has a history ofWP:EW.
I believe Dilidor’s statements speak for themselves, so I will not repeat them here. If desired I can expand on this.
The times when Dilidor does engage in discussion with others, it is often confrontational or hostile and contains insults. I believe this is intentional for the purpose of driving others away from the discussion. Even if it is not intentional it has had that impact. In addition to my current situation,Oldperson is a recent example[158],[159].
I have made a good faith through my talk page to involve others in the discussion to resolve the issue before coming here.[160]
I think the above discussion on my talk page has valuable information from other editors and admins regarding this matter. In the course of this discussion, it has become apparent to me that other editors and administrators have had the same problems with Dilidor and they seems unwilling to stop/change even when warned by admins (such asCúchullain[161],[162],Favonian[163], andRexxS[164],[165]). I think the content onUser talk:Dilidor page such as[166],[167],[168],[169],[170],[171],[172],[173],[174],[175], and their history inWP:ANI such as[176] and[177],demonstrate this pattern of unacceptable conduct and disruptive editing.
I've chosen to disengage from Dilidor and not discuss the other reverts he made without discussion to my edits (reverts to[178][179] which I think are examples of his being intentionally disruptive or reverting recklessly). Because our interests overlap and Dilidor’s history I believe this will repeat if not addressed.
Please let me know if I can provide any other information. I am relatively new, so if I have made a mistake, again please let me know. Thank you. // Timothy::talk00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur fully withTimothyBlue's complaint over Dilidor's behaviour. My own unfortunate interaction with them occurred when they made multiple changes to an article on my watchlist, where several of those changes breached our Manual of Style.
Ireverted the changes with what I thought was a neutral edit summary,too many mistakes, run on sentences, breaches of MOS:NUMNOTES, which waspromptly re-reverted by Dilidor with what I consider an aggressive edit summaryyou probably should learn what "run-on sentences" are before accusing someone of creating them; and what "mistakes" have I introduced? take this to the talk page---because my edits are a DISTINCT improvement. The "discuss" part ofWP:BRD should have happened before any re-reverting by Dilidor.
Dilidor's response was to ask me to explain which was the "run-on" sentence, and what errors they had made, completely ignoring my previous explanation, which I believe was already clear enough. I now know that this is simply part of Dilidor's style of debate, to frustrate other editors by repeatedly requesting more explanation.
The debate continued with me attempting to explain to Dilidor what a run-on sentence is, thinking that they were not understanding. Of course, I now know that they simply "know better" and disagree with our Manual of Style, which does not accept a comma as appropriate punctuation to join together multiple independent clauses. That may be usable by James Joyce as a stream-of-consciousness device in Ulysses, but not in an encyclopedia article.
Eventually the exchange climaxed with Dilidor writing "your spelling reveals the core of the entire problem--you're a Brit! That goes a long way in explaining both your condescension and your ignorance." Judging by the stream of complaints voiced atUser talk:TimothyBlue #Advice / Guidance needed, that appears to be typical of the way Dilidor treats other editors.
I believe that Wikipedia would be better off without Dilidor's contributions, if they cannot learn how to edit collaboratively and respect the project-wide consensus contained in our Manual of Style. --RexxS (talk)01:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I've interacted withDilidor and he certainly has a recurring problem with incivility and edit warring, as well as ignoring consensus, eghere andhere. He's been warned about this various times by various editors and admins, but he falls back on the same behaviors time and again. He certainly deserves admonishment as it's high time he shaped up - or else found another hobby.--Cúchullaint/c16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for being late here. Dealing with a broken leg yesterday p.m. and today. Been away from the Internet.
I have found Dilidor to beimmediately abusive, arrogant, disingenuous, and even outright dishonest. I have provided links to corroboration for all of thishere, and made previous appeals for administrator intervention to put a stop to it both there and at TimothyBlue’s talk page.
Being peremptorily aggressive and reflexively dismissive is his standard MO, as other users have given multiple examples of here and at TimothyBlue’s talk page. An example of his being disingenuous is his repeatedly accusing me of, for example calling him a “jerk“ at the TimothyBlue talk page discussion, when that was clearly a paraphrase used in context to characterize the consensus held by the group.
Here is the passage at issue:
What is the point of these good faith efforts by User:TimothyBlue if he is going to be ignored by administrators and just told by other editors, “Sure, Dilidor’s a jerk, and absolutely knows better. Just put up with it and everyone will get along.“ This is going to keep good editors at the encyclopedia? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
An example of his outright dishonesty is at the above cited link at thePilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, where he attempted to pretend he had nottwice been previously been cited for edit warring at that page on his own talk page (here andhere) by me regarding his peremptory, uncivil, and disruptive behavior there. Then tried to play the victim at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, and act as though I had all along refused his entreaties to meet in there on neutral ground. All of which is transparent nonsense, and easily exposed as such.
Enough is enough. User Dilidor has behaved this way chronically towards both new and clearly conscientious users, and veteran users with hundreds of thousands of total edits over decades of work here in aggregate at this encyclopedia. He needs to be sorted out. Yours,Wikiuser100 (talk)20:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I've only rarely interacted with Dilidor and it was never a particularly positive experience. On one occasion[182] he simply removed my message from his talk page without saying a word because "it was not signed" (yes, I forgot to sign it, but it was by no means an anonymous message). His copy-editing work does have some merit, but that is nullified by the amount of grief and disruption that he causes to the community. Dilidor is the typical competent but difficult character that in the end is more of a hindrance than a help to the project. --Deeday-UK (talk)19:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree. I first interacted with him atNew London Union Station, where he removed massive amounts of well-cited text from the (GA status) article. Those edits introduced multiple factual errors and non-existent infobox parameters, and his reaction to my reversion was hostile; only the intervention of an admin stopped him from edit warring. A month later, he came back and repeated several of the disputed changes - once again refusing to use the talk page when asked to. Given that the diffs given in this section indicate that his behavior has not changed, I believe that action (likely a block) is needed to stop his toxic and confrontational attitude.Pi.1415926535 (talk)00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like it may be time to consider placing a one revert restriction considering the level and lengthiness of the problem here. In the very least he needs a direct final warning that he needs to shape up now or he's going to face restrictions.--Cúchullaint/c00:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
They agreed to such a 1RR restriction earlier in the year, in regard to the removal of wikilinks. However I don't see a content-related restriction (alone) as enough. The problem here is not just article-space edits, but their attitude to other editors in general, across the talk: spaces. They demonstrate a belief that their own edits are perfect and unquestionable, yet other editors must first and continually demonstrate the apropriateness of them, and their qualifications to be here at all. We do not work on that basis, single editors do not get to impose such expectations.Andy Dingley (talk)22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
What more do we need to say here to get some action? This isn’t simply some misdirected jihad by a bunch of cranky editors. It is a well established consensus reflecting chronic and preemptoryWP:Civil-violating behavior {and more) towards new editors, veteran editors with decades of experience and hundreds of thousands of total edits in aggregate, and even multiple administrators. What gives?Wikiuser100 (talk)04:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
While IfindDilidor frustrating, I am positive that others find me frustrating. (I have been accused of edit warring after 1 revert none the less), I have noticed that Dilidor has made the effort to make explanatory or at least better edit summaries. However I do disagree with his reasoning behind some. He appears to be motivated by a mythological view of the history of New England, and will revert edits that are soundly and reliably sourced. edits that don't fit with his version of reality. I have just reverted one of his reverts and have asked him to take it to the talk page.here andhere I am awaiting a response. I might have gone to far as to inquiring motives, but consistent behavior elicts a desire to understand motive, perhaps if there was a discussion explaining why RS were reverted, then the issue could be put to rest. Putting everything on a balance scale, Dilidors contributions do outweigh any frustrations or problems. Should someone say he same about myself. I do not see any problem here that can't be solved by open communication. In fact that could be said for most problems that arise.Oldperson (talk)23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see Dilidor, who has been editing regularly since this report was opened, address this here. Refusing to account for his behavior or respond to the concerns within the ANI thread is itself disruptive. If he can't discuss things here, maybe he needs a block until he's ready to engage on these concerns.Grandpallama (talk)15:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Support as better than no action. It may not be strong enough to result in behaviour modification in their interactions with other editors, but it might spare articles from their idiosyncratic copy-editing. --RexxS (talk)01:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Support as a preventative measure that will help reduce disruption (since it doesn't appear any voluntary preventative measures are forthcoming). I would also support a civility warning.–Levivich00:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I request a courtesy vanishing as soon as possible. Been trying to get one for a while, unsuccessfully so far. There is a period of time I have to wait because of a TBAN. I wish to have the courtesy vashing done before the end of this year, because I will be unable to log back in later. If a courtesy vanishing within the next two and a half weeks is not possible, can I arrange one in advance? Any action on my part must be done before the end of this year.Iistal (talk)02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
’’Vashing’’ apparently isn’t a word but it I’m declaring a contest here and now for the best suggestion for what it would mean if it was.EEng06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Iistal, you cannot vanish unless you are in good standing. Have you successfully appealed your TBAN? The six month period mentioned after your June appealWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Topic_Ban was simply the minimum wait before you could appeal again, not an automatic end to the topic ban. And do you understand that vanishing means that you intend topermanently leave Wikipedia? Perhaps you are thinking ofWP:FRESHSTART (which still requires that your TBAN be appealed).Meters (talk)18:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I'm aware that vanishing is permanent. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place to appeal the TBAN? Please remember, I will be unable to write back after the year's end, so all of the necessary efforts on my part have to be now. I would like the TBAN appealed as soon as possible. If there is a minimum length of time I must wait before it can be successfully appealed, I wish to arrange that in advance.Iistal (talk)03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You cannot vanish because you have a topic ban. You probably won't be able to successfully appeal it in the time frame you are asking for. Just scramble your password and never log in again. There is no reason to vanish you.50.35.82.234 (talk)09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You were told inJune 2018 that "this topic ban should not be appealed without six months of editing activity that does not involve violating this active topic ban." You then made 8 edits over 10 months, most of which skirted or violated the topic ban. You were again told inApril 2019 that "[u]sers are expected to show that they can contribute positively in spite of editing restrictions if they want them lifted." After that you blatantly violated your TBAN, were blocked, and finallyunblocked in October 2019. Since then you'veblanked your Talk page,asked the admin who imposed the TBAN about courtesy vanishing, and then came here to say you've been"trying to get one for a while". That's it. No meaningful editing activity as others have repeatedly asked. You're clearlyNOT HERE to contribute to the encyclopedia—because youhaven't been contributing and also because you're leaving soon anyways—plus you're misrepresenting your own efforts about the courtesy vanishing. So why should the community allow it?Woodroar (talk)04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Iistal: What are you trying to accomplish? You cannot completely vanish since anyone familiar with an edit you made previously can find your new name with minimal effort just by looking up the new name in the article history. With that in mind, you can normally achieve the same result if you just stop editing.2600:1003:B851:85CB:E91E:359C:ADF:BDF (talk)00:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Jkg1997 is STILL doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done per discussion, Some uploading copyvio files on Commons that linked to Wikipedia directly, because ofplagiarism Why? because of suspected users severely of uploading copyrighted files on Commons, does not followed the instructions onCommons:Licensing policy. Therefore, on this statement in the Description file page says “Own work” by suspected user. It means the files taken or stolen from social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. The user successfully uploading copyvio files, it is possible to get plagiarized.Jkg1997 (talk •contribs •CA)02:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jkg1997:Repeat of my unanswered questions atarchived ANI report linked above. Why are you doing Filedelinkerbot's work? Has there been a discussion somewhere (here or at Commons) suggesting that Filedelinkerbot needs help?Given Jkg1997'suse of English, there may be no explanation and an indefinite block would be needed to avoid future disruption. Any thoughts?Johnuniq (talk)04:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Jkg1997 does not understand what people are saying here, and is determined to continue this disruption. Given that this editor appears to do nothing else on English Wikipedia a block would seem to be the easiest solution here. I would add that the "en-4" template on the user page, which I previously took at face value, appears to be a pretty big exaggeration.Phil Bridger (talk)09:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I blocked Jkg1997 indefinitely. That is needed due to the combination of making disruptive edits and being unable to explain them.Johnuniq (talk)09:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that on their userpage, where I'd expect care to be taken in things one wishes to say, the opening statement says "I have busy for my work due to past anytime, but if needed some update the articles." That's surely automated translation, the "en-4" userbox is blatantly false, and this is someone who does not possess the language competence to work on the English Wikipedia at all.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)10:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Image copyright/licensing issues are often complex/confusing for editors. The last thing needed is an editor who doesn't properly understand them making swathes of less than competent edits which they are obviously unable to explain if necessary. It's fair to say I have above average experience in this area, but there is no way I would contemplate making this kind of edit in such a wholesale manner on a project where I was not fluent in the language and customs - that would be madness, and if I attempted that I'd expect to be quickly blocked there on a CIR basis if nothing else. It's a shame that a block was necessary, but sometimes it really is the only sensible option - thanks toJohnuniq for taking the necessary action. --Begoon11:23, 19 December 2019 (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 know NDG and his obsessions all too well, and I don't believe Jkg1997 is one of his socks. "Wild goose chase" is probably the best way to describe that confession.Favonian (talk)22:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
User is consistently removing CSD tags on articles created by the user
I'm shutting this down because there's nothing useful to come of this. It is telling that, other than about 2-3 brief comments, the bulk of this exceedingly long thread consists of the same two people continuing their prior fight and demanding that the other one be blocked. I would recommend the two of you just desist and back off and find something else to do for a while, lest both of you are blocked for general disruption and wasting everyone's time. --Jayron3213:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wasn't aware of the above incidents, but my primary concern, which is somewhat impertinent now because CSD was declined, was, as can be seen in the user'scontributions, he frequently creates an article, it gets marked as CSD, and then undoes the action for CSD and invariably adds the edit summary of "if needs go for AfD (sic)". This has happened multiple times and felt it needed to be addressed. If not, then my apologies. Thank you for your help.Dr42 (talk)02:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It may well need to be addressed,Dr42; thank you for creating the report. I was just trying to get an overview, and to see if the user has continued after the warning. I'll leave the rest to those more frequently dealing with such reports.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A good way to avoid having stubs summarily deleted is not to create stubs. When you decide that an article is worth creating, work on it in userspace or draftspace so that it's well beyond a stub, and only then turn it into, or have it turned into, an article. (My own most recent article creation.) If on the other hand a subject doesn't seem worth more of your effort than what's needed to create a mere stub, this may indicate that the job is better left for some other editor, or not done at all. --Hoary (talk)03:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
My take on this is to some degreeS. M. Nazmus Shakib was caught by some over-zealous CSD'ing byKitaab Ka Kida (now being guided byPamD) resulting in a entanglement where neither did particularly well. I warned S. M. Nazmus Shakib about removal of CSD tags and believe that was taken on board; I have some concerns he still wishes to winge aboutRHaworth behind his back and possibly to use autopatroller to avoid NPP scrutiny. I am mindedMuboshgu maybe should beWP:TROUTed for only removing autopatroller rights when this hit ANI.Dr42,a relatively new user, seems per contributions to have take over a miniWP:IDONTLIKE of S. M. Nazmus Shakib's work and seems to have wished to goto ANI after being somewhat restrained byEspresso Addict. Both Kitaab Ka Kida and Dr42 have seen fit to clear their talk page. Stuff is ongoing at AfD'sWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khan Joynul andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhora Khan and in a new section below.04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Possible correction. AsDr42's contributions show edits in 2006 the above new user claim may be incorrect. Dr42's knowledge of policies certainly seem beyond that of an average 1 month user but there are valid reasons why this may be. I note the Dr42/M. Nazmus Shakib spat likely originated at the CSDing and detagging ofShyamal Kanti Biswas and frustrations that this might likely survive any attempt to send to AfD. Its also possible the Kitaab Ka Kida/M. Nazmus Shakib spat may have driven some actions on the Shyamal Kanti Biswas article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)10:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
To assist peoples I gender identify as male though my locality at times I would not be surprised to be referred to as "you old woman". I am also regarded as not particularly tall though in excessive of 5 feet (150 cm). Please provide diffs of my alleged disruption in this matter if you wish to pursue it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)10:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
As you can see in the threadimmediately above this one, I have raised several valid concerns that you removed CSD tags from articles that you created which is not in line with WP rules and regulations. After reviewing other edits, I and several other editors have noted concerns about the articles you've created, which are mainly stubs pertaining to Bangladeshi actors. I've no problem at all with the creation of well-sourced articles. However, when an article lacks notability and does not conform to WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and other rules, guidelines, and other miscellany, I will raise those concerns when and where I may. As one can gather from yourtalk page, I am not the only person with these concerns. My editing is not an incident necessitating the attention of admins. Your removal of CSD tags and other tags, however, is an admin issue, which is why your autopatrol rights were revoked (see above thread). Again, this is nothing personal -- it is a matter of policy.Dr42 (talk)04:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Re:User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib - The user is consistently claiming that I am making personal attacks when I am simply making policy-based decisions to tag and evidence-backed decisions to edit articles. He keeps claiming that I am making personal attacks (WP:IDONTLIKE) on multiple pages and in multiple articles and discussions when I have exhibited no malice or inappropriate behaviour towards him. I am uncertain as to how he reached these conclusions, but as other editors have remarked, he must stop removing CSD tags on articles that he has created himself, and he must be civil to other users, something that is not happening at this moment, and thus I am requesting assistance from admins. Thank you.Dr42 (talk)04:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Please stop removing my message from your talk page (you have reverted thrice, did you do according to policies or according toWP:IDONTLIKE) and stop yourWP:IDONTLIKE activities. I have said twice I would not do anymore (on 16 on my talkpage and today). Why you are mentioning again? And you are putting distuptive tags without valid reasons.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk)04:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Your disruptive message was removed from my talk page because you've placed the same message all over wikipedia claiming that "I don't like you". My policy-based tags and votes on articles that have been nominated for deletion should be respected. I have treated you with respect and would ask the same of you. Your numerous stub articles that do not meetWP:GNG andWP:N are the issue here as well as the fact that you blatantly violated WP policy by removing CSD tags on multiple articles that you created -- not you personally. I would encourage you to edit and enhance your existing articles so they aren't prone to deletion discussions. However, I would kindly ask that you stop attacking me based on my policy-based edits and relevant contributions that are in line with WP's rules and regulations. The tags I have placed are completely relevant to the articles and I've placed them with discretion and forethought about why they meet the criteria for the tags. Thank you.Dr42 (talk)05:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have created 400+ articles. You claimed among themnumerous articles don't meetWP:N. Name the articles' name here. There are administrators, they will judge my message was distruptive or not. I will not revert again from your talk page as I respectWP:3RR rules (but you have done thrice. Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk)05:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@S. M. Nazmus Shakib: Users are allowed to remove almost anything from their own talk pages. SeeWP:OWNTALK. There are limited exceptions but your warning certainly does not qualify. So, Dr42 is allowed to remove it. There is no question of a 3RR issue for Dr42. You, on the other hand, are disruptively restoring a user talk page post that has been removed. Stop doing that.Meters (talk)05:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance,Meters.As I've assured the relevant user moments ago as he continues this onslaught whereby he invokes "WP:IDONTLIKE" pertaining to every post about me, I've replied thusly: "If you're going to continue to use the WP:IDONTLIKE excuse, at least understand what it means. As it says in the essay, "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"." I have, with every edit and tag I've contributed, done so with justification, corroboration, substantiation, and in line with policy and regulations. You, on the other hand, are seemingly stating that I've resorted to saying "I don't like it" or one of its variants. I've provided well-constructed logic and reason to my contributions pertaining to your articles just as I have across all of the other edits I've made on WP. This has nothing to do with you personally. This has to do with your articles -- especially this one, which merely consists of four sentences." I would at this point ask that some administrative act be initiated as I've treated this user with nothing but respect and he is continuously being uncivil towards me.Dr42 (talk)05:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Dr42:continues this onslaught whereby he invokes "WP:IDONTLIKE" pertaining to every post about me
@SharabSalam what fun! We both felt the pain today. However I am optimistic that these issues will dissipate sooner rather than later. Good luck to you my friend.Dr42 (talk)08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec)It's not a question of 3RR. When someone has removed a thread from their own talk page, do not restore it. Not even once. If it was a warning, removing is taken as sign that they have seen it. It it's a post then they are obviously done with the topic.Meters (talk)05:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
For the last time, this has nothing to do with you. The articles I've seen where I am questioning the notability of the subjects involved areAdhora Khan,Pramod Khanna,Khan Joynul, and perhaps a few others. Each of these articles is a stub, and they lack significant content. Your interpretation that I am "attacking" you because I am raising the concern that these individuals may not meetWP:GNG is flagrant and without merit. I am merely participating in the dialogue pertaining to the notability of a subject which is my right and privilege as an editor on WP. This has nothing to do with you. Even if I saw an article created by Jimmy Wales and questioned its notability, I would raise that concern if it was a valid, well-founded concern that I felt needed to be raised. This is not personal. This is professional. Stop interpreting my completely reasonable and permitted use of WP as an attack against your participation or existence. This is my final word on the subject. I kindly request that an admin intervene and review this user's conduct.Dr42 (talk)05:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Dr42 claimed vandalism (When I vandalise Wikipedia?), sock puppetry (speechless), distrupion of Wikipedia (when?), paid editting (speechless again). I have said about CSD tags removal twice (here and on my talk page). For your kind information I usually created politicians, dead people articles and India releated articles. Film people are few among my article creation (among them mostly I created India film people). And in his allegation mentioned hereWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khan Joynul the deleting administrator (RHaworth) himself voted forkeep who deleted earlier (I have mentioned [[there why I recreated). And there are few CSD removals (also said reasons why I have done on my talk page). I apologised twice (see above and my talk page) and said I will not do again. But, he is attacking me again and again and said my message wasspam on his talk page. Today he our 4 CSD tags on my articles (3 of them such asShyamal Kanti Biswas,Adhora Khan,Khan Joynul declined and anotherNimish Pilankar who was the sound editor of many films. And sound editors are creative professionals. There are enough references there). Put a AfD tag onPramod Khanna (I meantioned here why he passedWP:NENT). And voted for delete on afds my article despite of showing him valid reasons. I think his recent contribution indentified hisWP:IDONTLIKE activities on me. And he claimed earlierI created numerous articles that didn't passWP:N (but didn't able to name some). Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk)06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dr42: A request for checkuser requires evidence. You appear to be a party to this dispute, and we need to see that there is evidence that would convince an unbiased observer that there is something to investigate. Your link to an article that they have re-created was an article that they had created previously, and is not evidence of socking. You can re-instate the checkuser needed template if you have evidence in the form of diffs linking this user to another account.ST47 (talk)07:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@ST47: UnderCheckUser: Grounds for Checking, it states that vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing are valid reasons. The relevant user has engaged and admitted to removing CSD tags when he knew he created the articles and should not have done so. In addition, hereverted my talk page back to edits he made for a total of four times. He is consistently invokingWP:IDONTLIKE when I am merely voting on the merits of the deletion proposals. The user is also spamming wikipedia with article stubs ofnon-notable individuals that have little-to-no sources from reputable news entities. The sock argument is the least strong, but I think the vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing have ample evidence based on the links I've provided in this post and in the above posts. I bear no ill will toward the user, I am simply concerned about the vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing that has continued for some time now. Seeuser talk page, specificallyhere,here,here,here, andhere.Dr42 (talk)07:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, these pages were deleted and these were happened when I was reletively new user and I don't know then notability guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. After that seeUser talk:Mkativerata about solve of our edit warring onMahathir Mohammad. It was done then as I have usedWP:3RR by mistake as I don't know then. Later, the edit war was solved. He often claimed paid editting without no reason.@Dr42: claimed I am spamming Wikipedia. Did the user know notability guidelines? Did the user know members of state legislatures are nnotable? Or it was uses by him for hharassing me. Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk)07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@ST47: I agreed, but as I mentioned, there are other reasons underCheckUser: Grounds for Checking, and those reasons are vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing. If those aren't valid reasons then perhaps they should be removed because the way that it reads currently, it doesn't state that it has to be an exclusively sock puppet-based argument. Either way, the only thing that matters here is stopping the rule breaking. If you have any additional ideas or procedures by which I can solve the problems that this user has presented, they are most welcome. Otherwise, I suppose we can just move on with the hope that the user will stop any vandalism, disruption, and bad faith editing. Thanks for your assistance.Dr42 (talk)08:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Dr42, I’d suggest you stop advocating for a CheckUser unless you can identify clear sock-like behaviour, preferably with demonstrative diffs. I agree that there are some problematic issues relating to policy, and possibly even some evidence of paid editing (given the dearth of rather obscure subjects). But these are dealt with in other ways, such as (for example): mentoring/topic bans, and disclosures, respectively.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)09:53, 20 December 2019 (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 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.
Problematic editor
This user continues to add unsourced info to music related articles despite a multitude of final warnings. Given they like to remove any negative messages from their talk page such as warnings (which they are of course allowed to do) it does make it seem as if it is always a first time offence. As such I added the "old warnings" tag to the top of their talk page so that other editors are aware of the prior warnings but one only needs to hover over the diffs on their talk page history to see the removed warnings for failing to reliably source. I personally warned themhere, made another personal pleahere but afterMagnolia677'smessage today, their continuedunsourced edits and their complete lack of communication with other editors regarding these issues have brought this here. Examples of recent unsourced edits can be foundhere,here, andhere but one only needs to hover over their contribution diffs to get the bigger picture. Please could an admin remind this silent editor about the importance of collaboration and reliably sourcing their edits, thanks.Robvanvee15:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A month after his block,Joseph Rowe(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is still tweaking and refining his insults, adding things like "an administrator who shows more objectivity than either [redacted] or [redacted]", "a fallacious and seemingly willful misunderstanding", and "long and pointless screed"[183]
I think you mean "exactly 100%". If a blocked user bitches in a forest, and no one is watching their talk page, does it lead to an ANI thread?--Jayron3203:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I somehow missed that part of Wikipedia's policies where it says that personal attacks and incivility are allowed if the victim is able to unwatch the page where they occur. Could you point me to the policy or guideline saying that? --Guy Macon (talk)04:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
User has been CU-blocked, so while all of the good intentions might be given towards this user, ArbCom is responsible for handling any unblock requests from here out.Primefac (talk)02:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see the section#WP:NOTHERE editor above, which I wish had been left open for this comment and possible responses. I apologize to the community for not having responded as soon as I had planned to. I was actually engaged in writing a long message to that user when the aboce thread was closed.
I have now posted atUser talk:James The Bond 007#Your actions, a possible unblock, and procedures going forward. In this long post I identify a significant number of edits that were unacceptable or un wise; I outline what this user (JB) will need to do to formulate a plausible unblock request, and I propose a set of restrictions that this user would agree to in the event of an unblock. I just posted this minutes ago, and there has not yet bveen any resposne. I did notify the user by email.
I belive that JB (as I will call this user for brevity) is an enthusiastic, inexperienced, but well-intentioned user. Note that I hgave had zero off-wiki communiction with JB, and I have no evidence not available to any Wikipedia editor (except that I did see some content now protected by oversight.) But i do sugest that we AGF here.
I think that JB wants approval from other editors. I think that JB is overly prone to lash out in anger when critizized. I think that JB has beenbitten a bit, particuarlly inthis editthis edit. Note that the "vandalism" complained of here was leaving a religious Christmas message/card on another user's talk page, apprently in an effort to reach out positivly. JB did not react to this well, but then many would not. JB did eventually apologizein this edit
In general when JB truly understands that an action is not acceptable, JB apologizes and does not repeat the misbehavior, but JB has not always grasped problems as soon as should be the case.
I belive that JB has the potential to become a positive contributor here. There is a problem with maturity, but I think with careful instructiuon that can be overcome, if JB remains willing as has been the case. I call to the community's attentionthis edit.
I undertake to provide such careful instruction if JB is willing to accept it.
I ask the community to consider that an unblock may be appropraiteif JB makes a proper unblock request (which has not yet happeend, but I think may); that it might be appropraite to unblock JB without a lapse of years. I ask not for an unblock decision in this thread, but for an explicit authorization for a reviewing administrator to consider an unblock without being bound by a decision to block in the previous thread. In short I ask that the status be considered "blocked by one admin", not "blocked by community decision at ANI".
Finally, I am pinging those involved in the previous thread here, or possibly otherwise involved with JB.
This is great, thank you - I've been peripherally aware of this user, they've appeared on my watchlist quite a lot. We really need a better process for taking enthusiastic but ultimately incompetent young editors and turn them into decent contributors. -- athey/them |argue |contribs20:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. I do believe that in addition to (or perhaps caused by) immaturity problems, there is also an impatience problem that needs to be overcome for JB to be able to productively edit Wikipedia. That said, I do wholly believe hewants to be a productive editor, and while he has certainly been disruptive all the same, I'd absolutely be fine with this being considered a "normal block" rather than "community block" where unblock procedure is concerned. (That said, I was not involved in the actual ANI discussion, so my opinion should probably be given reduced weight here)AddWittyNameHere20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'veCheckUser blocked after running a check based on concerns brought to me by another CheckUser. There is too much going on in the IP data here for all of it to be just a conincidence. The best avenue of appeal at this point in time is the Arbitration Committee, and yes, I'm sorry that this happened after DES put time and effort into this, but there is a lot of stuff going on here, some logged out and some involving other accounts that means that itdoes need the review of people who can see the full picture.TonyBallioni (talk)20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni I find that hard to accept, but I knmow that there are log entries that I cannot see. I do want to remind all that editing logged out is not the same as editing using another account, unless the clear and obvious intent is to avoid scrutiny, and that not all use of multiple accounts is abusive and thus block-worthy. But not knowing just what edits (if any) were made on other accoutns or logged out, I cannot evaluate them. Tony you suggest an appeal direct to the ArbCom. Hypothetically, if a user abusing multiple accounts openly admits this, shows underestanding of it as a violation, and promises not to sock again, can not any checkuser pass mon an unblock request, or must things still be done via AbCom?DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
DESiegel it wasn’t just edits or accounts, and some of those actions are what concern me here. I went ahead and forwarded the data to ArbCom after reblocking because I knew you had put a lot of work into this, so they can review my conclusion without the need for JB even to appeal.TonyBallioni (talk)01:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) As far as process: I understand the immediacy of the block in this case – the user was clearly on a tear and needed to be prevented from doing further damage. However, I believe such a block should be temporary (other long-term contributors have occsionally gone off the deep-end and been given a time-out) when the user has been "officially" adopted by another user in good standing (especially an admin), as in this case, until that adopter has had a chance to weigh in on his charge. That seems to be within the spirit of "adoption", and would have been a good idea in this case. Since David is willing to put the (literally) hours in on this, I think it's the right thing to do for all concerned to allow it. The adoptee may very well be unable to be coached, but in this case at least, I'm not yet convinced. As long as the adoptee is willing to follow direction and be monitored, I say both adopter and adoptee should be given the opportunity, in keeping with the best principles and optimistic nature of the project.—[AlanM1(talk)]—01:59, 22 December 2019 (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.
Support topic ban or one more block followed by a topic ban On the outside possibility that Sthatdc really did find a copy/paste copyright violation and is for some reasonunwilling orunable to say where he found it, I did a thorough search on half a dozen phrases that he deleted. The only copies I found were the usual mirrors of Wikipedia. I believe that the copyvio claims are a stalking horse for an attempt to push a fringe POV. (Stalking horse: A thing that is used to conceal someone's real intentions. Originally referred to a screen made in the shape of a horse behind which a hunter stays concealed when stalking prey.) --Guy Macon (talk)02:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Modified 02:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This user accused me of pushing a fringe POV, when all I did was copyedit an article to improve it. Included in that was rewriting the opening sentence so that instead of presenting non-free text copied and pasted from a source, it consisted of text written by me and freely licensed. That is after all the core aim of the encyclopaedia. Now you have the weird spectacle of people denying that there is copied and pasted text. The non-free text has been repeatedly restored, and is currently in the first sentence of the article once again. The user pretends not to be able to see it, and has also refused to explain what "fringe POV" they believe I am pushing. I suspect that they simply feel a strong sense of ownership over the article.Sthatdc (talk)14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Nobody "pretends not to be able to see it". We simplycan't see it unless you say which text is non-free and where it is copied from. Why are you so reluctant to do that?Phil Bridger (talk)14:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Read the first sentence. You see the bit that is screamingly obviously copied and pasted from a source? If not, you are illiterate. This is as if you were asking me to point out where the Sun is in the sky, claiming that you could not tell where it was. I am reluctant to play along with your trolling, indeed.Sthatdc (talk)14:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
If it were an attributed quotation, then it would say "according to person X" or something like that. But at least you are able to see the non-free text used in violation of the free text policy that I am referring to.Sthatdc (talk)15:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
So that's a "yes", you mean the fact that the sentence has a quotation in it, together with the source from which that quotation came. No wonder you're on your way to being blocked. --JBL (talk)15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow! That's what you think copyediting an article, and understanding that non-free text cannot be used at will in a free encyclopaedia, should be rewarded with? Amazing.Sthatdc (talk)14:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Several people have called me that, as well as absurdly accusing me of "pushing a fringe POV". I assume you want them indefinitely blocked as well.Sthatdc (talk)15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Leaning indef - Given the last (2) line(s) I'm now inclined to feel we're being trolled, unless either Sthatdc or another editor can indicate why that isn't the case (go ahead and humour us by telling us anyway, even if you think it obvious), in which I'll reconsider the original proposed sanctionNosebagbear (talk)14:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Which two lines? Your assumption of bad faith is remarkable. If you think I have tried to make the encyclopaedia worse, do indicate how.Sthatdc (talk)15:19, 22 December 2019 (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.
After I reverted an editor who removed a lot of context in theKhalida Jarrar andthreatened to edit war the next day, (it wasn't a mistake that he broke the 1rr) he immediately went and reverted my edits inBattle of Al Hudaydah indiscriminately.
This editor has a history using the editwaring in a gaming way. For example iremoved content that I saw was poorly written and he reverted me and then I reverted (I made one revert) he went and filled a report against me saying that I broke the 1RR and I didnt then he said I reverted a 2 years old edit ([184]) so I laughed and self-reverteduser:Bbb23, said something like, I shouldnt have self-reverted because I wouldnt have been blocked. And today this editor waits until the next day so that he reverts although he had no established consensus.--SharabSalam (talk)04:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to admit to following me around to an article you have never edited before, revert me under false pretense (I did not remove any content, I just moved it from the lead to an appropriate section), and then come here to complain about tit-for-tat. It is also amusing for someone with a block log full of blocks for edit warring to come here and complain of edit warring. PerhapsWP:BOOMERANG is in order here.Here come the Suns (talk)04:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
And I'll also not the dishonesty in claiming Bbb23 said wouldn't have been blocked for that edit warring report, when in fact he simply marked the report as 'no action' because you self reverted -[185]— Precedingunsigned comment added byHere come the Suns (talk •contribs)
Here come the Suns, he saidI'm not sure they needed to do that for a revert of something that was added two years ago[186]. And now you are trying to do the same game after you sent a warning template in my talk page. And threatening to revert the next day. You dont seem to have interest in collaborating with other editors. You just want to win an edit war. --SharabSalam (talk)04:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec)Here come the Suns, nope, I had almost all Palestinian related articles in my watchlist though I don't edit there because it is a dangerous place to have disputes in. Yesterday, I saw your comment in the edit summary when you threatened that you would revert the next day and I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert.--SharabSalam (talk)04:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I did not threaten anything, certainly not to edit war. Since that page has a 1RR limitation, I said I would abide by that restriction and make any further edits after 24h had passed. And had you bothered to look at my edit, rather than blindly reverting it, you'd have seen see it was different from that edit that Zero and Huldra had objected to, and simply made the article conform withWP:LEAD - leads need to summarize article content, not replicate it, and not introduce material which is not in the article body.Here come the Suns (talk)04:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
But I do appreciate the honesty - "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me. So I waited until your revert" - in other words,you were playing tit-for-tat, and admit it openly, yet come here to complain.WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?Here come the Suns (talk)04:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Here come the Suns, nope. As I said I saw your edit summary and I remembered for the time you gamed the editwar with me. I most certainly didn't agree with your whitewashing removal of content. And then you went andedit warred in the Battle of Al Hudaydah.--SharabSalam (talk)05:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I did not remove any content, which you would have known had you actually looked at the edit, instead of blindly reverting it. You words are the up there for all to see : "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me.So I waited until your revert" .Here come the Suns (talk)05:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You removed the part where it says that she was released from Israeli detention, after an international campaign on her behalf and the amount of time she was imprisoned and how much she paid etc. I waited for your revert because there was no consensus and you added a provocative comment in the edit summary and you also had a history of playing games with editwaring . You still wanted to continue to edit waring. After my revert you immediately went to the Battle of Al Hudydidah as a part of tit-for-tat and reverted my edits and edit warred.-SharabSalam (talk)05:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I didn't. All those details, and more, appear in the section titled "Administrative detention and trial", which you would have known, had you actually looked at my edit rather than blindly reverting it. Your words speak for themselves: "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me.So I waited until your revert". You had never edited that article, you did not participate in the discussion between me and other editors, you were lying in wait, to avenge the fact that you had to self-revert your previous edit war.Here come the Suns (talk)05:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Here come the Suns, You removed a notable event from the lead section without establishing a consensus. I revert you and then immediatelyyou went to theBattle of Al Hudaydah article and edit warred. I waited for your revert because of your edit summary and because I know you that you only want to win an edit war not to win consensus. The edits you made the next day were totally unacceptable whitewashing and removals from the lead paragraphs.
I did not remove anything, all the details are in the article. I made the lead conform withWP:LEAD - provide a summary of the events. You blindly reverted that, and explained you motivations thusly: "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me.So I waited until your revert". And just so that we're clear, when you say "I gammed(sic) that edit war" - what you mean is I reported your edit warring. That's not "gamming(sic)" - that's seeing to it that you edit as required by wikipedia.Here come the Suns (talk)05:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Here come the Suns, the motivation was that you have removed a context that is needed and the lead should cover notable events like that she was released after an international campaign on her behalf as per the summary that I gave. It is not wrong to be aware of your disruptive past of gaming the policy. Also, you haven't answered my question, whyyou went to theBattle of Al Hudaydah article and edit warred? saying that I didn't participate while I did and you didn't. Also, stop misquoting me. I waited because of your edit summary and your past with articles in that 1rr area.--SharabSalam (talk)05:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Your words speak for themselves: "I remembered when you gammed that editwar report against me.So I waited until your revert". And again - just so that we're clear, when you say "I gammed(sic) that edit war" - what you mean is I reported your edit warring. That's not "gamming(sic)" - that's seeing to it that you edit as required by wikipedia.Here come the Suns (talk)05:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The fact is that after I reverted your disruptive edit that removed notable events from the lead you went to an article that I edited in and started editwaring in it. Being aware of your disruptive edit wars and your provocative edit summary is not wrong, it wasnt the reason that I reverted you. Also, I didnt edit war in that article. You made a report accusing me of breaking the 1rr although I didnt and then after a while you said I reverted a 2 years old edit and that this count as revert.--SharabSalam (talk)05:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Listen you two, we don't really want ARBPIA to spillover at ANI (and I would ban it from AN3, too, if I could) — take it to AE, if you must.El_C05:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
El C, could you please see what happened exactly? I reverted this editor because he removed a content that was notable and should be included in the lead I was aware of his disruptive gaming of the policy, his provocative edit summary and of the discussion that was taking place in his talk page. He after that he went to the article of Battle of Al Hudaydah which I recently editted and reverted my edits and edit warred.--SharabSalam (talk)06:05, 22 December 2019 (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.
OP blanked and nominated page, although she wasn't the creator. This is a content dispute. The redirect to the group's page has been restored, and further discussion on the suitability of that can be discussed on the redirect's talk page or atWP:RFD.John from Idegon (talk)18:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So a new editor started a discussion about NPOV saying that we should remove anti-Muslim from the lead. And then the conversation developed andTVC 15 and I joined the discussion and TVC 15 started edit waring removing anti-Muslim content regardless of many editors objecting that. Today, he came again and edit warred, I and other editors reverted him. I disscused this with him in a very civil way. I gave him all the solid reliable sources that support anti-Muslim. Then afterTVC 15 had no arguments he started arguing that there is no proof that Jihad Watch is anti-Muslim and cited one of their latest reports saying that Jihad Watch cited its report from the BBC, is the BBC anti-Muslim?. This is theJihad Watch article and this is theBBC article. I told him yes, the BBC doesnt say anything about them being Muslim while the Jihad Watch puts it in the title as "Muslim gang" with such a horrific title. And I said imagine if newspapers started saying Jewish or Christian next to any crime happens by those allegedly Christians or Jewish.
After thatTVC 15 started making some stupid replies saying, are you questioning if they are Muslim? "Before answering, please note another defendant was deported to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, where apostasy can have grave consequences" He also said
nearly 100% of the UK "grooming" gang rapists have been Muslim, and some read from the Koran to justify raping infidel girls of any age.
and said that the BBC
reminds me of when the previous POTUS claimed the Islamic State had nothing to do with Islam, even though its Muslim caliph had a PhD in Islamic studies.
I replied very politely saying, I am an Arab Muslim from Yemen and I read Quran everyday, I have never found that it says we should rape infidel women. You can also see the rest of the other BS he said. He also said that Quran encorage rape with a link to a NYT article about ISIS. I reverted his latest comment because it was obviously turning to a forum with inflammatory language and lies, in his comment he also said,The basic issue is this: the subject site presents reliably sourced facts that some people would prefer to deny (seetaqiya). I think something should be done about this. The editor has waste my time with this.--SharabSalam (talk)05:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This user has been here since 2006. They have been blocked once, in 2008, for 3RR. So I wasn't inclined to immediately indef. But if another admin feels that I was, indeed, to lenient, they are welcome to do so (I have no objections).El_C15:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, I have indeffed the user for copying the provocations I removed onto their user talk page.El_C15:06, 21 December 2019 (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.
A new editorJames The Bond 007 (formerly Gumshoe97) has been persistently creating messes in their very short Wiki career.
I could continue but in the short month that this user has been here they've made several dozen errors and seem to generally lack the competence and maturity to edit. It is a waste of other editors time to clean up after someone who thus far hasn't contributed positively to this project. I don't know if the solution here is an indef or a very lengthy block but I believe one of the two needs to happen.Praxidicae (talk)14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a block is appropriate, i just think Praxidicae should leave me alone, i am a new user, and she keeps bugging me, and I told her to stop, and she doesn't listen, all I ask her is to stop, and please don't block me, I beg you, and she threatened to get me blocked, and all my edits are assumed in good faith, so please don't block me.--Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk)14:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Whilst I do not think that James The Bond 007 is the same user that I originally blocked them as a sock of, I nonetheless have started to seriously regret lifting the block I placed on their account. I wouldsupport aWP:CIR block in these circumstances.Yunshui雲水14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
First off, if they were granted any permissions, such as rollback, then remove them. Otherwise a block is inappropriate (they're not punitive) as they've already had quite a clear message delivered already. Howeverany repeat should be a long block.Andy Dingley (talk)14:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
a block is completely appropriate given how many warnings they've had and their repeated "accidents." Please see the lengthy history of this user and feel free to ask an admin about some of their deleted edits.Praxidicae (talk)14:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
We don't warn-and-block for the same edits. Well, clearly wedo, but we shouldn't. Blocks aren't intended as punishment. If they're really so incorrigible, WP:ROPE would have blocked them for their next event.Andy Dingley (talk)14:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not just that edit conflict, it's a pattern of incompetent and disruptive editing. Whether it's CIR or NOTHERE, it's a good block.--P-K3 (talk)14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
They didn't just EC. Look at the actual diff, they literally edited a comment as their own and removed another. That's not an EC.Praxidicae (talk)14:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The editor had some personal information oversighted from their user page, and the oversighter pointed the editor toWP:GFYE. It may be a fundamentalWP:CIR issue due to the editor being too young to edit productively at this time, but if so, that should be handled with a bit more gentleness than has been displayed so far. I think the adopter should have been notified and may want to handle this (thanks, DES, for signing up for the role!).–Levivich15:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to state now that I have seen the ping, and intend to review the above comments and diffs more thoroughly, and respond here as soon as possible, surely withing 24 hours.. It seems that I should have been more closely monitoring this user's edits than I was. I was actually planning to deliver a cautionary message today based on a communi=cation that I received earlier in the week. Please do not close this thread just yet. I would like a chance to reveiw and address this. I am not yet sure if i can in good conscience argue for an unblock, but I hope to be able to make that case.DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to decline the unblock request, and after seeing this user earlier, I'm not surprised at the block. Blocks are not punitive, and this one isn't. The problem is the ongoing disruption, and I see no hope that the disruption will not resume once they are unblocked. They simply may not be ready to function here at a constructive level. Despite the hype, not everyone is. I eagerly awaitUser:DESiegel's opinion. PerhapsUser:Andy Dingley could assist DES in mentoring. --Deepfriedokra17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that I did decline the unblock request. I do agree with Levivich that given the apparent age that this suggests a level of care that might not apply in other situations. At some point, even if not now or the next few years, this editor really might be a productive editor and I wouldn't want to close that door definitively. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Having communicated with this user before, I think the only real issue is their age, which leads toincompetence. It might be best if they come back in a couple of years once they have gained a little bit more maturity and then try to edit Wikipedia productively.Happy Festivities! //J947(c)17:50, 20 December 2019 (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 removal of content - rejected at AIV, so bringing here
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.
Vandalism after final warning. Destructively removing archive details from references/links despite requests to stop/explain - ignores all warnings/requests to communicate. Aside from a couple of other unhelpful edits the account has basically done nothing except dozens of these destructive removals, so pretty much a vandalism only account, by any definition. Rejected byToBeFree as not obvious vandalism... I'm not sure what vandalism is if persistent destructive removal of large, useful parts of our referencing content, refusal to discuss in any way, and ignoring all warnings isn't it. --Begoon11:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
No, thankyou... I simply love being forced to waste my time repeating my posts to get action taken against an obviously damaging editor who refuses to discuss why they are causing damage, and whose destructive edits I have spent substantial time defending against, with effort invested to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain the seemingly inexplicable (most people wouldn't bother with that).
From the AIV discussion you link you have clearly misunderstood the bulk of their edits - they are, in almost all cases, removing useful archive information destructively, particularly, it seems, archive.org, for some unexplained reason - not "replacing a link with another link" or whatever other nonsense you put forward there - SeeHelp:Using the Wayback Machine andWP:DEADLINK and do try to examine the facts, please... Removing useful archive links can never be a "good idea" - how could it ever be a good idea to reduce the readers' options for verification of a link which may one day become inaccessible? Common sense surely makes that "idea" nonsense.
Every time you try to reject a valid report like that it does make me a little warmer inside, but I'm just worried I might overheat, so if you could see your way clear not to "help" me like that in future I'd appreciate it. --Begoon13:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't helpful as it destroys what was the specific ref source to a general category. Removing the dead URLs with the archive links hurts because it essentially makes the text unsourced. That seems to be the bulk of their editing. That combined with not talking to anyone about it isn't good for the encyclopedia.spryde |talk13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That's obvious, as, I would hope, is what I said above. ToBeFree, I guess, doesn't like me because I alleged someone was a sockpuppet and they disagreed. I may have been wrong and I may have been right - I think I was right, but so what - they made some unjustified deletions to my talkpage at the time, and I didn't object because I didn't want to upset them, and the SPI was done. If they want to pursue this grudge further, though - it'll be hard for me to be so understanding about what seems like abuse of admin rights any more.
If I'm honest, though - all that can wait - we should just block the editor deleting useful content - or am I being too simplistic? --Begoon14:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Begoon, before you wrote "smh again", I did not have the RFPP decline in mind. Before your comment here made me have a look at your talk page archive, I also did not rememberSpecial:Diff/891833374. It may seem strange to you, but I was honestly unaware of our previous interactions each time I declined one of your reports. Now that you have mentioned your talk page, though, I can finally understand where your suspicion comes from. It is incorrect, even now; there is no reason for me not to like you. To prevent this understandable impression ofhounding, I will do my best not to respond to further noticeboard reports made by you, unless they are about an incident I was involved in. Please do remind me if I forget this; I'm serious about this offer. I definitely do not intend to upset you.
The full diff isSpecial:Diff/917558513/931471648, which replaces a redirect to the home page by at least a specific category. The only copies available of the page in the Internet Archive, dating back to 2012-03-08, are redirects to the home page. It is really only the refusal of discussion that worries me here, not the good-faith attempts at fixing references. I do not object to a block, but please don't use "Vandalism" as the block reason.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't believe you. You're a poor admin, you hold evident grudges, and I wish I'd opposed you at RFA. --Begoon14:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Please,Begoon. There can never be evidence for a non-existent grudge. You're a fine editor, your report does have merit, and you're welcome to ask for a recall atUser:ToBeFree/recall if my behavior during the first year is unacceptable to you.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't condescend. Others can judge. I'm not advocating removal of your admin tools right now. I might, after I think about all this, but it won't be in the unconsidered, evidence-free mode that you thought you could deal with me when I do. Think on. Have you blocked the obvious vandal yet? --Begoon14:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand the interpretation that the user is trying to fix references. The removal of archive links isn't helpful, but all instances I saw where they did that were when the original link was incorrectly labeled as dead (probably it was dead at some point in the past). I agree that this isn't vandalism (in the sense of deliberately trying to make things worse). However, the user is making some things worse, and they need to stop that. I suggest to block after (a) somebdoy explained to them why what they were doing was wrong and (b) they then do that again. (They received a link toWikipedia:Vandalism, which does not explain at all why their edit was wrong, so it is no wonder they are continuing). FromWikipedia:Vandalism: "For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia". —Kusma (t·c)15:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually not so much. The only time you should call edits vandalism is where the user'sintent is clearly to harm Wikipedia. As noted above, there is the possibility that the userthinks they are being helpful. So long as a userthinks they are being useful, you should never call their edits vandalism. That doesn't mean the person should be allowed to continue, just that unless it is obvious to everyone that they are trying to be harmful, you should seek other forms of redress. --Jayron3216:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Begoon, ok, you actually described the problem to the user in plaintext a week ago, so I see your point better now. My apologies. As the user has stopped for the day, I chose to give another semi-handcrafted final warning (using DE, not vandalism as reason), but I am happy to block them on the next edit. —Kusma (t·c)16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
You receive a special bonus for eventually, actually reading the evidence. You seem to be unique here in that respect. Yes, I'd taken the time to explain the issue to the user in detail - that's really the whole point here - that they continued regardless is the vandalism. I'm extremely pissed off by this whole incident, and the wagon-circling to play down a very poor, plainly grudge driven, "admin" action at AIV, but your apology is, at least, appreciated. Thank you. --Begoon00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Not all disruptive editing is vandalism; This might warrant a block for refusing to communicate, but even then... I' not convinced. This seems very much like a user who just doesn't understand how to use their Talk page - that's pretty common, and honestly a failing on our part as a community more than theirs as a new user trying to contribute.Begoon - I can't say your tone here reflects well on you, at all. Your report does have merit, but the information kidna gets lost in the noise of you flinging shit atToBeFree. Calm down, approach this from what's best for the encylopaedia rather than the idea that some admin holds a grudge against you. -- athey/them |argue |contribs15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Let me try to explain it, Begoon. Vandalism is not a word that should be used to describe every type of disruptive editing. It is reserved for ONLY that type of editing whichonly has, as its purpose, to damage Wikipedia, things like inserting gibberish or random swear words in Wikipedia articles. Reports at AIV may be regularly declined if, in the opinion of the admin who happens to respond, that the editing does not appear to them to be obvious vandalism. That doesn't mean it is good editing, just that thevenue ofWP:AIV is not particularly well suited towards dealing with forms of disruption that are not really obvious vandalism like that. The rule of thumb you should follow is that any time that the editing needs any kind of lengthy explanation of what is wrong with it, AIV is probably not the locale to handle it. That does NOT MEAN that the person causing the disruption shouldn't be blocked, it just means that you should try somewhere else like here to deal with it instead. Also, since there are hundreds of admins, not every admin will deal with everything exactly the same way. Some admins will see something as obvious, and another may not. This is also not a huge issue here at ANI, where we can discuss things, but at AIV, where discussion really doesn't happen, if a report gets declined, it doesn't mean anything about you. It just means that ANI may be a better venue to handle blocking the person in question. I hope that explanation makes sense to you, since you found Alfie's explanation above confusing. --Jayron3216:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Not really. It's clearly vandalism because it's clearly persistent damage to content, deliberate, and malicious. I'm extremely pissed off about this whole incident, and "circling the wagons" doesn't help. As a result I'm reconsidering my participation here as a whole. When my genuine efforts to protect this encyclopedia are rebuffed by an "admin" with an obvious grudge, and the reactions are similar to this, then it doesn't make me inclined to continue to donate any more time or effort. There have been other recent posts here about the futility of criticising admin actions at ANI because of this "wagon circling" tendency, and I strongly sympathise with that sentiment. --Begoon23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree removing the archive.org links is disruptive but not vandalism. If the editor continues to remove the links, a block may be necessary to prevent the disruption until they engage on their talk page. Hard to swallow that TBF is holding a grudge by properly declining a bad AIV report, or by agreeing to avoid Begoon's reports in the future, the latter of which certainly doesn't seem very grudge-like. I'm glad Begoon brought attention to this disruption, but next time I'd thank him to employ fewer personal attacks.–Levivich01:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Levivich,"you’re being a complete asshole in this conversation". That's not unexpected, I've seen you in action. Please keep your nonsensical views on who has made "personal attacks" to yourself (if keeping anything to yourself in a conversation of no concern to you is a concept you can grasp - which I rather doubt). --Begoon01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's better, but I'd ask future posts to have even fewer personal attacks than that. But good start!–Levivich01:54, 20 December 2019 (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 user above has wrongly made a claim when he clearly has been indulgding in pov pushing on many articles he has got warnings from several editors who have all complained about his bias he keeps removing sourced information on the articleDistillation among others based on spurious accussations of vandalism etc when they are clearly sourced.31.205.18.37 (talk)18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Both of y'all are going to have to produce some diffs and make a case explaining the nature of the problem. Idle assertions without evidence are not useful. --Jayron3218:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The article you mention is exactly where you made personal attacks (1,2),elsewhere and your edt history is filled with them; not to mention that you have been hounding me all over the wiki. And then going on to do the same (1,2,3) on the Talk pages of other users.Gotitbro (talk)18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to start aWP:COMPETENCE discussion aboutUser:Weelandlka. This discussion is prompted not by a single incident, but rather a consistent pattern of making edits with poor English, and suppressing contributions that conflict with his/her political views. I have not personally had an extended discussion with Weelandlka about this behavior, but many other editors have over the course of several months. I'm unclear on what the bar is for determiningWP:COMPETENCE, but I would appreciate it if you could review Weelandlka's behavior and determine if any action would be appropriate.
Discussion follows:
Frequently inserts incomprehensible text into articles
Weelandlka is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, his additions are frequently in broken English which is hard to read, and sometimes completely unintelligible.
Here are a few samples from this week alone:
A debate erupted over conservative leader Andrew Scheer's handling of LGBT rights after the 2019 election, former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose is supported chorus of Conservatives members that wanted the party needs to take a clearer stand on LGBTQ.Source
Benoit Charette, the Quebec environmental minister describes people no longer have children as "too alarmists".Source
Jessie Brown from Canadaland noted that it could have given the Conservative party to cut CBC budget.Source
Weelandlka has contributed much worse before; these are just the examples I could find from his/her last few edits.
Weelandlka has been called out on this multiple times, by multiple editors:Link 1,Link 2. The comment in the second link is pretty representative:
I got several "thank yous" and even a written "thank you" on my talk page for reverting your additions. Other editors cannot understand what you are writing and, by their comments, are struggling to either fix or remove your additions.
Note also Weelandlka's comment that English is his/her native language, but (s)he just can't be bothered to make more coherent edits. Weelandlka has not substantively improved the quality of his/her edits since, which forces other editors to clean up afterwards (or just allow the quality of the affected articles to degrade).
ExhibitsWP:OWNER behavior, violatesWP:NPOV, and engages in edit wars
Weelandlka assumed ownership of thePeople's Party of Canada article, and took it upon him/herself to unilaterally remove any statements about the party that (s)he disagreed with, including ones supported by references from reputable news outlets including Reuters and the New York Times:Example 1,Example 2,Example 3.
The original poster forgetting to sign is an unfortunate mistake of the type that nearly everybody (apart from me of course) makes, but, if Weelandlka is really a native speaker of English, edits betray a lack of competence in writing in any language. Even the first sentence onUser:Weelandlka is not written in correct English.Phil Bridger (talk)21:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Weelandlka: Every text addition I've seenhere has something wrong. I know you're trying to help, but with your poor command of English, you are forcing others to spend time monitoring and correcting you. Perhaps you should instead suggest the edits on the talk pages, and let others review and politely correct (if necessary) before adding.TimTempleton(talk)(cont)06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Belatedly figured out how to ping people.@Ahunt:, from my position mostly on the sidelines you appear to have had more interaction withWeelandlka than most (and I quoted you in the original post), so pinging you in case you want to weigh in.Stephen Hui (talk)07:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for you ping! This editor and Ihad a conversation about this issue three months ago, when they started on Wikipedia. They indicated that the issue was due to editing in a hurry and so I encouraged them to slow down and edit more carefully, but it seems that the issue has persisted. I hate to take another editor to task for spelling and grammar and even typing skill, as mine is not always 100% either, but some editors may not have the basic minimum skill to contribute to Wikipedia. -Ahunt (talk)14:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sadly, a block might be necessary until their English has noticeably improved. Even if they mean well, adding garbled English to articles is disruptive to readers and other editors. Sandstein17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I mean that you must show that your language and editing skills have improved such that your edits reflect a professional level of proficiency in English, and do not need copyediting and other cleanup by others. Sandstein21:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Ubcule harassing ThaddeusSholto
Ubcule createdHolmes and Watson (disambiguation) with an unnecessarily vague description that would include virtually any combination ofSherlock Holmes,Holmes,Watson,Doctor Watson, and/orDr Watson.[188] I removed that as it is far too general[189] so he reverted it and started a discussion on my personal talk page instead of the article page. It seemed to me that the logical solution was to createSherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) so there would be two. Ubcule didn't like that solution so at that point, Ubcule decided to drag this toWikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking for others to chime in[190] and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue[191] he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly.[192]
Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page toTalk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)[193] and when I reverted it and asked him to start anew conversation instead of pasting my words to yetanother venue, he did it again.[194] I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment[195] and then took it toWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard seeking others to agree with him. The solution there was to start anew conversation on the article talk pagewhich I did.
He also posted the same message to numerous people's talk pages asking them to assist him.[196],[197],[198],[199], and[200]. This is blatantWP:FORUMSHOP and harassment as I have asked him to refrain from posting the exact same conversation in multiple venues and he is doing it immediately afterward. I was interested in discussing his issues with the disambiguation page but I am really failing to seegood faith in his actions.ThaddeusSholto (talk)18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that the comment I posted elsewhere on the Administrator's noticeboard was writtenbefore I became aware you'd posted this. (The evidence being it's unlikely that I'd have been able to write all that in around a minute after you posted it).
I had warned you the first time you removed my comments that I would treat any further removal as vandalism, and did so.Ubcule (talk)19:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
You accused me ofreposting the entire discussion here. I did not. After you'd complained that you didn't like *your* comments being reposted,I repostedmy own comments,minus yours. Regardless of whatever rights you have (or think you have) over your talk page, or overyour comments,you donot have the right to police where I repost my own comments. This crossed the line into vandalism and was why I reported you.
What you characterise as "attacks", "harassment" and "insults" are not necessarily so just because you call them that or because you think they are. I have disagreed with you- and there is no need to apologise for that- but legitimate criticism is not an attack, even if you want to take it that way.
I am not an expert in dispute resolution and finding the appropriate venue is not always straightforward. Particularly when the other person has repeatedly criticised this and shown no interest in being a part of this, but has done nothing themselves to resolve the issues- quite the opposite. You repeatedly cite links to guidelines and policy, but do nothing useful to resolve the issue yourself. I have acknowledged that there may have been better venues, and was happy to hear suggestions from an unbiased observer; you are the other party in an increasingly acrimonious dispute, which is why I'm not paying attention to every guideline-citing shortcut link you spew out.
(Note; the following was originally written and submittedbefore I realised ThaddeusSholto had near-simultaneously posted above (a minute or so prior). I don't have a problem with the discussions being combined ([201]), but I want it to remain clear that this was posted entirely separately as a fulfilment of whatI said I'd do here.)Ubcule (talk)21:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC))
User:ThaddeusSholto's behaviour has crossed the line from (supposedly) policing the rights to their own talk page and where their own comments can be reposted intoremovingmy own comments from a discussion thread at an article talk page andrepeating this behaviour even after they were warned that I would consider this vandalism if it happened again.
To cut a long story short, I'm in a dispute withUser:ThaddeusSholto that I initially tried to keep civil, but which has become increasingly impossible and crossed into a personal dispute.
Seehere,here and various other linked pages for the background.
This may not have been the ideal place to post some comments regarding the dispute between ourselves but finding a venue to resolve these issues has become exceptionally difficult because of Thaddeus' own conduct. How do you even begin to conduct a discussion with someone who feels this is acceptable?
They've repeatedly called my attempts to move their comments from their own talk page to the article talk page as "harassment". Regardless of whether or not this is acceptable, it's not harassment. I've asked them to report me if they consider it "harassment", but they haven't done so- they just keep throwing these accusations out therewhile failing to back them up.
Note that when ThaddeusSholto removed my comments, theycharacterised them as "insults", after already having accused me of "attacking" and "harassing" them.
AsRobert McClenon noted whenclosing my attempt to resolve the dispute at the dispute discussion noticeboard, "This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult".
Apologies if this isn't a great summary of the case;the tl;dr issue here is that ThaddeusSholto is deleting my comments.
I will comment briefly on my close atDRN. As I said, it was my opinion thatUser:ThaddeusSholto was making it difficult, but was not completely over the line into unacceptable conduct. I disagree withUser:ThaddeusSholto's allegation thatUser:Ubcule was harassing them. Ubcole was attempting to transfer the discussion from a user talk page to an article talk page. At least, it looked to me like an attempt to move the discussion. Thaddeus instead erased the discussion. That might have been just barely within the bounds of talk page guidelines, but it looked to me like it was making it difficult to discuss. In any case, it certainly was not harassment.
If the two editors are willing to begin discussion on an article talk page, then this thread can be closed and they can be allowed to discuss. If they can't agree on where to have this discussion, then atopic-ban orinteraction ban may be necessary. I advise them not to make that necessary, because I advise them to resume discussion on an article talk page.Robert McClenon (talk)20:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the first I am seeing of Ubcule's comments here as they failed to notify me that they tried to report me here. Idid attempt a new conversation per your instructions[202] then Ubcule cut-and-paste a long diatribe filled with bold shouting and attacks about my intentions and editing[203] and having nothing to do with the actual disamiguation page. Onthat basis I removed the attacks as they weren't germane to the article itself. If Ubcule wants to discuss why one disambiguation page is better than twowithout needlessly attacking me then that would be fine. It would be nice if the forum shopping would end as well because I have been having this same discussion for days now.ThaddeusSholto (talk)20:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you honestly not see the bolding or do you disagree that they are aimed at me/my intentions? As am example, right at the top after bolding "we have already had what would otherwise be considered an exhaustive discussion on this topic" he claims he isforced to post all that stuff again "due to your [my] behaviour". That whole first section bolded "Background on discussion and disagreement" is about how Ubcule disagrees that he has been harassing me and why he was justified to engage in the behavior that he engaged in. None of which has anything to do with thecontent of the article. It is my understanding that article talk pages are for discussion of the content of the article not other editors.ThaddeusSholto (talk)21:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that they were aimed at you personally or your intentions. The bolding was an understandable action to counteract your previous refusal to take any notice of what was being said to you.Phil Bridger (talk)21:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
To my eyes it literally remarked upon my actions and intentions (e.g. using quotes around "solution" repeatedly denoting that what I offered was ridiculous.) I didn't refuse to take notice of what was being said to me I have had this same conversation for days now. He just wants his way or nothing which is why he keeps forumshopping to get it. I see no logical reason why there shouldn't be two different disambiguation pages for two different titles and Ubcule hasn't offered any reasoning against it other than because it is the wayI wanted it. That is literally the extent of his argument "Thaddeus' proposed "solution" of making redirect Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) into a dab page in its own right] appears to be organising things the wayyou wanted in the first place." Because it was my suggestion it is automatically not valid I guess.ThaddeusSholto (talk)21:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This is nothing personal from me - I have no idea who you are - and I can see no reason to suppose that it is anything personal from Ubcule. All I can see is that that editor has explained to you that disambiguation pages exist for the benefit of readers who may not be such diehard fans as to know exactly which version of "Holmes and Watson" or "Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson" or whatever else might be appropriate, so a combined disambiguation page makes perfect sense, but you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge that there might be something in that. Just stop interpreting everything as a personal attack and recognise that other people might have a different, good faith, point of view from yours.Phil Bridger (talk)21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with you. His tone and outright accusations of doing things in bad faith[204] illustrate a personal side to his comments to my eyes. It shouldn't be that difficult for him to discuss thecontent of the disambiguation on the article talk page instead of needing to constantly reiterate what he feels about my edits or intentions.ThaddeusSholto (talk)21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
My replies to various points raised above:
@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your input here and my apologies if I gave the impression I was dragging you into this or pulling you onto my side. I quoted you because I felt it was useful to have someone from outside observe- without prompting- that ThaddeusSholto's conduct appeared to be making things more difficult despite their assertion that I was the one to blame. (This certainly shouldn't be taken to mean I assumed you agreed with everything I said).
@Phil Bridger: Thank you for your input too, and yes- that's exactly my reasoning.Disambiguation pages are for people whodon't know what they're looking for and should be written from that point of view, not for those who are already experts. As I noted already, our guidelines suggest combining variants of names. Even if ThaddeusSholto disagrees, their assertion that the two are completely different, not "similar"- or however it's expressed- is a matter of opinion and not the cast-iron fact they want to present it as.
@ThaddeusSholto:The quotes around "solution" were there to indicate it was you- and not myself- that considered it such. I strongly disagreed with your assertion that this was the case, hence the quotes.
It should also be noted that this paraphrasing and summarising of your response (where relevant) was only necessary in the first place because- according to you- having your comments reposted elsewhere constitutes "harassment".
Again, no sarcasm intended- you are the one who considers that harassment, not myself.
@ThaddeusSholto:I apologise for forgetting to notify you that you'd been reported here. When I submitted my initial report, I realised that you'd near-simultaneously- one minute prior- posted an entirely separate comment covering your half of the argument. That made it necessary to update mine (and respond to yours) for clarity, and it's clear that I got distracted there. That obviously wasn't your fault, and I accept responsibility for the error. (The two sections were later combined by a third party).
@ThaddeusSholto:You usedthis comment to suggest I was violating AGF. I have already requested that you clarify your intent with dragging up those edits- and their relevance to the discussion at hand- if they weren't intended as a personal or ad hominem attack on myself. You still haven't done so.
You also attempted to accuse me of "edit warring" in those cases, even though a cursory examination of the situation makes clear the edits in question were a single reversion/re-addition of something that had been removed a while back. This is not Wikipedia's definition of an "edit war".
I'd like it to be noted that since I first attempted to resolve the matterby posting at the Village Pump (whether or not that was the right way to go about it), I refrained from making any immediate reverts to any of ThaddeusSholto's edits to the disputed article pages themselves- and have still not done so- in favour of waiting for the matter to be resolved. As I previously noted, odd for someone you seem keen to accuse of edit warring... and yet you seem keen to paintme as the one making personal attacks and not AGFing.
@ThaddeusSholto:@Robert McClenon: Theuse of bold text(!) is generally to highlight relevant parts as I realise I can be longwinded.
@ThaddeusSholto:You complained about my posting the "background" context on the article talk page, but the two didn't exist in isolation. Your refusal to allow the original discussion to be moved made it essentiallyto resolve its problems using the dispute resolution noticeboard without starting a "new" discussion on something we'd already discussed to death. I wasn't about to spend ages rewriting every single thing I'd said, nor maintain a false pretence that the discussion had arisen from nowhere.
Yes, some of the more interpersonal issues raised might have been better resolved elsewhere, but knowing where and how to separate them out isn't the easiest thing. (As it turns out, we're discussing them here anyway).
@Robert McClenon:; You suggest that we might be "willing to begin discussion on an article talk page". We have already done so.Unfortunately I'm in the position where ThaddeusSholto seems to consider it acceptable to remove my comments from the discussion (which is why I first posted here). Unless I'm willing to get into a revert war- something I've intentionally refrained from- it's not obvious what I can do about that. What is your suggestion? I'm not willing to have my comments held ransom to what ThaddeusSholto considers acceptable, particularly as they consider what I'd consider innocuous behaviour as an "attack", "insult" or "harassment".
The reason I attempted to get third party input was because I felt it would be useful to have the (neutral) input of those not personally involved to give their unbiased opinion and help resolve the matter. Whether or not I went about this the right way, ThaddeusSholto's accusations of "forum shopping" belie the fact that I made far more effort than they ever did to resolve the dispute in good faith than they did. Repeated criticism of having posted in the wrong place, but no constructive suggestions or attempts to do so themselves.Ubcule (talk)23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
You didn't request that I clarify my intent with "dragging up those edits". Youliterally said you wouldn't explain it because you felt I brought them up in bad faith. Even in this long diatribe you try to pretend that you have only tried to get other opinions when the fact isI told you thatWP:3O or evenWP:RFD were the proper venues you said you didn't want a third opinion. I repeatyou saidyou didn't want a third opinion and now you are claiming that is what you wanted all along. You also pretend that you never made accusations about me acting in bad faith and right there above you said "I made far more effort than they ever did to resolve the dispute in good faith than they did." You have harassed me with accusations and avoided actually attempting to use proper channels the whole time. As we speak I started a discussion onTalk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) overseven hours ago and you aren't participating in it at all even though someone else has joined in. It is difficult for me to believe that you actually desire to find a resolution that doesn't boil down to you being right and me being wrong.ThaddeusSholto (talk)23:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. You were the one that had been removing my comments from that discussion- the very reason I reported you here.
Yet now you're trying to present yourself as the one taking the high road, attackingme for not participating in a discussion where you'd been actively deleting my comments and- by implication- only permitting discussion on terms that suitedyou?
Not only that, but you're happy to talk with one of the people you attacked me for inviting in the first place with your repeated protestations of "forum shopping"?
The one thing that bugs me is that this will come across as a response to your threat, rather than the fact that I appreciated Certes' constructive input- which is exactly what I'd been after in the first place- and that since I was the person who invited them in the first place it would have been entirely unfair (and pointless) to involve them in this mess.
I said that the principals,User:Ubcule andUser:ThaddeusSholto, could begin discussion on an article talk page, or it might be necessary to have sanctions instead. Ubcule wants to know how discussion is possible when Thaddeus erases attempts at discussion. That is a good question, and it is only possible if they both, starting with Thaddeus, state their desire to have reasoned discussions on an article talk page. A good place to make that statement would be here in response to this post (since we know that the deletion of material fromWP:ANI is disruptive). If the parties want to discuss, they can agree here to start discussion at an article talk page (or at a user talk page). If they don't agree, and continue with the arguments as to who started it, then the community can decide who started it and how to stop it from getting worse.Robert McClenon (talk)00:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Although the past couple of days' bickering over this relatively minor dispute were unfortunate, it appears the issue is now being reasonably discussed atTalk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). Given his overall record of Sherlockian contributions to the wiki≥ I know that ThaddeusShalto has acted in good faith throughout, and although I have not encountered Ubcule before I am prepared to assume the same of him. Unless the talkpage discussion goes badly awry, which I hope it will not, I am thinking that we might consider this thread resolved?Newyorkbrad (talk)05:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
RTG asked arun-of-the-mill, albeit vague, question at RDMA about a week ago. As this is a vague and ill-posed question, several mathematicians, including myself along with@Joel B. Lewis,Double sharp,CiaPan, andWikimedes: gave several answers for different formulations of the question. But it soon became clear that RTG would never be satisfied by any answer they could get at RDMA, and after Double sharp agreed with me that all reasonable answers were already given, and RTG still displayed a misunderstanding of everyone's answers, Iclosed the discussion, which RTG promptly proceeded toeditwarover; after JBL endorsed my closure byrestoring it, RTG proceeded to openWikipedia talk:Reference desk#Battleground, where two uninvolved editors (@Deacon Vorbis andJayron32:) agreed that continuing the discussion would not be productive, thus rendering the close proper. Throughout that discussion, RTG was consistentlyincivil, withe.g. SHOUT'ing andcastingaspersionsof"tagteaming" as well as (also without evidence)"harassment" and "wikilawyering", and (seeWT:Reference desk#Battleground) battleground behavior – all the while ignoring the fact that a rather strong consensus has formed that the RDMA discussion had outlived its usefulness. On top of this, they madethis POINTy addition to the tag team essay, which I almost want to say was made in bad faith; archive templates are often used onthis page to resolve sections, after all.
This behavior is toxic. Archiving RDMA sections that have outlived their usefulness is a common practice, so I didn't think it would be so controversial here (and probably wouldn't have done it had I known what would follow). My goals are:
RTG respects the consensus, drops theWP:STICK, and makes no further edits related (construed broadly) to that particular RDMA thread;
RTG commits to conducting himself in a more civil and collegial matter;
and failing either of those, RTG is blocked.
That I will be spending a good ten minutes on ANI notices here, and the amount of diffs presented here, should give a good indication that RTG has gone far beyond the threshold ofWP:IDHT.--Jasper Deng(talk)14:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I endorse everything Jasper Deng has written. I would be happy to comment further if requested but do not have ANI on my watchlist, so please ping. --JBL (talk)14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why this is here. RTG has not edited RDMA to undo the close since they were told to stop doing so. They are discussing the matter and presenting their side of the case atWT:RD as is proper. While I disagree with their side of the argument, I find that they have done nothing worthy of a sanction, and certainly not worth starting an ANI thread. There has been no recent disruption to deal with; they're probably a bit overearnest, and can (and has) been reminded to tone things down a bit, but I find nothing I would block or ban them for. --Jayron3214:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
For me, the POINTy additions to the tag-teaming page and the continued heckling at the ref desk talk pages was what brought me here. If RTG stopsall such editing, i.e. makes nothing new beyond the diffs above, then yes this would need no sanction (hence the "failing").--Jasper Deng(talk)14:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. I agree that that is a problem, and RTG would be well advised to never do anything like that again. --Jayron3215:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The discussion atWT:RD I feel is proper. What I feel is improper isthis sort ofWP:POINTY behaviour, which indeed looks pretty bad (claiming "However, the template is used across the site as a tool to manipulate and prevent active discussions" just on the basis of one discussion you've just been involved in never looks good). But since there is discussion ongoing atWT:RD, I have just added to that discussionanother attempt to civilly explain why it is that this problem keeps cropping up when we try to answer RTG's question. So we can wait and see how it turns out from there, as I rather agree with Jayron32 that we have a problem stemming from over-earnestness, that does not warrant a block at this stage, only some advice to be paid attention to.Double sharp (talk)14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why this is here except to prevent me from discussing what transpired.
Explain why it is vague.
I got assurance from a genuine ref desk contributor the answer was, it just means 2D. The question I asked was, "Please tell me, is the Euclidean plane the concept of two dimensional space only, or is it the concept of 2D space + something else?"
Jasper Deng "closed" a discussion? Yes after taking the piss out of me for days having me ask the same question many times over and responding every time with technical terms and reference to other disciplines of maths and on and on and on... A real bullshit teasing causing trouble on the ref desks saying stuff like, oh maybe he's trying to read Science Direct (science what?), "If you actually have a question you want answered..." , "I am telling you (again) that you have not articulated a question..." ,
If the Euclidean plane is a 2D plane only with no need for fancy description, why didn't any of the so-called helpers point out this response as unhelpful... "The properties of Euclidean plane appeared very interesting to me some time ago, so now I tried to follow this thread - alas, could not find a sense of humor in it. And not only a sense of humor, but actually little sense at all. What a pity, it could have been an interesting talk..."
And on and on and on...
In the end I wrote, "Is it not the case, that Euclid simply formalised concepts like up is up, down is down, and describing anything unusual or complex relative to that, is the opposite of describing Euclidean geometry..?"
It has been said before, it is not possible to drop a stick someone else is beating you up with. Being unable to discuss what has happened on the ref desks will not be possible from me. I have only discussed it in one place outside the relevant section, and that was the talk page of the ref desks to suggest that the archive template should never be used in an active discussion as to do so is purely disruptive. Is that opinion going to be on trial here? Well I won't be able not to state that either. As for any kind of harassment or disruption or tag team teasing people I consider ignorant for fun... I for one won't be doing any of that.~R.T.G15:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
What you have at the end is still very hand-wavy, but has the general idea right that Euclidean geometry is kind of the way you expect things to be. We already explained in various ways in our answerswhat concepts are the key ones, particularly those of length and angle (so not quite "up is up and down is down", as there is no "up" or "down" on the plane, only "left", "right", "forwards", and "backwards"). I wrote before you wrote your last comment there that I agreed with Jasper Deng that you couldn't get a better answer at that point; if I'd been quicker, I might have given the response I just did. That's more or less the best sort-of-correct explanation that we can give: I don't think we could give any further answers that didn't just repeat the ones we gave (which this already mostly does), so I think the discussion was stopped at about the right point.Double sharp (talk)16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Sharp...I am being accused of being too vague here, but look at what you just wrote. Can you not just bite the bullet, like the rest of us have to? Hand wavy? I couldn't get a better answer? Do you want me to embarrass the contributor who did answer the enquiry? I think the quote was something like... "Yes, it's a 2D plane" ... Is that too... vague for you? ... Seriously, I've got to drop the stick around here, or something.~R.T.G16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@RTG:: This battle will go away if you walk away from it. I understand that you didn’t start it. You asked a pretty straightforward question that amounted to “what makes the Euclidean plane Euclidean?”. Three hostile responses from@Joel B. Lewis:[205][206][207] poisoned the environment and led to the battle. You didn’t get the answers you hoped for (or you got some answers that were over your head and a lot of hassle in addition to the answers you were hoping for), but this isn’t worth fighting to the death over.
It seems to me that it would be best to just let this fizzle out on the RefDesk talk page. Actual resolution may prove elusive, but things may die down after everyone has had their say and gotten a few last words in.--Wikimedes (talk)20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It sure does seem like this is a long term issue with this editor, who's talk page seems to be a long history of edit warring and refusing to back down, as well as a user page full of broken English. Perhaps a language barrier is the problem.2001:4898:80E8:B:FA4C:76B8:5D80:9C5B (talk)21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
No it's not, thanks. In the lastten years my talk page shows 2 blocks for "edit wars". They are both about protecting my own talk page posts. I've edit warred on the site. It's not an issue. Anything else?~R.T.G10:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Jasper, much to your disappointment, I cannot see the point in discussinganything with you. Here, for instance, you claim there is an inappropriate problem, yet you do not explain what that problem is.~R.T.G12:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Jasper, you've invokedWP:POINT so many times now I've gone along and read it... Among other things it says, "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." Making edits with which they do not agree...? And you believe that I do not agree with my proposed addition to the tag team essay? That in fact, my only experience of the archive template is directly related to you, and that you can gag me because you fear...~R.T.G12:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I looked at enough of theoriginal RDMA discussion and thetimesink on talk and the history ofWP:Tag team to see that there was a real problem. @RTG: Please do not encourage people to waste their time. The reference desks are a strange place where people cannot do the obvious, namely stop talking when a discussion is unproductive. That requires some consideration by the instigator who should have understood that volunteers had given a reasonable set of replies and thanked everyone for trying. Spreading muck on the talk page and tag team essay is not helpful. My advice is that this should be closed. Feel free ping me for further thoughts if there is more after the customary 24-hour venting period.Johnuniq (talk)01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You know that's not going to happen. People are not required to grovel here. What I'm saying is wouldsomeone please close this. Then there is a period of 24 hours or so when anything goes. After that, if there is an unprovoked problem, ping me.Johnuniq (talk)04:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:You know that's not going to happen I don't think so, because RTG has a history of this kind of combative behavior (see his block log) and this needs to end; thus I oppose closing the thread until someone more patient than me explains to him why POINT, CIVIL and STICK apply here, and something along the lines of "lack of response will be interpreted as acknowledging and agreeing to what has been said" has been said here. It's not groveling for him to have to understand policies and guidelines that apply to him anyways.--Jasper Deng(talk)04:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You should have seen this movie before—disruption occurs but not enough for a block to occur; a report is made at ANI; the disruption that led to the report stops. That is a good result as far as the community is concerned. I understand the frustration but the only diffs I noticed above related to the current issue. RTG's block log shows a 24-hour block 9 months ago and a 31-hour block 9 years before that—they are stale and do not warrant a sanction or forced-feeding of policies and guidelines. Perhaps you missed the subtle message in my comments—as an admin, I'm making an offer to investigate and take appropriate action regarding any similar issues in the future.Johnuniq (talk)06:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
That policies and guidelines don't apply to me? A human with a pointy stick is the deadliest beast on this planet. "Lack of response is a..." Jasper... are you pinging me?~R.T.G07:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This editorhas accused me of "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior" when I raised the concern that saying inTurkey#History,the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide" which is based on a comment by single U.S random politician[208] is UNDUE. This is an unacceptable accusation and I have discussed this with him and asked him again and he said he still stands with this accusation. If the unfounded accusations continued then I predict a block. Just like calling an edit vandalism without sufficient evidence is a personal attack calling them JUSTDONTLIKEIT without sufficient evidence is a personal attack, they both assume bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk)22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I also want to add that this userkeeps accusing other editors with JUSTDONTLIKEIT and in all cases there are no sufficient evidence(see alsohere). I really think this user should stop and learn how to assmue good faith because it is uncivil to accuse editors with these unfounded accusations. This should be the threshold to this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk)00:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute anymore. This is an issue of the long term behavior of an editor that should be noted. This isnt the first time this editor accuses me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and this is not the first time he accuses an editor with this unfounded accusation. He also said that he still stands with his accusation.--SharabSalam (talk)02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Justdontlikeit is just an essay. It is not a personal attack (although continued unsubstantiated use of it is disruptive). It is also not a good argument to use by itself when debating content, particularly in this case where valid objections have been made. Editors make bad arguments all the time so that in itself is not sanctionable. I don't know whether Wikiaviani uses it too much, some of the links above lead to other editors using it (e.gTalk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar andTalk:Operation House of Cards). In my opinion there is nothing to be accomplished here.AIRcorn(talk)05:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Aircorn, I know it is an essay. But it assumes bad faith and ruins the discussion he has used it against me at least twice and in both cases, I had valid arguments while he keeps repeating it in every next comment. I would love if an admin considered a warning. Obviously I am not asking for sanctions. I just need this disruptive behavior to stop so we can have real arguments not "I don't bluh bluh, I only seeWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" or "This is a typical WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, he mostly uses it in edit summaries. But look for example inTalk:Qanat, he used it twice and in two comments against two editors (Alexandermcnabb andNabataeus, no valid reason to cite JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And he still stands with his accusation that I only just dont like it. Like everyone who he disagrees with is JUSTDONTLIKEIT!.--SharabSalam (talk)07:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Using WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT appears to be a serious problem that is happening frequently. An editor's objective arguments are being rejected by disruptive citing to this essay which assumes bad faith. There is also an editor below this thread who is also complaining about an editor who is like Wikiaviani, citing JUSTDONTLIKEIT every time an editor speaks with objective arguments. This issue wasdiscussed multiple times in the talk page ofWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This should be dealt with once and for all, so Wikiaviani or any other editor don't just go and cite an essay that assumes bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk)09:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest you to take a look at your own behavior. You have been blocked 4 times in less than 18 months (3 times for edit-warring and one time for lack of civility if i'm not mistaken). Saying that i "keep repeating JUSTDONTLIKEIT in every next comment" is wrong, i have been editing here for more than 2 years and have more than 8000 edits, are you able to find thousands edits of mine with that sentence ?
As to the Qanat discussion i have been awarded a barnstar for teamworking by a veteran editor (Kansas Bear) ... I can make mistakes, just like everybody else, and this report of yours is useless, as other editors said above. I'm done here. best.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)11:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that this editor still accuses me that "I just don't like it" even after an editor interfered and said that the U.S. politician comment is UNDUE. He has not apologized or realized his mistake--SharabSalam (talk)11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Not acknowledging the problem is a problem
Background: When I argued for removing a U.S. politician comment because it is UNDUE,Wikaviani rudelyreplied with an accusation of having no argument and that I just dont like it, saying "There is nothing UNDUE here, just someWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors."(He also reverted me) note that I have had interacted with this editor before and he has made the same accusation against me.
What shows that this editor has not even heard what I said and probably reverting because he is trying to harass me is that after an editor removed the U.S. politician comment because it is UNDUE hereplied saying " Sounds good to me...", and I was like, wait WHAT?,... isnt this the same editor who said there is no UNDUE here and only JUSTDONTLIKEbehaviors? I then asked him whether he acknowledged his mistake, he said "No. I agree with the compromise, not with what you said." The editor doesnt even know that the guy removed the U.S. politician comment which calls the Turkish intervention a genocide!. Any admin can see what happened inTalk:Turkey and see this disruptive behavior. I am asking either an acknowledgment or a warning so if this gets repeated again, this editor gets sanctioned because I am not going to waste my time with such accusations whenever I have an objective argument.--SharabSalam (talk)03:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
You had the higher ground. You are fast losing it. I suggest you let this go, because now it is not only going nowhere here it is disrupting legitimate discussion at the talk page.AIRcorn(talk)06:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I do feel that I have taken this issue too much but this is not the first time this editor assumes bad faith on me. Imagine that you were in my position, what would you do?. I do feel that whenever Wikaviani sees a dispute that involves me in his watchlist, he reverts me without even knowing what my arguments are and what the dispute is about. Now I will just wait for this case result and I will see if I can collect enough resources for a future case (hopefully there wouldn't be a future case).--SharabSalam (talk)07:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: since you have not provided any diffs or other evidence of a policy violation, it appears that the only problem is that just you don't like what is being added to the article.174.226.133.105 (talk)23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I have provided diffs up there. I have said that the content dispute is now solved and that the UNDUE comment by the US politician is now removed(Which I have alsoremoved here long before this dispute). The problem is that this editor accused me multiple times of having no argument. (seeTalk:Qahtanite andTalk:Turkey) and that I am not going to tolerate being accused of having no argument and assuming bad faith on me again.--SharabSalam (talk)23:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Links to articles and talk pages are not diffs. Linking to an essay when discussing a content dispute is not a policy violation. The burden is on you to provide evidence that a policy violation has occurred.174.226.133.105 (talk)00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, a different editor in that conversation brought up JUSTDONTLIKEIT first, and you replied to them without taking offense. When Wikaviani said JUSTDONTLIKEIT, you reacted with outrage. You continued bringing it up on that talk page, not Wikaviani. I don't see any personal attacks on you on that Talk page. The comment onTalk:Qahtanite (which doesn't read as a personal attack either) was from eight months ago, not really evidence of a pattern.Schazjmd(talk)00:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, the other editor comment was before me raising the UNDUE weight argument about the U.S. comment, the main thing I was protesting. The editor who I still have not forgotten that he accused me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT (and it is very unlikely that I forget that) accused me again of having no argument and of disruptive editing without giving any evidence or counter-argument. Alsohere when I said that this opinion is giving too much emphasis and that the source Times of Israel is used in a SYNTH/OR manner I got a response that also accuses me of trying to "discredit a source that" I "don't like" and that it is not my first time. I left that discussion and went upset by his hounding and his assuming of bad faith and didn't want to continue being accused. BTW in those time I was still new in Wikipedia and he wasn't.--SharabSalam (talk)00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, so eight months ago, Wikaviani saidyour removal sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and you felt like that was a personal attack? And when Wikaviani today saidThere is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors., you felt like it was a repeat of the first perceived attack?Schazjmd(talk)00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd,repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.WP:AOBF. These are basic stuff, didnt think I had to explain how that count as personal attack. And I said it is not these times only, I have added the other one in the Houthis article.--SharabSalam (talk)01:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd Correction: It says that I have no argument and that my motivation was only that I just don't like it. And he keeps repeating that accusation against me.Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence,Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute.-SharabSalam (talk)01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I want also to underscore the fact that Wikavinai doesn't take my complaints about him accusing me of bad faith seriously and that he admittedly doesn't reply here because he thinks my complaint here is "useless" and "childish".--SharabSalam (talk)01:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an allegation that you're editing in bad faith, it's saying the argument is weak. --JBL (talk)02:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I will ask since you choose to repeat a statement with no additional explanation. How is assuming that I just dont like it not assuming that I have a harmful motivation?--SharabSalam (talk)03:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec) From time to time, I make an edit that I think improve an article, but other editors don't agree. In some cases, when challenged, I have to admit that my preference for one thing over another is just a personal taste -- I can't explain it in terms of following the sources or Wikipedia policies. Other times, the edits I've made are to ensure an article correctly reflects reliable sources, or has a neutral point of view, or avoids original research, or .... All of the edits I'm describing are made in good faith; some of them could be described as JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and some could not. --JBL (talk)03:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis, so you are saying that whenever someone challenges with an abjective argument you would reply with "There is no [argument] here, just WP:JUSTDONTLIKE behaviors"?. This isn't just assuming bad faith it is also an accusation of POV pushing and it has been repeated multiple times against me by this editor.--SharabSalam (talk)03:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No one is obligated to agree with you, nor to find your arguments convincing, nor to restrain themselves from telling you that they do not find your arguments convincing. None of this has anything to do with "assuming bad faith" or anything else, as you have now been told by three or four other people. Your insistence on this point casts you in a poor light. --JBL (talk)13:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
In any case, the very next time this editor disruptively accuses me of bad faith, I will definitely transfer the issue to the Arbcom.--SharabSalam (talk)02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: I see nothing in this report that is sanction-worthy or even warning-worthy. all that you have been able to provide : few links where Wikaviani says JUSTDONTLIKEIT to you (last time was months ago, thus, WP:AOBF is irrelevant here). also, other editors said it above, JUSTDONTLIKEIT and assuming bad faith are two different things. i suggest you stop making fun of yourself and move forward.162.218.91.106 (talk)07:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
A garden variety SPA IP with "I wishPalestine didn't exist" syndrome (orPalestine (region), for that matter - they aren't picky.) Currently wading through natural history[211][212][213] but also handy with section blanking[214][215] and plain wish fullfillment[216]. Variously warned, didn't stick; no interest in anything else. I don't think there's much to salvage here. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I strongly believe they have also appended the name to local business addresses on Google Maps to present as evidence of notability after the AfD process began, please seethe discussion for details, apologies if not relevant to highlight here.Crowsus (talk)10:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked them for 1 week, which should put it past the close of the AFD in question. If they agree to stop their disruption, they can be unblocked early by myself or any other admin in case I am not available. --Jayron3212:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Please note this editor has done this on multiple articles, and in addition to what Crowsus noted above he makes this comment on his own talk page (unsigned) in discussion: "Can I just say, I am employed by those businesses in Langshot to develop their Business district BID." So apparently all of this is a promotional/COI effort with no declaration.JamesG5 (talk)21:52, 22 December 2019 (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.
These two seem related, both making tons of rapid-fire nonsense edits to their user pages and bad edits to articles on India topics. Sukhpreetkaurmylove's first non-userspace contrib was to the Teahouse, asking"How i can become administrator on Wikipedia". Three days ago, Flykites createdUser:Jaswindermehra13 (the user page of a seemingly abandoned account with two castecruft edits 21+ months ago), containing profane Indic script, which had to be revdel'd. Whatever all this is, it'sWP:NOTHERE.—[AlanM1(talk)]—08:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks toAlanM1 andST47 for taking care of it. North Indian people ofMali caste are known asSaini, and their traditional occupation is gardening. But Punjabier and their socks want to hide that fact, and are continuously trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced material toSaini andMali caste articles. BTW, the present version of Saini contains misrepresentations and a few non-HISTRS sources, but that's obviously outside the purview of this forum. Anyway, as both of the concerned users have been blocked for socking, I guess this thread can be closed now. -NitinMlk (talk)20:58, 23 December 2019 (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 129.127.32.138 discruptive, uncivil
There is a note saying that the host is the University of Adelaide, but there's only been one editor working on and off from this IP for quite a while now.129.127.32.138 (talk page) has been ploughing ahead regardless of various advice given, with a few passable edits (mainly adding images), but rarely adding an edit summary except to abuse another editor, and mostly writing ungrammatical sentences followed by a bare url citation (where cited at all). I and other users have tried to deal with this in various ways, but their behaviour is wasting other editors' time and I think they need a block to help them rethink their ways for a while.Laterthanyouthink (talk)05:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Incivility on their own talk page and (where an edit summary exists at all), uncivil exchanges throughout (Special:Contributions/129.127.32.138). "You, for the last time, read the bloody article. There is a separate page for Hong Kong!!!" (here). "YOU read it. Its two systems. You said it. Hence, do NOT say, HK, China. You can say HK SAR." (here). No edit summaries, continuing to use bare urls, adding uncited, often incorrect and ungrammatical info (You can see a recent fairly minor examplehere, page forward through to latest revision.) I don't have time now to dig up all of them, but more than 50% of their edits have created issues for someone. They don't seem to understand that they need to slow down and learn a few basics - quality over quantity, and not get argumentative every time they are challenged or someone tries to improve what they have written. And as you can see, hasn't learnt how to sign their comments, after all this time.Laterthanyouthink (talk)07:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
And I have just wasted some more of my time reviewing a few more recent edits by this person, and found issues with most of them (see my comments on the changes, between 17:36 and 18:46.) I have no issue with the content they are trying to add, but how they are going about it, and their attitude towards repeated attempts at assistance by others (and not just me).Laterthanyouthink (talk)08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I would request an admin have a word withHiLo48. He seems to be getting more and more incivil over atTalk:Bruce_Pascoe. He started off ok, inTalk:Bruce_Pascoe#status_as_Indigeneous_and_sourcing he states I draw your attention to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. That means we don't make nasty allegations about other editors. The sarcasm isn't productive. Not a sign of assuming good faith. However, starting inTalk:Bruce_Pascoe#Lead_paragraph he begins showing incivility pretty quickly Thanks for reinforcing my point IP editor, and also showing a refusal to learn how to discuss things properly on a Wikipedia Talk page. No indenting. No signature. No registration (especially important since your IP address keeps changing). Bad faith comments. I think WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED allows us to ignore any further comments from you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
He really gets going in the Rfc on the page with
Oh FFS, yet another non-indented comment by a random IP editor. PLEASE learn how to edit, and please register a name. It gives you greater anonymity, and helps us all follow conversations more easily. (Were you attempting to explicitly reply to someone else there, or is this just another repetitive point being hurled into the mix?) He continues in the same vein in the Rfc withWho wrote that? It's been a long time since I've participated in page of discussion with so many incompetent editors. But you did get me laughing out loud. The very first thing your link brought up was link to a Wikipedia article, List of Indigenous Australian group names, a title clearly avoiding the use of the word "tribe", and from this very encyclopaedia. Thank you for proving me right. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC) (this was a reply to one of my messages When I reminded him to essentially assume good faith, his response was :
Yet another post that stuffed up the indenting, and this time from a seemingly experienced editor. Why has this discussion attracted so many incompetent editors? As for "...let's not comment on the commentators", Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, so we must ALWAYS be judging the reliability of what is presented as sourcing for content here, AND commenting on it when it fails that test.
I have no love for HiLo48 and have found him to be at times unacceptably abrasive, uncivil, and insufferable. But the above !diffs are rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes, and likely not actionable. I agree with GoodDay that non-indenting, and refusing to comply with requests toindent, together constitute an extremely frustrating practice that try the collective patience of experienced editors.--WaltCip (talk)17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The bad behavior of one person neither mandates nor even excuses the bad behavior of another. Whether or not the IP editor has done things they should not have done has no bearing on whether or not HiLo48 has also done things they should not have done. Other responses by HiLo48 to the bad behavior of others are entirely possible, and I would say, are preferred over the reactions noted above. CIR also applies to knowing how to treat people with decency, and when an editor has been around as long has they have and still don't seem to understand how to do so, perhaps there's a lack of competency there that needs to be addressed. --Jayron3218:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, yet another attempt to silence me via this noticeboard. I will comment here, hopefully only once, because I know that in cases like mine where I have tackled many often wilfully ignorant, POV pushers over the years, including some Admins, it will simply become a place for those who hate me to pile on more of that hate, with massive amounts of lies and exaggerations, along with raising truckloads of hugely irrelevant material. It's what's happened in the past. This is possibly the worst place on Wikipedia for the achievement of anything like truth, fairness and justice. There is never any consequence for those who pile on with their lies and misrepresentations.
In the case of the IP editor atTalk:Bruce Pascoe, I suspect I have probably been more kind and more polite than any other editor on Wikipedia. It is my habit, in the hope of encouraging good editing, to always welcome new editors to the project. I did so in this case, with the standard, template driven welcome on his Talk page. In addition, because I had already seen this editor struggling with many aspects of how to properly comment here, but especially with indenting, I also gave him a personal welcome in my own words, explaining how indenting works and pointing him at some extra material that should have helped on his journey here. One normally hopes for some improvement after doing something like that, but in this case, nothing. I suspect those already attacking me above are completely unaware of these actions I took to try to help this editor, but I'm not surprised. After my welcomes and advice, he continued to completely fail to indent at all for a while, then after a few more prompts from me and others, started seemingly randomly indenting all over the place, even further destroying the flow of conversation there. It's important that anyone trying to fairly judge this scenario has a look at that Talk page, not just at its current form, which is bad enough, but at earlier versions. The mess this editor and a couple of other clearly novice editors were making on that page led to some more experienced editors trying to clean it up. It has meant to that many comments, including mine, were moved, even within the flow of conversation, something I don't really feel comfortable with at all. Because that editor has a constantly changing IP address, making conversation even more difficult to follow, I also advised him of the problems with that, and advised him more than once how important it is to register on Wikipedia. Again, nothing, just more repetition of the same arguments over and over again, coming from different IP addresses, but probably close enough to indicate it was the same person. (Can't be certain though, can we?)
It's worth pointing out for those who won't look properly that the topic on that page is one about race, always a difficult and divisive one.
I do have limited patience. This editor is clearly incompetent, and unwilling to cooperate with our policies. He has ignored an awful lot of good and well intentioned advice from me, and continued to waste my time and that of others on that Talk page. I am not the problem there. The IP editor in question is, along with several others who continue to ignore policy and the sound, source based arguments of others. I'll stop now, and probably ignore this page for a few days. I know from past experience here there is no point arguing with haters and POV pushers. (My opinion on that front will change when I see any consequence at all for anyone who piles onto this case with irrelevant, off-topic hate comments about me.)HiLo48 (talk)22:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No one is trying to silence you. What they are trying to do is to get you to stop being rude to others. It isn't complicated. When you speak to other people, choose words and phrases and sentences that are polite and civil, and no one will bother you. It is possible to express any idea you want without doing so in a way that belittles or abuses others. --Jayron3212:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issue here isn't the IPs. The issue here is that in your efforts to guide them in the right direction your tone noticeably shifts to one that is more hostile - which constitutes straying intopersonal attack territory. Also, some points:
1. It appears you need to be more tolerant of IP editors. Not everyone wants a name associated with their edits and are fine just leaving their current IP address. You can encourage them, yes, but near the end of the tone shift it seems more like applying undue pressure than encouragement. The constantly changing IP is a different problem - you might want to look into why this is the case, since they might have a valid reason for why it is changing.
2. While indenting is helpful when dealing with replies, and is standard practice, you're not required to do it. Wiki markup is not exactly the easiest to learn; it certainly took me a bit. Again, you seem to be putting undue pressure upon them to indent near the end of the tone shift, instead of encouragement. I understand you took steps to try and teach them, but we must remain civil throughout discussions.
3. The editors here aren't out to get you, we're just noticing a problem that may need administrator intervention. Pleaseassume good faith, and consider this something you may need to improve on. Doing so would help prevent discussions like this in the future, as taking constructive criticism and using it to improve will fix the issues that have been brought up
As for the IP editor in question, as we do not know their identity we cannot make too many assumptions as to why they are neglecting to learn how to indent and other aspects. However, I am inclined to say that we should notbite them as other than this peculiarity, there seems to be no other issue (as while you said the article in question is about race. you said nothing about if their comments were constructive or not).
Everyone should do their best to indent properly but I sometimes mess it up, even after 10 years of editing. Indenting is simply not worth getting all upset about. WMF and Wikipedia policies permit IP editing, so asking an IP editor to register an account in the midst of a disagreement is out of line and unlikely to be received well. Humans are capable of deciding not to be frustrated or irritated by trivialities beyond their control. I recommend that HiLo48 try to learn that lesson. Improved patience comes from a conscious decision to be more patient.Cullen328Let's discuss it22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What Cullen said. The encyclopedia content is the important issue here, not how someone indents on talk pages. It is almost always obvious what is a reply to what. To me indentation seems obvious, and so Cullen should either have used two colons rather than three (and that made it difficult for me to decide how to indent this), or, if the reply was supposed to be to Jayron above, have put this comment immediately after that, but in the past I have had my correct indentation changed to incorrect, and have on many occasions quietly fixed bad indentation without comment. It seems that what is obvious to me, and perhaps to you, is for some reason not obvious to other editors. Part of the problem is thatWP:INDENT is far too long - it should simply say, "indent your edit at one more level than the edit that you are replying to, and put it after any other reply to the same edit."Phil Bridger (talk)22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. What I said above has been underlined by the edit conflict with Kirbanzo above. We are now even further from ideal indenting, but the discussion is still perfectly clear.Phil Bridger (talk)22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of being contentious, might I suggest that expecting everyone who comments on an article talk page to understand obscure markup language might seem a little unnecessary in 2019? Wikipedia promotes itself as 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', and the WMF raises large sums of money on that basis. Maybe a little less sniping at newcomers and a bit more pressure on the WMF to put some of their funds towards creating an interface suitable for normal non-techie types might not go amiss.86.143.231.214 (talk)23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, for years I've been encouraging WMF to develop what I propose we call a "Visual Editor". It's hard to see what could go amiss.EEng14:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Our comments are falling on deaf ears. HiLo has already said he does not plan on paying attention to this page. We need to either go to his talk page -- or frankly block him, to get his attention.--WaltCip (talk)13:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's be fair, the anon-IP started the problem, and it wasn't just bad indenting. They were pushing a strong bias against the BLP subject, and weren't listening and responding to anybody's attempt to explain policy/guidelines/practices on anything. I'm not posting a link, because you really have to look at the totality of anon IP comments on the talk page. I was personally tempted to just blank some of the IPs comments, since they seemed disruptive (but I know that's a blockable offense). HiLo48 can't be criticized for not trying to help the IP get better, but rather their mistake is the opposite, they should have just ignored the IP entirely. Every attempt by HiLo48 to explain things to the IP triggered another reply, which wasn't indented or responsive, which triggered another, and so on. --Rob (talk)06:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
We all deal with difficult IPs from time-to-time. Being able to handle them with consistent civility and evenhandedness is itself an indicator of competence.--WaltCip (talk)13:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Propose block -HiLo48 is demonstrating seriousWP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on the talk page (in the diffs posted above, and almost every other edit Hilo48 made on the talk page). If whatWaltCip says is true, that this is "rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes", and they aren't going to pay attention to anything said here, then a short block seems warranted to deter this kind of behaviour. HiLo48 needs to learn to assume good faith (including not unfairly assuming that others aren't assuming good faith) and lay off the personal attacks - HiLo48 questioned someone's talk page 6 times on that talk page alone, and itwasn't all directed to the IP editor, not that it should matter.Cjhard (talk)08:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I just read almost all HiLo48's comments dated 4 December 2019 and later and most of them are perfect—I don't know about the accuracy of the statements regarding the topic but the explanations of standard procedure and policies are exactly correct. SeeUser talk:202.161.1.218 for how HiLo48 welcomed the IP on 3 December 2019 and offered a friendly and simple explanation about indenting. Those commenting above to the effect that an IP's indenting doesn't matter are mistaken—frequent posts without the correct indents are disruptive as they break the flow of a thread and make subsequent posts difficult. If someone is going to frequently contribute to a talk page, it is kinder to bluntly tell them about the problems they are causing. HiLo48 did better than that—he politely outlined what is needed which is more help than I noticed from others. The diffs of "uncivil" comments above are very weak and do not account for the totality of the talk page. It's true that a couple of the mentions of "incompetent" were excessive, although they were accurate.Johnuniq (talk)10:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree withJohnuniq. Indenting, at least to me, isn'tthat big of a deal, really. We can all read , yes, indenting makes iteasier but it isn't needed. I could have typed this message without the indent and Johnuniq would still understand that I was responding to his message by reading the first four words.
The IP is the problem. It's either not competent to learn how to indent properly or choosing not to learn spitefully.GoodDay (talk)13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I think HiLo48's comments directed towards others violate CIVIL. I've had some interaction with the editor and I do think they need to understand that comments that come off as dismissive (or worse) aren't helpful. Comments that focus on the editor vs the content are a problem. I haven't read this whole discussion so I will abstain from supporting or objecting to the proposed block. This isn't behavior that should result in an immediate block but, if the editor has been warned, and this ANI is a clear warning, this is behavior thatshould result in a block if it continues.Springee (talk)18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Give him a warning - No need for a block, yet...just give him a warning. I generally find this editor to be a good sort...having said that, my friendly attempts to calm the situation were met with uncollegial responseshere, where I was pretty much told that I was being a pedant about his swearing at other editors andhere where a very reasonable and friendly request to tone it down was met with unreasonable hostility. Having said that, I've generally gotten along well with this editor and value their contributions, so I think a warning is in order, but not a block (unless they continue this disruptive behavior). Having said all that, I think HiLo's behaviour has been disruptive, how do we tell the IP to pull his head in when HiLo is telling him to "fuck" this and "fuck" that? It makes civil discussion impossible, HiLo doesn't have to respond to the IP at all, and besides the consensus is firmly against the IP, so HiLo really should just ignore it.Bacondrum (talk)02:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment While I've found HiLo's carrying on a bit much, the IP has been a real pain and I can see why HiLo was getting cranky about it.Bacondrum (talk)02:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment This item has drifted to the top of the ANI page with no action. I think it's probably fair to close this as "Consensus shows that HiLo was uncivil, but also the IP was annoying, so there will not be any action taken".--WaltCip (talk)13:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment Sounds fair to this non-admin, who participated in that discussion. HiLo would do well to try to take a few deep breaths or a walk around the block to avoid being drawn into replying to that IP's annoying and repetitious responses, but IMO a block based only on that exchange would seem a little excessive.Laterthanyouthink (talk)13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor's very username is evidence of their agenda, but it is proven by their edits at theG0y article (history). (The article, incidentally, may be AfD-worthy, but that is another matter.) These three diffs show the entirety of this user's contribs, their soapboxing, and the self-evidentfringe-ness of their content:[217][218][219] Iwarned the user, but they still continue with their fringe promotion. Time for an indefinite block.-Crossroads- (talk)16:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I am currently in a content dispute with User:Arminden @Alexander Jannaeus. However, upon investigating this editors contributions, the editor was secretly changing era-styles in articles perWP:ERA. Arminden has been marking these changes as either as a minor edit with not edit summaries, no edit summaries at all, or a false edit summary. Now I know this editor has been warned before, but I don't know where. The editors stealth behavior in the edit summaries show how aware they are about changing era-styles though. And this editor has been registered since 2011/2012 and should know the rules concerning WP:ERA. I don't have a full list since this is a recent discovery for me, but the editor contributes mainly to articles related toIsrael,Judaism, and articles relating to the Middle East.
Now Arminden did correct some era-styles that were wrongly changed to BC/AD. However, I don't think the editor knew what the original era-style was to begin with. Just simply convert BC/AD to BCE/CE. Thoughts on the matter? I personally don't think warnings will do any good, especially when the editor has been on Wiki almost ten years.Jerm (talk)16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: I restored or tried to anyway but was reverted twice.Arminden left me these edit summaries basically admitting these changes with out the need for consensus here:[220] &[221].Jerm (talk)22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: I appreciate thewarning you sent to the editor. I just want to let you know though Arminden made some valid corrections as youstated, the editor is not entirely honest with their edits and edit summaries. Arminden's behavior is also somewhatWP:NOTHERE.Jerm (talk)22:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there any editor willing to restore/revert Arminden's era-style changes I listed above. I already fixedBattle of Gadara, but I'm tired of reverting this editor. I've been edit warring with Arminden @Alexander Jannaeus for nearly week, and I'm so tired of the reverting. Maybe an adim could do a full protection until Jan. 2 2020.Jerm (talk)23:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I haven't examined the ERA issue and have no comment on it. I'll just say that Arminden is a tireless producer of content that is almost always of high quality, so to call him/her NOTHERE is simply ridiculous.Zerotalk23:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The advice I gave to both of you was "Time to stop reverting and start forming a consensus!" and you are not less responsible than Arminden for your failure to follow this advice.Zerotalk00:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Irresponsible? In mysecond revert here, I urged the editor to start a discussion underWP:BRD and not the edit summaries. That didn't happen. Instead, I get manually reverted with thislovely edit summary telling me I have an ego issue. I sent myfirst warning template basically stating to the editor he needs to remain friendly. In thisrevert, Arminden removed spacing on the section headings which Ireverted with my edit summary on the grounds ofMOS:HEAD after I started a discussion at the articles talk page. Progress was being made until Arminden no longer responded after mymessage. Now this is where things get really good. Arminden decided to makethis edit. And in this edit, he removed sourced content that I hadpreviously added, decided to manually revert/remove the spacing on the section headings again, and added three tags. All of this in a single edit, and then leaves a bogus edit summary that doesn't specify any of these changes. Kind of like the false edit summaries Arminden is leaving behind while secretly changing era-styles. Then the editor had the audacity tomessage me on my talk page accusing me ofWP:OWN then lie about how that edit was just improving poor grammar.
No@Zero0000:. Your friend is a liar. You can't form consensus with someone who decides to bail out of a conversation, lies in the edit summaries, lies on personal talk pages, and manually reverts so no one would notice. And do you even take the time to verify the massive content Arminden adds, meaning does the content added stay true to the source or sources? And he constantly adds massive content almost everyday.Jerm (talk)02:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jerm: Youmust walk back from the combative attitude. I'm thinking of a few of your comments that I noticed, particularly "Your friend is a liar" above, with other mentions of lies. First, that is prohibited. Second, it is irrelevant—stick to the facts and policies. This topic is over my head but I looked atTalk:Alexander Jannaeus and noticed your response at the bottom of the page:diff. That is not helpful for a talk page because Nishidani made some simple assertions including that "Ancient history is conjectural in large part" and that having an academic source for the point in question was pointless because ultimately the only source for the claim wasAntiquities of the Jews "whose assertion is contradicted by the archaeological record". Responding that academic arguments haven't been added yet completely misses the point. You might ask how Nishidani knows that, but ignoring it shows a disregard for the topic. You are correct about the era changes but you might have let that irritation cloud your judgment.Johnuniq (talk)09:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I don’t know why you’re commenting on content. You should’ve just gone to the articles talk page and stated that there. Anyway, excluding the original ANI report for era-style violations, I just wanted to let the community know what I am dealing with.Jerm (talk)09:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That is a beautiful parry. However it indicates a complete disregard for the accuracy of content in the encyclopedia, and being unable to engage with simple arguments is disruptive. If "what I am dealing with" means a liar, please bear in mind that an admin such as myself is required to prevent editors from repeatingpersonal attacks. First, attacks are prohibited. Second, they are irrelevant since the issue is content, not the psychological state of another editor. The reason I commented on content is that I'm like that: ultimately it's the content that mattes. Further, being lazy, I only looked at the last section on the talk page, and it was easy to understand and to see that you failed to engage with the argument. If that were a habit, it would be a matter for ANI.Johnuniq (talk)09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Since you’re still commenting on content. This will be my last response concerning content because this is ANI. I haven’t disregarded anything. As noted in the discussion at the articles talk page, I mentioned a few major issues but not all of them. You seem to know much more about it than me, so I urge you assist or expand the article. I will ping you again as soon as Nishidani responds. I’m sure Nishidani will be upset with my latest response. To be honest, by your latest reply, I get the feeling you’re mixing Nishidani and Arminden in the same situation. Though it’s the same article, Nishidani is a different discussion, so mentioning Nishidani and the content we are currently discussing still was completely off-topic. Now concerning Arminden, yes, it is a content dispute . However, I’m focused on how Arminden is behaving in the dispute. I think you should read again and check the revisions again in myresponse to Zero0000.Jerm (talk)10:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jerm: I typed the two different user names immediately above—of course I haven't mixed them up, and of course I read the comments above. I don't know if you have been unable to comprehend the simple point I made or whether you are deflecting the issue towards safer ground. At any rate, please be aware that failing to engage with arguments from other editors can be disruptive and is sanctionable.Johnuniq (talk)23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing from the discussion. My apologies for wasting everyones time. Have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year!Jerm (talk)15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I am very sorry I've wasted so much of everybody's time. I certainly am well-intended in my edits. Jerm had many issues with me (and I had none with him, just with the content; can't take too seriously personal or other accusations I do not view as based on fact), but Jerm chose to open the debate here on one specific issue: the era style. Yes, I did introduce BCE/CE in a topic of almost strictly Jewish relevance - a Hasmonean king who hardly has any importance to Christians. I most honestly don't have the time to deal with every aspect of WP diplomacy - mea culpa. I'm using my time as effectively as I can, WP is not a paid job, lately I've been trying to avoid topics like the Israeli-Arab conflict and didn't expect so much pushback on obscure history or archaeology topics. I also do apologise for preferring BE in slightly more "dusty" contexts like this; King James, the PEF and the Mandate period etc. seem to me to have left a British mark on this whole area, Edward Robinson & Barclay were IMHO rather the exception, but from Albright onwards the Americans have caught up massively. So that's all debatable, and I'll try my best not to aggravate anyone anymore (wonder if I'll manage, probably not). Sorry again for the waste of your time. Happy holidays everyone,Arminden (talk)20:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the articles in question:
Battle of Gadara: between Judaean Hasmoneans and the Arab Nabataeans
at least the three first ones don't have anything to do with Christianity, so using BCE/CE is undoubtedly justified, IMO. The two last ones the Christian connection is a minor one, so using BCE/CE is reasonable, IMO. Alas, prWP:ERA, consensus must be asked on the talk page,first. (Trying to shortcut that cumbersome approach will likely land you on one of the "dramah" boards). My conclusion: Arminden did the right thing, the wrong way.Huldra (talk)23:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That is probably correct butWP:ERA and similardo-not-change-existing-style guidelines are essential for sanity to prevent earnest editors reverting each other forever.Arminden's response above is in tune with the Christmas spirit but says nothing about an understanding of the issue, namely that people makingex cathedra changes to style are intensely disruptive and such changes must not be repeated. Unfortunately, such matters have to be proposed on each article talk, or possibly at a wikiproject with a link to the wikiproject on each talk. However, volunteers aren't compelled to answer in a way that we like, so we assume the message has been received.Johnuniq (talk)23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Closing. Lessons learned at all. Otherwise, to report an arbitration enforcement violation, please submit a report atAEEl_C00:16, 24 December 2019 (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.
My discussion with the involved editors and admins at the time gave me the understanding that the sanction only applied to that one article, it's talk page, and discussion of the subject of that article.Jweiss11 (talk)21:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
And I quote from your talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means." From your comments it is clear that you know good and damn well that Andy Ngo was a promenant writer and editor for Quillette from inception until September this year.Bacondrum (talk)21:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)IfQuillette is affiliated with Andy Ngo somehow, then it is a violation of Jweiss11's topic ban to edit that page. However, the article doesn't mention Ngo at all; his name only appears in the title of one reference and a quote from another. Personally I think this report is a stretch. However, Jweiss11: the language of your topic ban is clear that it's intended to restrict you from editing any topic associated with Andy Ngo, not just that one article.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a stretch at allhttps://quillette.com/author/andy-ngo/ long term editor and regular contributor. His connection to the paper is mentioned in the lede of theAndy Ngo article - This article and many others used in the wiki article describesNgo as an editor of the paper...considering Jweiss11 has been contributing regularly to this article and I assume he reads the sources it's hard to believe he didn't know about the connection.Bacondrum (talk)22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
My impression of the scope of the sanction comes from this comment from the sanctioning admin "Or maybe appeal the ban if you think it's worth it (it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)".Jweiss11 (talk)22:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now.Phil Bridger (talk)22:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Considering Jweiss11 has repeatedly expressed strong feelings about both Quillette and Ngo, and considering the prominence of Ngo as a writer and editor at Quillette I find it inconceivable that Jweiss11 was unaware of the connection. I believe this is a clear cut case ofWP:BLOCKEVADE. I only discovered the tban after an uncivil comment from Jweiss11 about me being "uninformed" made me question their POV on the subject, I personally think he knew good and damn well what he was doing.Bacondrum (talk)22:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
To say this is a clear-cut case of block evade is bad faith and a comes off as gaming the system. The body text of the article does not mention Ngo.Loksmythe (talk)22:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can answer that question per my sanction. What I can tell you that are you engaged in a edit war at the Quillette talk page.Jweiss11 (talk)23:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if he knew that or not, but there doesn't seem to be any way to know that from the article itself. If he was, it apparently wasn't worth mentioning in the article on Quillette.--Paul McDonald (talk)23:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
No violation This is a bad faith report by Bacondrum. Bacondrum is involved in an edit dispute with several editors (myself included) and is now trying to distort the Andy Ngo topic bad to apply to a subject that is at best tangentially related to Ngo. Bacondrum's own behavior at the article has been far less than idea. Conversely, Jweiss11's comments have been limited and hadnothing to do with Ngo. The only connection between Ngo and the article subject, Quillette is Ngo used to work there. Ngo also worked for the Wall Street Journal. It would be along stretch to say the WSJ article was an "Andy Ngo" article. As further evidence this is a bad faith report, Bacondrum didn't bring this up around 8 Dec when both editors were active on the talk page. Why bring it up now?Springee (talk)23:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
No violation first and foremost (at least in my view) the edits made by Jweiss11 appear to be good-faith edits based on research and content. If there was no topic ban of any type, this would be nothing more than anediting issue to discuss on the articles talk page. Maybe it would go to 3RR or something. Second, does the topic ban apply here? I don't think so as "Andy Ngo" only appears in sourced footnotes, not in the article content. It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related. Good faith edits, no violation. Move along.--Paul McDonald (talk)23:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it was a violation of the topic ban (I can't quite tell right now), but as I was asking at AN3, why did you take it upon yourself to enforce that restriction. And why remove thatspecific comment?El_C23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge, for such a case. If you think a topic ban has been breached, just report it. No need to edit war over removing or strikingthrough while your report is attended to.El_C23:59, 23 December 2019 (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.
In the Editor incommunicado (for 7 years) thread it was suggested that an admin email him,an idea that I still think has merit.Elizium23 repeatedly asked "How's that email going?" with no response, and eventually the thread was archived.
Joloimpat does appear to have logged out after an edit toPhilippines at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games and then started editing as an IP from then on. All the same issues still apply; no "smoking gun" extremely disruptive / blockable edits, a bunch of edits that really do need to be discussed, zero communication or collaboration for years. I can see how frustrating this must be for Elizium23.
Fairly sure the answer is no where, unless Joloimpat has provided an email address via some other means which seems unlikely since as I understand it, part the problem is they haven't really communicated at all. I'm surprised no one has pointed this out before, unless it's only a recent development.
AFAICT, Joloimpat does not have an email set (or maybe has disabled the ability to send them emails). You can tell this by the absence of an "Email this user" under tools to the left when visitingUser:Joloimpat. Or sinceSpecial:EmailUser/Joloimpat doesn't work. For further confirmation since for whatever reason that link doesn't work this way, but if you type in Joloimpat username in there, it says "This user has not specified a valid email address." (I'm not sure if this definitely means they didn't set an email or someone who disabled email will show the same.)
Feel free to testSpecial:EmailUser/Nil Einne or my username Nil Einne oruser page just to confirm how things are when you can email a user. (You can even email me if you want, although I'll probably ignore it.)
Note AFAIK there is no real way to only allow admins to email you. So any autoconfirmed editor can test this completely, perhaps unless they happened to the prohibited from email that particular editor. (And I've never interacted with this editor before now AFAIK.)
So I do not know what prompted Joloimpat to log out and re-commence editing via IP on December 11/12, but if the EmailUser capability disappeared at the same time, this is very suspicious. I have satisifed myself to the question of whether he reads English, and I believe he can read/write it just fine. So I do not know why he chooses not to discuss, collaborate, reply, or otherwise communicate, but I am not sure how Wikipedia can sustain an editor who absolutely does his own thing without doing any of those. What happens next time I need to discuss one of his edits? Talk pages don't work!Elizium23 (talk)22:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: It's possible you did. I don't think there is any way we can know if there lack of email is a recent development short of someone actually having a saved copy of their user page or having sent an email. However I'd be reluctant to trust anyone's memory of this (even myself) given I think we all agree it's the sort of thing easy to mis-remember. (If there is something very difficult to mis-remember e.g. if someone wrote out an email in the box but then decided not to sent it, I'd trust that.)
@Elizium23: I agree if the email did suddenly disappear it's very suspicious, but in absence of good evidence for this as per my earlier comment, I don't think we can really consider it. As for the IP editing, this is also somewhat suspicious. OTOH, they've been editing with both the IP and account for so long, that in the absence of better evidence (e.g. do they always suddenly start to edit from the IP whenever they are getting a lot of attention) the possibility that they were simply logged out somehow can't IMO be ruled out. And maybe once they are logged out they don't bother to log back in unless they hit a semi-protected page or something.
Personally while not an admin, an editor who does not communicate is what I consider bad behaviour but not blockable behaviour unless there's an actual problem arising from it. If an editor is causing problems, then they should be blocked. E.g. if you ask an editor to stop doing X and there is a justifiable reason for it, and they don't stop, then they should be blocked. If you ask an editor to stop doing X and you have no idea if they are going to stop because they don't say anything, then I'd personally give them some minimal leeway if the behaviour isn't too severe. If they seem to stop, as shown by their edits, then I'd put it down as annoying but accept it.
If they continue with the behaviour, or perhaps if they modify their behaviour but are still causing problems as shown by their later edits probably because they didn't understand what they were being asked to do, then I'd likely support a block. With an ordinary editor, in such cases two way communication should hopefully allow us to change the behaviour but it's very difficult if they're maybe reading, but never responding. (If someone is willing to continue to try and deal with the editor, I'd generally suggest we should let them, simply we shouldn't expect anyone needs to.)
I appreciate it can be frustrating when we have no idea if the editor is going to change. And maybe because the behaviour isn't something which shows up on every edit, it's hard to know if it's continuing for a long while. But to some extent, even if an editor says "yes I will stop" or whatever, they can continue anyway so that always applies.
And I'd say this applies even to more content type issues. If the editor changes something and you don't agree with it, you can revert or change it. If the editor doesn't revert or change it back, then meh whatever. It's frustrating that you can specifically explain to them why their change wasn't an improvement at least with some indication they actually took on board what you told them, but if it doesn't continue, it's probably better to just accept it.
I agree withNil Einne's approach. I definitely see why this behavior is annoying but unless he's violating policies or causing disruption then I'm not sure what else there is to do. He may not view the social aspects of Wikipedia as important, he may have taken a monastic vow of silence, who knows? If he does do something disruptive he can be blocked for that.Michepman (talk)02:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Reported editor is clearly a television enthusiast,not an employee of NBCUniversal, and knocked it off 13 days before already. This is clearly over-enthusiastic original research that just needs a kind warning and some editing reductions, not a conflict of interest, and is not an issue for this noticeboard. Non-admin closure.Nate•(chatter)05:13, 25 December 2019 (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.
They mostly edit Filipino television articles. Unless WMAQ-TV, a Chicago television station, has suddenly hired a Manila correspondent and that's them, this is in no way a COI. And they also haven't edited that article since December 13, so they took your warning (however incorrect it was; I see it was also applied in September) to heart and stopped.Nate•(chatter)05:13, 25 December 2019 (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.
While I was patrolling new pages, I found several copyvios from this user. They have been creating copyvio pages of companies copied from their official websites. The pages created are:
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.
Mvcg66b3r: The user has made over 29,000 edits. Please be more specific. Providediff links and an explanation why these are disruptive. Ideally, cite apolicy that was violated.
@Mvcg66b3r: Sorry but you need to be more explicit and briefly explain why an edit is bad. Also, no one is "taught a lesson" here; all that may happen is that advice is given, backed with a sanction if required. The diffs given seem to be edits atWJRT-TV, and those diffs show an edit war between two editors. Meanwhile, the talk page is blank. An explanation at talk would be useful to resolve the issue, and for onlookers who might want to quickly understand the problem.Johnuniq (talk)05:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Not only does Spshu choose to edit war, but s/he also vandalizes random pages by adding bad spelling, grammar and formatting on them and getting away with it while not getting facts right. S/he also doesn't believe thatMGM has multiple studio partners likeWarner Bros.,Universal Pictures,Sony Pictures,Paramount Pictures, etc. to selectively collaborate and/or co-produce movies with, and instead s/he thinks that Sony and Fox Home Entertainment and thenAnnapurna Pictures,United Artists Releasing and Universal Home Entertainment were distributing all MGM movies since 2011, which isn't true at all. Plus, s/he thinks that United Artists was only revived as UA Digital Studios and not UA Releasing, and that MGM and Annapurna's initial theatrical distribution joint venture in the US was its own separate company called Mirror, which also isn't true. The initial joint venture (before it was expanded under the UA Releasing banner with the revival of UA) was just a test for both companies, with MGM investing in Annapurna's old distribution arm in exchange for releasing three of their own movies under the MGM banner in 2018, they only used the name "Mirror" as a banner for third-party movies, and UA Digital Studios is a separate little production unit from UA in general. S/he even refuses to merge the section for UA Releasing into the History section on that UA page.36.71.252.44 (talk)20:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of the alleged problematic behavior if you want someone to address this issue. The allegations in this last paragraph appear to be entirely unrelated to the minor edit warring at WJRT-TV.signed,Rosguilltalk21:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Most of those diffs are a) not by Spshu and b) quite old. I'm also not sure I see any evidence of edit warring on the linked articles.signed,Rosguilltalk21:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If you're accusing Spshu of sockpuppetry, the correct venue for that is to file a case atWP:SPI. Beyond that, I'm not seeing a case for this to be discussed at ANI at this time.signed,Rosguilltalk21:37, 24 December 2019 (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.
Exhibit 1, repeatedly describing Greer's actions as inept despite him never being reprimanded or disciplined for his actions
Exhibit 2, adding YouTube "sourced" conspiracy theory and observations on Greer's actions from the Zapruder Film (obvious primary source)
Exhibit 3, adding more personal observations on the Zapruder Film designed to make Greer look guilty of something
Exhibit 4, adding an unsourced claim that Greer is the subject of conspiracy theory, adding more personal observations on the Zapruder Film designed to make Greer look guilty of something, adding unsourced speculation about the event and personal observations on an FBI report designed to make Greer look suspicious
Exhibit 5, adding unsourced criticism of Greer and unsourced speculation, and adding personal observations on an FBI report designed to make Greer look suspicious
Exhibit 6, adding unsourced criticism of Greer and unsourced speculation, and adding personal observations on an FBI report designed to make Greer look suspicious
Looking at the article's talk page this material has been discussed again and again, even if the latest IP isn't the same person it's clear they aren't here to build an encyclopedia but to push strange fringe views. Could the article be semi-protected for a lengthy period please?Grewsome47 (talk)10:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Blocked both for vandalism and hid the article text for the offending revisions. Whether or not they're the same person, they're certainly editing in concert.signed,Rosguilltalk21:20, 24 December 2019 (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.
Edit made byUser:Battleofalma on 11:59, 21 December 2019 was suppressed, but no admin claimed responsibility, and no rationale was provided. The topic's a bit sensitive because theSlate article specifically referenced COI editing at Buttigieg's wiki page. Please advise more about all folks there who are able to address this. Thanks!Powerrranger (talk)17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The place to ask would beSpecial:EmailUser/Oversight, I believe. However this wasn't an admin action, it was aWikipedia:Oversight action, presumably the edit inappropriately linked the identity of a wiki editor(s) to real people in contravention to theWP:OUTING policy. And on such privacy-sensitive matters we generally prefer not to spill too much information & to safeguard people's privacy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jo-Jo for responding to this issue. However, the article's linked to in the talk page of the article in question, so that's likely not the issue. Do you have logs of who suppressed the edit and their rationale? Would be welcome for an administrator to respond to this as this is not the first glaring problem to be identified in this article.158.106.215.138 (talk)18:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo is an admin, and so am I, however neither of us can see the oversight logs - one would need to be an oversighter to have that access. You could contact the oversight team via emailhere but it is very unlikely that you will get an answer to your question, as per Jo-Jo's answer above.Black Kite (talk)18:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a Lot of unusual activity happening on Pete's page. Editors believe the crime rate in a mayor's city shouldn't be added to his otherwise very detailed biography, and that his flowery rhetoric about Marijuana decriminalization's more important than the policies he implemented as mayor. And it may not be unusual to redact personal information, but please clarifyDoug Weller, is it unusual tonot log the redaction? If everything's above board, why not simply log the redaction?158.106.215.138 (talk)20:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The logic for thissuppression's deeply flawed. No information could have been presented in the body of the article that's not already visible elsewhere. And nobody involved in wikipedia is above providing an explanation for their actions to the community. This is not kosher. The oversighter who suppressed this information still has not been identified let alone been told to explain their actions. So many edits of this page are not kosher. Really really problematic for the wellness of the community.158.106.215.138 (talk)20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I wondered about this oversight as well. So referencing theSlate article is oversightable because they speculated that one editor has aCOI? Slate is a fairly well-established online publication with a high readerbase, so it would be odd to consider information from it to be this sensitive. And why wasn't ordinary logged revision delete enough? This is concerning. --Pudeo (talk)20:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Oversight, by its very nature, cannot be discussed in a public place such as this. If you disagree with it then please follow the instructions atWikipedia:Oversight#Complaints.Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)P.S. I would add that it seems very likely that we will get lots of such complaints in the next ten or eleven months until the next US presidential election. Please let's recognise that this is an enyclopedia, not a campaigning tool.Phil Bridger (talk)20:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Oversight can and should be discussed in public. Relegating discussion about critical portions of an article regarding a man who could be the Democratic nominee to backchannels is the opposite of the wikipedia project's goals158.106.215.138 (talk)20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, no, that's not going to happen. We are notpermitted to publicly discuss suppressed material. You can direct complaints about the use of the oversight tool toWP:ARBCOM for their review, they can speak to whoever suppressed the edits and get back to you. There's several good reasons none of these logs are public.Beeblebrox (talk)21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, yes, there are realities of this project for all folks. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". We are permitted to have discussions about anything in a non-disparaging fashion in the public domain. Convention indicating we should act counter to the mission of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia project are backwards and are changing more rapidly. There are no good reasons none of these logs are public otherwise you would have listed at least one of those reasons.158.106.215.138 (talk)21:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Direct your complaints to the Foundation. Oversight logs are private and they'd have to not just change their policy but the software to make them public.Doug Wellertalk22:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Always thought keeping them non-public was the point and why there are only a few dozen oversighters. There are some things that should be private.O3000 (talk)22:20, 24 December 2019 (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.
Unsolicited Personal Attack by BullRangifer
I guess my advise was not heeded, so I'll make it official. I do not deem the comment in question to constitute a personal attack. AE is a better venue because we don't want AP2 to spillover at ANI. It's too chaotic. If admins at AE have failed to address the issue in question, then that could also be because the requests themselves were not potent enough. Rusf10 is free to relist this as an AE request, but I don't know if it is going to amount to much. Meanwhile we seem to have another dispute going on in this thread that seems to just be a waste of everyone's time and energy. Putting a stop to that.El_C23:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing this to the attention of the greater community since the admins atWP:AE have repeatedly failed to address this.User:BullRangifer has been warned mutliple times not to personally attack me but persists despite being completely unprovoked. History at AE:
July 20, 2018- "BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions"
March 13, 2019- "The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated."
April 24, 2019-"Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources. "
Backgound: The most recent issue started as a content dispute atDonald Trump whereuser:MrX has been pushing to retain misleading wording in the lead that suggests a partisan report by congressional Democrats has proven wrong-doing by Donald Trump despite the fact no trial has been conducted yet. I orginally changed the word "found" to "alledged" but upon suggestion of another editor (who I do not always agree with, but have come to respect) I now support the word "charged". The dispute is currently being discussed atTalk:Donald Trump#Alleged?. This is a discussion that BullRangifer has not partcipated in. Around the same time, I also cam across the articleFBI secret society andnominated it for deletion, believing in did not meet our guidelines for inclusion. That article happened to have been created by Mr. X, who then came to my talk page to make abad faith accusation against me[234]. He then doubled down on his assumption of bad faith and threatened me"My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself".
Enter BullRangifer, who I cannot recall having any direct contact with in months. BullRangifer comes to my talk page completely unsolicited to back up Mr. X and say that eithier I am acting in bad faith or have "acompetency issue"[235] This is the exact sameWP:PERSONALATTACK that BullRangifer madehere and was warned about byuser:GoldenRing (seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#BullRangifer) Asuser:MONGO pointed out on my talk page[236], both Mr.X and BullRangifer have engagned in policy violating behavior. But the behavior of BullRaniger is particually troubling since he was completely unprovoked and has already been warned repeatedly not to do exactly what he just did. I should not have to tolerate thisWP:HARASSMENT from a user who clearly believes the rules do not apply to him.--Rusf10 (talk)19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This an AE matter and should have been submitted atAE. Saying that AE admins failed to address the issue in the past is not a reason to forgo that process.El_C19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts: First, the comment about bad faith is fully justified as I explainedhere. Rusf10AfD'd an article that I started a little more than hour after Ireverted his edit onDonald Trump. Second, I would suggest not relying on MONGO's interpretation of what constitutes appropriate behavior given that he wasadmonished for hostility by Arbcom in the American Politics topic area. I can produce numerous post-AP2 diffs of him following me to various fora attempting to inject himself into disputes that he had no prior involvement in. I can also document overt hostility, trolling, and other manner of grudge bearing.
Under the circumstances of Rusf10's revenge AfD, I think BullRangifer's observations are well within the norms of conduct, especially for user talk page. Keep in mind, Rusf10 has been previouslysanctioned forWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior specifically against BullRangifer. PerhapsAwilley has something to say about that. -MrX 🖋19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You brought up Awilley. So, MrX suggested they may have something to say. MrX brought up Mongo. And you told Mongo on their UTP. Nothing wrong with either. But, you're getting close to BATTLE on the wrong page.O3000 (talk)20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
What O3000 said, and I notified Awilley because he's familiar with your conduct style and probably has a perspective on the merits of your complaint. On the other hand, I wouldn't blame him if he just ignored this and went about his holiday festivities.-MrX 🖋20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(after 3 edit conflicts) That link just leads to a section that has been hatted and crossed out. Maybe the sanctions have been deprecated, but you need to provide a link that says so, rather than such a deceptive link.Phil Bridger (talk)20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the link is deceptive. The sanction as a whole has been deprecated. I don't know what other link to offer you since neither Awilley (or the person who deprecated it, if it wasn't him) had the courtesy to notify me on my talk page. I discovered this by myself later on.--Rusf10 (talk)21:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Then tell us where you discovered that it had been deprecated. How much more deceptive could anyone possibly get than to link to a section of a user talk page that says nothing of the sort? Let's deal in facts, rather than "alternative facts".Phil Bridger (talk)21:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I discovered it by clicking on the linkhere which goes directly to the other page I linked to. It is deprecated and that's a fact even if you don't like it. If you want to know why it was deprecated, then ask Awilley. My guess is because it was an improper sanction to begin with.--Rusf10 (talk)21:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Wanted to thank MrX for so kindly mentioning my sanction from4.5 years ago. A nonpartisan peek at the bullying and me-tooisms provided by MrX at the complainants talk provide justifications for this complaint. And while ElC may be correct this is an AE matter, its also really a NPA one, and AGF one and etc. as I see MrX has also been busy spreading holiday cheer elsewhere it seems[237],[238]. Has MrX suddenly been promoted to admin, as I am a bit perplexed by his authoritative tone. A learning lesson can be had by reading further into the linked threads I just provided whereUser:Mandruss offered a calming and helpful suggestion that might have alleviated the acrimony had a wee bit of AGF been provided sooner by MrX. I recognize the holidays may stress some folks out....but really....these things are solvable if we just love each other! Adding that MrX did offer his form of an olive branch later....[239] Merry Christmas to you MrX!--MONGO (talk)21:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that you are still stalking me MONGO. By the way, you might not be the most credible person to be dispensing advice about assuming good faith and alleviating acrimony.[240][241][242] Cheers! 🍹 -MrX 🖋22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I stalked you to the page I linked to cause...I have that page watchlisted! In fact I was going to join the same chorus as you were on, albeit, minus the hostility and lack of AGF for I too have been a bit bewildered by their edits which have long been seen by me as well as a tad overbold. Amazingly, after this issue was brought up with them before, lo and behold I happened to watchlist their page! So whats next MrX...gonna call me a liar now?--MONGO (talk)22:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Brought to the incorrect venue by the incorrect editor with unneeded side attacks. Close it before some folks talk themselves into a sanction.O3000 (talk)21:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes the complainant the "incorrect" one? The complainant is indicating they feel they have been unjustifiably attacked, bullied and had their competency questioned by an editor(s) that have (has) been warned previously about personalizing things.--MONGO (talk)21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That's what I'd like to know. Where is it written that I am required to bring an unprovoked personal attack made on by talk page to AE?--Rusf10 (talk)21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Also want to request that any nonpartisan admins who stumble on this thread not sanction MrX for not only bringing up a 4.5 year old sanction and then questioning my ability to recognize appropriate behavior, nor MrX saying I am trolling him (with zero diffs to prove this) or this overt hostility he claims I have. Nor should we condemn him for his defense above of Bullrangifer who has twice before been AE warned for these exact same insults about editors competencies. As I stated at Rusf10's talk, I have his page watchlisted. I saw what I believed to be some issues, MrX did not like me challenging him on his unflattering comments and told me to...well, its allhere.--MONGO (talk)21:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I gave three diffs above. Here's youtrolling me after sticking your nose in something that you were not involved in[243]. Remember, when you and two other editors were following me to various articles. (One editor is now banned. The other was topic banned.) Let me know if you see a pattern here. I do. -MrX 🖋22:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not remember that, no. I dont do cryptic or psychic well. Care to show me where I was sanctioned ever for stalking. This gets better by the minute.--MONGO (talk)23:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
UnlessAwilley's one year sanction from April 13, 2019, on Rusf10 for their vexatious dramaboard filings against me has expired or has been lifted, this is a violation of the sanction. This will be the FOURTH such filing. Even if it's expired, this behavior should resurrect it, and with a vengeance.
Lest there be any confusion, the sanction on me only applies to article talk pages. My criticism of Rusf10 was very specific; it was explained; it was on their personal talk page and not an article talk page; and it was not gratuitous or uncivil.
I see this as a thin-skinned response labeling my justified criticism as a personal attack. The appropriate response is a ban hammer, multiple flying slimey-trout boomerangs, and other sanctions for holding a grudge and now trotting it out as a continuation of Rusf10's previous battleground behaviors. There are a number of behavioral violations here.
Regardless of that deprecated special sanction, "it's the thought that counts" in the Holiday season. In my opinion this report is boomerang-worthy on its own 2 feet. This is the kind of documented behavior that led to Rusf10's sanction and it would have been better to dispense a TBAN at the outset. SPECIFICOtalk23:30, 24 December 2019 (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 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.
FWIW@YoungForever: You should not have made four reverts in the space of 25 minutes[244][245][246][247] without attempting to discuss on the talk page first (which has hardly been touched in two weeks[248]), even if you think you are right. Inthis case I was most definitely right on the content (with prior talk page consensus, reliable sourcing, and bothWP:BURDEN andWP:ONUS on my side) and the other party had still made more reverts than I had, and yet I was forced to self-revert pending "consensus" if I didn't want to be blocked. (And I amstill putting up with the consequences of not having pushed for the other party to be blocked at that time.)
If you think other editors are likely to agree with you,wait for them to revert. And please don't shout in edit summaries: a lot of this content is impenetrable to those of us who don't (can't, without engaging piracy) watch the show, so repeatedly shouting "Disruptive editing!" (exclamation mark yours) without making any attempt to explainwhy it is disruptive doesn't help us assess the problem.
While Rantpoet's behavior was unacceptable, I actually agree with them that the article is promotional. It doesn't appear thatLinda Ravenswood is notable, and I think deletion is in order. Not really sure how to proceed given the circumstances that it's already at ANI.signed,Rosguilltalk05:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
My block of that obvious sock who was ranting and making legal threats should not be construed as opposition to taking these articles to AfD, if editors acting in good faith do not believe these people are notable.Cullen328Let's discuss it06:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed from editing behavior that someone edits about once a week, always with a different IP. They do mostly reasonable cleanup on bios of writers. The link above shows today's edits which are very similar to what I believe are past edits by the same person. The problem is that when they find|yearsactive= and|notableworks=, they change them to|years_active= and|notable_works=. The former is OK, but{{infobox writer}} doesn't support|notable_works=. Apparently, they don't do a SHOW PREVIEW and see the red warning message nor notice that the notable works are missing from the infobox after their edits. I have been fixing these because I monitorCategory:Pages using Infobox writer with unknown parameters. Since they change IPs every time, is there any way to get their attention?MB05:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea. I've just noticed a pattern, but haven't kept track of different IPs. I don't know an easy way to find previous ones, but I could start recording them going forward to see the extent of the IP range.MB16:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
All the edits in the /64 appear to be the same editor, working on infobox parms. There are over 250 edits in the last 5 weeks, with gaps of 3 or 9 days between multiple-day blocks. I'd say most are adding (correctly) residence parms, summarizing content already in the article. The ones I spot-checked were cited and verified. Some other changes are to location links, and are a mix of quality. Seems like a short block of the /64 would get their attention. Meanwhile, I've suggested addition of the|notable_works= alias atTemplate talk:Infobox writer#Lists for consistency with other templates.—[AlanM1(talk)]—10:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TheCitizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is a sensitive, topical topic where ourWP:NPOV policy,WP:OWN,WP:RS and the use of peer-reviewed scholarship and other reliable sources are particularly important. The background related to the 1955 law, their past discussions and attempts to amend their 1955 law, the election manifesto promises and views of the Hindu nationalists, as well as the persecution of Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim, and others in neighboring countries of India have been discussed in recent and past ~50 years by reliable sources. There has been an ongoing content dispute (seethis). We agree that "the persecution is a fact". We agree that the current Indian government claims that to be their motivation. The old version of the article lacked background on the persecution of non-Muslims and some Muslim sects in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh as discussed by past scholars and non-nationalist Indian governments. The dispute, after some discussion, got clarified to this weakness in the old version of the article. Today, I added new reliable sources published over the decades, and summary background from these about the persecution of non-Muslim and Muslim minority sects in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the context of refugees and their Citizenship Act. These sources and the summary has never been discussed in the past on the article's talk page.
DBigXray has summarily deleted the added content, with no discussion of the new sources and related summary. Given the speed of the reversals, it is evident that they have not even read the new peer-reviewed scholarly and other reliable sources. This is WP:OWN behavior, with no respect for our cherished NPOV policy. I would not mind the deletion if they had explained their objection to the new RS, or the summary therein, or similar constructive discussion. DBigXray is showing WP:OWN behavior and associated disruptive behavior. I have tried tostart a discussion for the full version, offered apartial compromise, but to no avail (also see my offer that I will delete what I added, in the thread above, were they to read the newly added sources and then explain their concerns). I do not seek immediate sanctions on DBigXray. I seek that DBigXray be warned to stop acting as a gatekeeper of the affected article and stop their summary deletion of RS and new content inany wikipedia article with no constructive discussion on the article's talk page. This is hostile and is counter to our cherished consensus that we are "open to new contributions and reliable sources" to improve wikipedia articles.
This content dispute would benefit from engaging in normaldispute resolution procedures (andaccompanying requests). This ANI request, therefore, seems somewhat premature. I'm not sure it has reached the stage of being truly intractable. Try to get some outside input into the dispute (ANI should not serve as a mechanism toward that end).El_C16:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, TheCitizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is a sensitive topic, as MSW says. It is a controversial article underWP:ACDSWP:ARBIPA and editors editing it, (including you) are not allowed to edit war. This is an ongoing event and an ongoing dispute. There is a talk page discussion thread going on and on at "Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Background" where 7 editors are participating trying to work out a consensus version. You are welcome to continue the talk page discussion. As for the reverts, I note that MSW has already made 3 attempts to edit war her favoured version of the disputed content into the article.
I have tried to reason out with her on my talk page and her talk page apart from the article talk, but it seems she is more intent on Edit warring and getting editors sanctioned instead of getting the dispute resolved. 6 Editors (User:Bless_sins,User:Vanamonde93,User:Winged Blades of Godric,User:Kautilya3,User:প্রলয়স্রোত) including me have objected her version as POV infested and insted of working with the other editors at talk page, MSW has tried filibustering on the talk page thread and now is trying her luck for getting sanctions on the editors she has dispute with by bringing her content dispute on ANI.Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ16:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong here. There is ahumongous talk page section where this has been discussed. The CONSENSUS is clearly against MSW. I have no idea why she is unable to see it. I recommend taking it toWP:DRN. (But God help any one volunteering to resolve it!) --Kautilya3 (talk)16:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus on the talk page for Ms Sarah Welch's edit, and it has been disputed, so it should not be made until such consensus is reached. I have no opinion on the edit itself, as that is a content issue that should continue to be discussed on the talk page, not a matter for this noticeboard.Phil Bridger (talk)17:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment –@DBigXray:: you didn't provide edit diffs from the 6 editors that support your accusation "6 editors have accused her version as POV infested". I have already embedded quotes in several cites and included efn notes with exact quotes, to ease WP:V. If you are alleging that the added content is summarizing the view published in mainstream scholarly RS on persecution-refugees-India law as "POV-pushing", I do not understand you given that we should summarize all major main sides, as stated in the RS and in their words, per our cherished NPOV policy. Kautilya3: I am not going to reinstate that subsection, will patiently try the DRN and appropriate steps. It would help, as Phil Bridger implies, if you and we all read the sources I have just added, discuss them on the talk page, and collaborate to improve the article further. I urge your patient review in light of our NPOV policy. I am willing to revise/delete/add whatever a reasoned consensus yields, but as Vanamonde explained earlier "for god's sake" don't make this about votes, this is about the core policies of wikipedia.@El C: Which NB would you suggest next? Thank you,Ms Sarah Welch (talk)17:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The main thing that I am implying, or rather saying directly, is that major changes to the article should not be made by edit warring, but by consensus arising from talk page discussion. That takes time, especially if editors are in different time zones, so don't be in such a hurry to make your changes.Phil Bridger (talk)17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, MSW I did not add diffs for the 6 editors, but I did mention the names and linkedTalk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Background, the "humongous" talk page thread for ANI contributors to see. The ANI contributors should also note the amount of filibustering you had been doing on the talk page. Also please point me where on the pageWP:CONSENSUS does it say that the version with more efn notes is the preferred version in a content dispute. Not sure why you feel that more efn notes trumps the process of Consensus. You blatantly edit war and when your efforts are objected, you accuse others ofWP:OWN, very nice. It is quite shocking to know that in all these years you have been editing, you have failed to grasp that ANI does not entertain content disputes. ANI cannot help you if are unable to get consensus among other editors on the Article talk page. You have to understand that ANI is not a venue to get your preferred version into the article. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't know whatNB stands for. I recommend trying to gain consensus for your edits by getting more outside input from uninvolved editors and/or through engaging in compromise with those ones who are involved and object to the current version of your addition. Good luck!El_C17:35, 26 December 2019 (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.
This IP editor makes hundreds of questionable edits per month to radio stations and roads in the New York and New England region. Some of the IPs have been templated for some of it. This latest one is involved in a 3RR edit war atWILI (AM), after which they postedthis polite request. Could someone familiar with radio articles look at the style and other edits they are making, and maybe get their attention, as they don't seem to know or care about how we do things.—[AlanM1(talk)]—13:21, 25 December 2019 (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.
Humanoid added{{dubious}} to the statement that Wikipedia is not censored atWikipedia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), based on the rationale that "any mention of [speculated whistleblower] is being censored from the whole encyclopedia". That wasWP:POINTy but after reviewing other edits and comments I have blocked for BLP violations as the commentary attalk:Wikipedia makes it clear that he has triggered filter1008 (the logs are suppressed so maybe an oversighter can verify?)Guy(help!)19:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
endorse block The intent of "not censored" is to answer whining about sensibilities wounded by encyclopedic content. The encyclopedia can and must 1) protect itself from potential harm and 2) protect others where the potential harm outweighs any encyclopedic benefit. Pointiness and not here are very good reasons to block in order to prevent disruption.--Deepfriedokra22:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Endorse block It's one thing to misunderstandWP:NOTCENSORED (who has time to read all these links!?) but recent activity shows an SPA-like zeal with disruption and POINT thrown in.Johnuniq (talk)00:04, 25 December 2019 (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:Gregeroszlar
User:Gregeroszlar is using Wikipedia strictly as a means of self-promotion despite repeated warnings. After posting the same draftthree times, he was hit with a weeklong ban. He then proceeded to post the same contenton his talk page while throwing inan insult for good measure. A permanent ban is perhaps now in order as he has made it clear he has no intent of constructively contributing to the encyclopedia.sixtynine• whaddya want? •19:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
"Most likely I am going to carry on to write a normal article about myself" seems like a statement of intent to continue disruption, so it seems reasonable to extend the block to an indefinite one. I have done so. --Kinut/c19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suspected a COI and started a discussion atWP:COIN but the involved party is reverting discussion there and claiming I am harassing them. Need some intervention to allow the COIN discussion to play out.MB03:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Counter-report
User:MB is Harassing me & Engaging in Disruptive editing of my pages, this stems from User:MB adding a COI to one of the pages I recently published then I informedUser:MB that I was not connect and nowUser:MB is engaging in targeted Harassment of me & further Deceptive editing Please help ASAP as I am worried about my safety fromUser:MBMusic Publisher s (talk)03:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see anything thatMB did that is either disruptive or harassing. They raised legitimate concerns that, because your account has shown asingular focus on editing articles related to PMR(P), you may have a conflict of interest or other connection to the subject. They have also expressed legitimate concerns about the title of the article. Neither of those rise to the level of harassment. —C.Fred (talk)03:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm unable to check if the statements were biased or not, so I wanted the admins to step in. Is there any other way to call for an intervention in such circumstances?JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail15:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not an administrator's job, orforte, to check whether sources are neutral or not... Before you look for intervention, we'd like to see (extensive) talk page discussion, or efforts toward discussion.Drmies (talk)16:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
User:176.160.172.33 keeps reverting changes, and doesn't seem to be interacting on the talk page. I went back through their edits- one source they used as a citation was Twitter, and another source the editor linked to didn't even have the information they claimed to be sourcing. Additionally, the framing of the Controversies and Criticisms read to be more conspiracies. None of the sources listed backed up that editor's arguments- it seems extremely not neutral writing.Cellarpaper (talk)16:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: As you investigate our Open Technology Fund article, please consider the issue I raised atTalk:Open_Technology_Fund under Addition to Section 3 - Projects. I believeUser:Gamaliel unjustly removed my contribution for what he described in his edit summary as "Issues of BLP and NPOV." My contribution cites WP:RS and provides a straightforward narrative of a newsworthy OTF project; it does not violate NPOV. Please allow me to restore this.NedFausa (talk)17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
NedFausa, you can't have it both ways. If you refer to me as an "administrator" and then say I'm involved, you canhardly ask me if I would "allow" you to restore something. I am not acting as an administrator there, so there won't be any involvement, unless there are clear-cut BLP violations, for instance, which I didn't see.This removal of mine concerned highly promotional content, BTW, and I do not intend to adjudicate administratively in what, at least so far, seems like a content matter. The moment it becomes an administrative matter, it will have to be another administrator who does what needs to be done. Thank you.Drmies (talk)21:23, 26 December 2019 (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 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 problem is that he thinks he is correcting some kind of "injustice" or something like that: somewhere there is some kind of "Serbian arrival", and therefore he has the right for edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk)21:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked both for edit warring after being informed of the DS for Eastern Europe and fully protected the article for a month. Hopefully, that'll encourage both parties to take this talk page and discuss it before going back at each other over the edits.TomStar81 (Talk)00:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81:, as an uninvolved editor, I came here by noticing that editor Mikola22 ceased to engage in an identical POV pushing and reverts across the ARBMAC/EE articles, especially in articles on history of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, to which they were in unaccounted number of dispute resolutions and reports, and whom I just wanted to report for the second time in just two days on edit-warring. Obvious reason for their sudden disappearance is this block on 72 hours. However, I couldn't avoid being under impression that editorNicoljaus suffered a bit unfair block as a consequence of his report on Mikola22 editing behavior - we should try to put into perspective difference between editors' general attitude and approach, where one gives its all, or at least much more, in following procedures in dispute resolutions and reasonably argues his position, even if it happens to be dragged into what's technically amounts to edit-warring. It simply doesn't feel fair to lump together two editors with diametrically opposite approach to the project guidelines and policies and practical procedures, solely on the bases of technicality. Cheers--౪ Santa ౪99°03:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Equally true is that both have been warned about this before and neither one opened a talk page thread or made any other effort to resolve this peacefully, and both have received DS warning on this issue. Sometimes its at the end of the gun that people finally decide to cooperate with each other as opposed to fighting with each other. That being said, admins such as myself are held accountable to the community, if others should be found to share your position I will reconsider my actions here.TomStar81 (Talk)14:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
TomStar81, well, as one of the users involved in discussions with Mikola, I am also thinking that Nicoljaus was collateral damage here, but as you said it, there was no talking on the talk page, so I understand your position as well. The problem is ongoing for months now, and editing any article that had Mikola22 involved was very difficult, to say the least. Mikola22 registered in October and immediately jumped into contentious articles with tendentious editing.Mhare (talk)16:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I edited an article changing a phrase that didn't match with the content of the source it had attached, and I replaced that phrase with words literally extracted from the source.[256]
However, user Melroross systematically eliminated the entire edition accusing me irrationally of having a biased vision for being "Spaniard" or "Brazilian". After observing that he kept eliminating my editions, I decided to reverse my edition and register in WP to open a thread to discuss the problem in "Talk" and stop the Edit War. There, I presented my arguments and showed that my edition was not a personal opinion, but text extracted from the source of the article itself. Despite this, Melroross began incessantly to obtein the permanent page protection and expelled me indefinitely on the grounds that "I am against the Portuguese people." The moderators have warned Melroross several times that no I am not acting in a vandalism way and that the page cannot be blocked because there are no reasons for that and they have urged him to dialogue with me in the thread that I opened in Talk ([257]). After that, instead of talking he has begun to delete my arguments in the discussion thread and change the title of the thread. ([258],[259],[260],[261]). A moderator warned him to stop deleting messages and altering the title ([262],[263]), and yet Melroross continued to erase my arguments, so as to avoid dialogue ([264]). All of this using an uncivic and accusative language, and sometimes even xenophobic and racist. ([265],[266] ). His attitude, his language and his disruptive editions can also be seen in the Talk thread itself ("Edit war").([267])
Removing threaded discussion from talk pages (without an edit summary, even) isdisruptive. I have left the user warning against doing so again.El_C17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to remove an invented phrase from the article (does not match with its source) and change it to a phrase taken from the source itself. But he automatically deletes my editions and refuses to dialogue a consensus in Talk.
I'm somewhat at a loss what to think of this editor. He appears to be systematically introducing erroneous numbers and information into numerous articles without sources or explanation, which suggests deliberate vandalism; but it's remotely possible he is posting in good faith but simply has no understanding of verifiability. For example, he has repeatedly changed the numbers of Japanese battleships built during the Second World War to 12 from 2 (the correct number, corresponding to the two Yamatos constructed during the war) but this is also the peak Japanese battleship strength during the war and it is remotely possible he is confused about what the table is supposed to show. In other articles, he has introducted production numbers at odds with the cited sources without explanation. Suggestions? --Kent G. Budge (talk)06:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It looks like no one has even attempted to talk to this guy like a person about his edits. Other than a flurry of vandalism template warnings from the first week of December, the only thing on his talk page is this WP:ANI notification. Is it fair to criticize someone for not using talk pages when no one has even tried to talk to him on either his own talk page or on an article’s talk page?
(I don’t mean this as a criticism of Kent Budge, who is raising a valid concern, it’s more of an issue with the way we treat potentially good faith users. ANI is often the first stop we make and assumptions are usually made here based on someone’s lack of talk page replies even when no one has spoken to them.)Michepman (talk)15:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
As discussedhere, the user has been disruptively been editing severalTemplate:Taxonomy, which is highly problematic as this affects many articles usingautomatic taxoboxes. Upon reversion, the user began replacing the automatic taxoboxes with manual ones with his opinions on taxonomy (such ashere). The user has continued to ignore attempts at discussion, and displays no willingness to cooperate. User has a history of creating questionable claims on articles with unreliable sources without justification. Suggest a 1 week block for disruptive editing, can extend to a topic ban on animal articles if disruptive editing continues afterwards.@Peter coxhead,Lythronaxargestes, andIJReid:User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Support both the action and duration. The user needs to understand what processes have to go down before making major edits to some high-profile taxonomy articles.IJReid{{T -C -D -R}}16:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment Can those templates beWP:TPROT instead? They look to be rarely edited and probably don't need to be edited without good reason anyway. I know there are tons of templates[268], but a bot could do it. If the user responds to this ANI maybe sanctions can be avoided. Let's wait to see if they respond. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk)18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Template protecting all taxonomy templates seems to be a bad idea to me. They need to be updated whenever taxonomic revisions happen, and while that's not too oftenper taxon (and thus per separate template), the number of taxa that get revised, synonymized, moved to different tribes, subtribes, subfamilies, etc. each year is pretty massive. Template protection for the highest ranks makes sense (there's relatively few of those and they don't changethat often), and maybe semi-protection or extended-confirmed protection for the rest, but not t-prot for all of 'm. Additionally, a lot of those templates do still need references, or need better references than what's there. Making it even harder for people to correct that means they probablywon't get filled/improved.AddWittyNameHere20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to discuss a ban. While an indefinite block may be warranted, a ban is not needed for this level of problem. I will warn the user that they need to explain how they will avoid problems in the future, bearing in mind the following: (1) In a comment (26 November 2019)Prehistoricplanes (talk·contribs) stated that they are French userfr:User:LoiDavid2307171. That user was indefinitely blocked on 14 March 2019 ("Compte créé pour vandaliser"); (2) Thesethree edits atUser talk:Prehistoricplanes#Source show that Prehistoricplanes is not able to communicate effectively in English. An indefinite block will follow if there is no satisfactory resolution.Johnuniq (talk)08:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Prehistoricplanes made another contentious edit without discussion. I have indefinitely blocked them to prevent further disruption.Johnuniq (talk)01:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was the one who reported the IP range at AIV. I recognize that normally before reporting editors to AIV, one should give them proper warnings on their talk page; however in this instance, the editing was occurring so quickly that I decided it was pointless to do so. I apologize if this was incorrect. Regarding the edits, I've checked some of the BLP birth date changes the range made and in instances where a reference gave a birth date that disagreed with what the IP put in, I reverted. I also madethis reversion which, I will freely admit was probably a bit hasty, as I don't know for sure that the numbers were changed incorrectly. Please feel free to undo my revert if I was in the wrong here. Thank you! –Erakura(talk)04:19, 28 December 2019 (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.
Content added need to be supported by independent, reliable source forverification by the editor who added/change the content as perWP:PROVEIT guidelines. Most of the deletion seems appropriate. user 73.64.26.5 edited only in the said page above thus a possible sign of COI here. CASSIOPEIA(talk)04:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an everyday content dispute, and as a non-admin I cannot see why admin intervention might be needed at this time. This is a matter for the article Talk Page. All the deletions complained about appear to have been made after individual consideration. This is not a case of indiscriminate blanking.Narky Blert (talk)07:46, 28 December 2019 (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.
Iwas going to invoke the topic ban here, but since Rotaryenginepete hasn't actually edited on any other subject than the impeachment of Trump, and since they've suggested they're not interested in contributing further to an encyclopedia by inviting us to "enjoy our echo chamber", there doesn't appear to be any reason for them to behere. As such, I have blocked indefinitely.Black Kite (talk)01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user continues to push their own view (going against consensus) and is unwilling to listen to other editors on the matter. It makes it frustrating to edit the article in a productive manner, since our time is spent debating Rotaryenginepete in this fruitless argument. AsUser:WMSR indicates here[269], the user continue to beat a deadHORSE.David O. Johnson (talk)07:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If the horse is dead, then why are there multiple edit requests and comments from dozens of users with the same concerns? Editors who singled me out are labeling opposing opinions as disruptive, instead of trying to resolve the onflict. I have even asked for constructive input and suggestions, openly stating that I want to change the request to resolve the continually highlighted appearance of bias. Repeatedly stated the goal is NPOV, which is clearly being violated with respect to the minority view.Rotaryenginepete (talk)07:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
WMSR Let the record note that I am the one and only StanTheMan0131. Seriously dude, it's kind of paranoid of you to make assumptions just because my style annoys you. I've contributed to that article in a very positive way. I'm honestly not surprised you're the one who made this report (not even going to entertain your ridiculous sock puppet conspiracy). Either way, I have been making REAL contributions on other articles with REAL compromises with REASONABLE people for the better of everyone else. Shame on you. Let the cards fold as they may.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStanTheMan0131 (talk •contribs)07:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
That talk page is hilarious, if you like editors getting bogged down. I saw Rotarypete say "The media is biased, there's no use in referencing them for factual content"--I think the next step is for an admin who knows paperwork to just topic-ban them from this article and the talk page. And the same for every other editor who, with 170 edits under their belt, thinks that Wikipedia is just a GREAT place to troll. Or just block them per NOTHERE.Drmies (talk)14:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There are quite a few of these eager fresh faces showing up on the Trump-related articles over the past month or so. Unfortunately there seem to be many longtime editors who either enjoy debating this sort of nonsense or who believe we're all here to educate imaginary internet personalities. We all really need to avoid any temptation to engage. There have also been some good faith redlink newcomers, but they don't engage as described above, and they have responded appropriately to discussion with longtime editors. SPECIFICOtalk14:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that would be against the spirit of WP as an open community, although I wouldn't personally oppose it. It's a matter of balance. We would lose some good suggestions that way, but the status quo is we are losing the participation of good seasoned editors who have no time or patience for role playing and time wasting on article talk pages. In general, IPs and new editors often seem to make valuable contributions. On these politics articles where there's obvious off-wiki inspiration for their visits, I haven't seen much good at all. SPECIFICOtalk16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Topic Ban Rotaryenginepete - I had not personally made the connection between the two mentioned above. But in re to the whole talk page wall of text and requests for rewording by Rotaryenginepete, it just seemed to be like the 2019 version of "what the meaning of the word 'is' is". That particular editor has demonstrated many of the hallmarks ofWP:TEND. And the editor's history looks like a single-purpose account focused on this one topic. Enough is enough. Please enforce a TOPIC BAN.— Maile (talk)15:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment Just a quick note that Rotaryenginepete was given an American Politics discretionary sanctions alert at 03:19, 26 December 2019[270] so before this discussion had started and a bunch of their other stuff like[271][272]. StanTheMan0131 was given an American Politics discretionary sanctions alert at 08:50, 26 December 2019[273] and hasn't done anything since then. So Rotaryenginepete could potentially be sanctioned under the AP2 regime if an admin feels their latest contribs indicate a problem. StanTheMan0131, not at this time.Nil Einne (talk)17:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There's also a giant notice at the top of the talk page that says toBE BOLD I offered over a dozen sources, many not opinion...yet repeatedly told they don't count. So much for NPOVRotaryenginepete (talk)19:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Without justifying either's actions (topic bans may certainly be in order), looking at some of the behavior, I think the likelihood of sockpuppetry between Pete and Stan is extremely low. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Topic Ban Rotaryenginepete and StanTheMan0131 forrefusing to listen andbludgeoning. I just read the Talk page for the first time and I'm amazed at the amount of synthesis, extrapolating claims based on dictionaries, repeatedly citing the same opinion pieces, misrepresenting sources, the list goes on. Of course we need to AGF with new editors, but we also can't let them drive off editors who understand and uphold our core content policies.Woodroar (talk)19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, cherry picking policies to strongly oppose a minority view which an editor disagrees with, such as weighting headlines over opinion pieces and non-opinion articles. The "not impeached until articles are sent to Senate" view is all over the media and academia. It's clear the majority of editors on this impeachment page aren't truly interested in NPOV. And you wonder why you're losing editors...I'll save you the trouble. Enjoy your echo chamber.Rotaryenginepete (talk)20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The bolded comment above is pretty indicative of all of this user's commentary on the impeachment talk page.WMSR (talk)05:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Pointing out thatRotaryenginepete seems to beencouraging canvassing for an RfC on another user's talk page. Though perhaps the best quote from the rant isThey tried taking me to admin and calling me disruptive, but I called their bluff by highlighting the hypocrisy in their arguments. There already seems to be consensus for a topic ban. I would encourage an admin to please enforce this.WMSR (talk)06:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@WMSR: Son, I'm going to have to encourage that you stop trying so hard. Your point (or lack of) has been observed time and time again. There you sat almost 40 minutes apart - with near certainty filling that dead space in between by rapidly hitting the f5 key - to check gleefully if you have "won" with your victory condition of a topic ban being enforced on both users. You couldn't even wait a full hour to call it to someones attention again. "Maybe they forgot," you say to yourself. "Perhaps they need me to remind them? We need a development!" You type your comment out with encouraging words to try once again to route the troops and sway the decision in your favor - "I can't JUST report this, give the admin the necessary information, and then continue on. I am the AMBASSADOR of this attempt to have these people removed from editing the article." As you almost finalize your comment and prepare to sign it you pause for a moment; "Wait, a couple others have agreed to this..." Your eyes widen and you grin. "Consensus. Now THAT sounds official. Sure not many people from the article have chipped in their opinion, but without anyone taking their side I can make it seem bigger than it is." You complete the comment, check it for spelling errors, then sign it with those four sweet key strokes - making sure to hit that fourth tilde with extra force for emphasis. You lean back in your chair and kick you feet up, "Man it feels good to be king and have this power." Within two minutes your hands and face begin to sweat profusely. "Maybe just one refresh. Couldn't hurt." You hit f5... nothing. A minute passes by and you hit it again... nada. Thirty seconds, f5, wrong. Fifteen seconds, f5, nope. You continue pressing it over and over - only stopping once to quickly make sure that you're fully connected to the internet. You are - but there isn't even so much as a hint of an update. This sends you into an hour long nonstop f5 bashing frenzy which abruptly ends as the answer became clear to you: "Wait a minute... I think that I am the only one that actually cares about this. No one else thinks that this is life or death." And that, WMSR, is one thing you finally got right - that no one but you actually cared.Editors note: I hope that you all enjoyed reading this, as it is art. My words? The paint. --StanTheMan0131 (talk)09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@StanTheMan0131: I've seen nothing to make me doubt WMSR has the best interest of the encyclopaedia at heart. You on the other hand I'm not so sure. With the silly F5 story above and your insistence, despite multiple requests from other editors, on excessive bolding because "By using the bold text in such a dynamic way I am not only appearing to be more cool, but it keeps the reader engaged as well so they can feel the emotion and continued interest in reading my posts." I'm not so sure. BTW to my mind, and from what I can tell from the talk page, your bolding does not look cool to most people, does not keep many people engaged, and does not generate continued interest in reading your posts for many. Instead it's just lame and makes people think you have nothing useful to say and your posts are not worth reading.Nil Einne (talk)14:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was going to be a cool story, like most hour-long F5 bashing frenzies, but then I realized it wasn't about Brock Lesnar in Space, just some woman at a desk, masturbatingvery subtly. Refreshing, sure, but not art. Speaking of obscenity in the workplace, this is the last you'll see of my horrid signature collection around here, on account of it making several editors uncomfortable in the time management department (so to speak). Adios, certain individuals! Stay golden, Nil Einne.InedibleHulk(talk)14:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@WMSR: Thanks for reinforcing my point that a band of editors are weaponizing policy arguments against those they disagree with, in effect creating an echo chamber for your opinion. I stepped off the talk page, but that doesn't mean I stepped off the internet nor that this established procedural view still doesn't exist. If I seemed to be encouragingWikipedia:Canvassing, which is stated as"perfectly acceptable", then you would seem to be correct. There is clearly a consensus among many comments made by editors already involved on the talk page over this subject, which means your word on the matter is far from final and far from consensus. An appropriate canvassing notification is"Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open". My post was limited to one, the goal is still NPOV, the subject is clearly not partisan because reliable sources establish that the "not technically impeached" view is held by folks from many aspects of the political spectrum, and I did it in the open (as recommended) on a user's talk page where anyone could see it. You originally told me"That is you talking, not the source. You need reliable sources that explicitly make your claim."After I came back with those sources and cited them, you proceeded to canvass the editors who you believe agree with your viewpoint to file this ANI and label me as a disruptive sockpuppet. This amounts to nothing more than attempted suppression. Have a great day, and please continue to enjoy your echo chamber.Rotaryenginepete (talk)20:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@WMSR: LOL paranoid much? Ok I read the second sentence too...Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. I understand my post to (as you put it) "encourage canvassing" may have gotten under your skin...but it was not a direct notification because I messaged an editor already involved. I also didn't recommend any inappropriate notifications or selection of editors on a basis of opinion. I simply stated there are many others already on the talk page who disagree with your viewpoint, and it would probably take others getting involved to overthrow the existing biased editors...which is true. But in order to prove your newest conspiracy theory, the canvassing first needs to exist and then you need to prove that user selected the recipients with the intention of vote-stacking or influencing the outcome in a particular way. A simple notification to editors on both sides of the discussion would be considered appropriate...and it could very well end up supporting your viewpoint too. So someone disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make vote-stacking their intention. Simply put, you felt the need to taddle about another conspiracy theory. Those echoes must be getting louder.Rotaryenginepete (talk)01:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nice try, but you're conflating a statement of truth with a statement of intention, which has already been stated as NPOV. The reason these editors are displaying bias is because the additional reliable sources that I provided clearly offered opinions from folks other than just Feldman, while also questioning the official status of impeachment...which is precisely what these same editors have repeatedly asked for yet refused to acknowledge. So if I provided what they asked for, but they still refuse to acknowledge it, either they are biased or simply too lazy to read past the headlines...which is why early on I said scholars>headlines.Rotaryenginepete (talk)02:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Me and Curly Turkey once almost died fighting off a herd of headlines about a certain great ape's "racist tweet" getting her show canceled/cancelled. It was crazy and turned out a few different ways before I got distracted and moved on, but I knew I was right about how opinions aren't facts all along, and so do you. Regardless of outcome, the particulars will change and stop mattering in time. May as well get into the next "national debate"before it's news, at least if you want to swing it toward a scholarly debate. There's just no winning an emotional battle, especially when it's already tied to great apes grapping famous blonde apes by the shithole before wiping their safe spaces with the American flag in the locker room before kneeling to those pussy rapist invaders instead of removing our protective sport hats and standing and saluting a song about rockets. Remember when North Korea was "totally going to kill him" for that "Rocket Man" headlinethey all shared? Never happened, in my opinion. But Americadid totally get him already with thatformal impeachment, and that's simply that, even if half of us fundamentally don't get how a bunch of donkeys screwing an elephant is funny despite not quite working in reality.InedibleHulk(talk)14:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: this issue has nothing to do with headlines. All cited sources say, in the text, that POTUS has been impeached. Regardless, I'm not sure that your comments are helping.WMSR (talk)23:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not nice to lie about the content of all cited sources. Much like an election isn't completed until the inauguration, this impeachment was voted into existence but it hasn't been formally completed.Rotaryenginepete (talk)01:24, 31 December 2019 (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 created hoax article and did not explain or defend it
About a week ago inominated Battle of Turkmen Sahra for deletion, since i suspected it to be a hoax. I asked the creator of the article,User:Amirhosein Izadi, to either provide sources to prove it was real or otherwise explain how or why the fake article was created. Since he failed to do either, the article was deleted as a hoax. This editor also added information that was unsupported by the given sources inhis translation of theFarsi Wikipedia article on the Battle of Rasht. Icleaned it up to better reflect the original Farsi article. This editor doesn't seem to have stopped, his most recent article,Rasa Salim Tehrani, has a source with 0 google hits when in quotes (Persian poets in the court of the Mughal Empire). Since this editor has repeatedly added hoaxes to Wikipedia and doesn't defend or explain them, i believe it may be necessary to block him to prevent him from creating further hoaxes.Koopinator (talk)12:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
According to the articleRasa Salim Tehrani, Rasa was the son ofMohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani. That article was created, as a translation from Persian WP, by User:Amirhosein Izadi on 24 December 2019. It contains more information than the original article, supported by completely unverifiable citations: authors in Latin script and titles in English of works which, if they exist, were surely published in Persian. One of those pieces of information is the name of his son, Rasa, who is unnamed in the Persian article. According to the English article, "In 1633, in honor of Shah Jahan and the birth of his son, Rasa, Tehrani Mathnawi wroteal-qada' wa'l-qadar, which is Tehrani greatest and most important work". It is perhaps surprising that the Persian article does not mention any such work; nor is it in Persian Wikisource (link in the Persian article), which only contains one short lyric. The dedication "in honor of Shah Jahan and the birth of his [own] son" strikes me as, at the very least, unusual.
There may be no connection, but the Persian article on Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani was created by a user named Rafic.Mufid (in Latin script); who has since been blocked as aWP:SOCK, see[274]; who is also known in English WP, seeCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah.
There look to me to be also a large group of copyvios of AllMusic in the early articles created by the editor as seen atthis link. At least one has been revdel'd already.Dekimasuよ!16:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I’ve prodded the hoax article for deletion. I wasn’t sure if this qualified under speedy deletion so I went with PROD instead just to be safe. If it turns out that this is just a massive hoax operation then we might have to speedy all of the fake articles.Michepman (talk)18:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The request was actually made with respect to the broader damage, as TP had already been protected, but thank you for checking the rangesNosebagbear (talk)10:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
User Snowflake91 keeps deleting Son Chaeyoung from the Twice page
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.
Son Chaeyoung is a member ofTwice, a k-pop girl group from South Korea. She is the main rapper who is also a lyrcist of multiple Twice songs and also a composer of their song 'How you doin'. People have tried several times to enter her information here but an administrator, Snowflake91, keeps deleting it.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2600:8801:2E80:4E5:C65:F7E9:47BC:54E0 (talk)05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Chaeyoung is notlinked in the current version of the article. That's because -as you can see from its history - it keeps going from an article to aredirect to an article to a redirect, something which has been going on since June 2019. I'll be adding the {{subst:ANI-notice}} to the talk pages of the users this is relevant to asap - that may take some time. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk)11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what I can add to this discussion and not sure why we are at ANI. Please note that Snowflake91 is not an administrator. There have been a lot of problems with members of Twice pages being in a article-redirect war before, and before a lot of work this year most of them didn't have pages because they were not notable or sources where not reliable. At that time not only Snowflake91, but also myself and other users active around kpop articles in my opinion acted according to policy in changes those pages back to redirects. Unfortunately we get a lot of single issue editors with their only goal being their favorite idol getting a page on Wikipedia, regardless of any established policy or rules. Most of the time pages with only trivia and sources that failWP:KO/RS are used. In my opinion it is no problem for users only to focus on a single page, but here we have someone with no other edits reporting a user at ANI because they don't like it? Chaeyoung is the last member that does not have a page yet because her previous page clearly is not up to standard. I think for the moment the redirect is as it should be and appreciate the work atDraft:Chaeyoung. My reasons for declining the draft are on the talk pages, but since that time the draft has improved.Redalert2fan (talk)14:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
And am I understanding correctly if in this case the problem is Snowflake is reverting an addition of an internal link to Chaeyoung on the Twice page? Since Chaeyoung is a redirect to Twice that would only create a loop back to Twice so I see no problems with the removal of those additions.Redalert2fan (talk)14:27, 28 December 2019 (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 going make this simple. This editor caused a disruptive chaotic dispute which led the admin pushed to insert an undiscussed event name change.1 Does not seem harmless.2. This person seem to be called out multiple times of same non constrictive or similar disruptive edits. More likely looping as i see it.3Regice2020 (talk)03:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Regice2020 With all due respect mate, I have much better and far more important things to do with my life than to monitor every page on Wikipedia all the time. If you want me to follow certain editing guidelines, make sure that they're actually consistent first by seeing that the same applies to all Wikipedia pages belonging to a certain category. Rather than taking the liberty of reverting all my edits, send me a copy of these guidelines instead - bottom line it for me. Is there something wrong with me or something? Probably. But if it weren't for vandals and savvier editors who were couldn't actually be bothered to do the research or put the onus of responsibility of themselves to either fix or expand certain pages, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. That's what annoys me because the page did not have to be protected to that extent so, yes, clearly I do have a problem with those editors. It literally takes five seconds to revert. Besides, if the name of the page doesn't appear on the poster of the event or topic it pertains to, it needs to and should be moved accordingly. I'll never understand why I needed to seek permission for moving these kinds of pages - if I thought the page didn't require a more appropriate title, I wouldn't have tried changing it so many times. Hopefully, users like you will better understand the reasons behind moving the titles of certain pages, particularly in regard to UFC events. It's just like I previously mentioned - whatever the name of the main event fight is, it will always appear on the poster and that is what should appear in the title of the page. If these two things don't align, the page needs to be moved. Hopefully, other editors like yourself will also understand this better as well, courtesy of those like yours truly (29cwcst) and Anthony Appleyard. Cheers buddy, please refrain from disturbing me in the future. 29cwcst | 21:05 AEDT, 17 November 2019
29cwcst also made a harmful posting on my talk page which support his technical move request for a page he created. The best option for this part. The page movehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_Zabit_vs._Kattar to be invalided alongside the Requested move 13 November 2019 as there no discussion made in the first place or given enough time to react.1
Above, I replaced a copied talk thread fromUser talk:Regice2020 with a link to the original discussion. The earlier dispute was about how to properly change the name of an MMA event. Separately, the poster, Regice2020, is pointing out thatUser:29cwcst has received numerous warnings on their talk page. This is true, but it's unclear why any one of these issues is now ripe for action here. I suggest that this complaint againstUser:29cwcst be closed.EdJohnston (talk)01:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
User 29cwcst said "But if it weren't for vandals and savvier editors who were couldn't actually be bothered to do the research or put the onus of responsibility of themselves to either fix or expand certain pages, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems.". That was pretty much the actual intent to do the technical move request. Basically being harmful and blaming people who is following the rules when editing.
I disagree on ANI case closure. The ANI report against this user was to ask on ANI to review the user constant disruptive behavior overall and to find a possible permanent solution against the user.@Moriori: says ""On this talk page there are 11 different occasions where other editors have asked you to stop being disruptive/unconstructive, and a warning notice that you could be blocked from editing"". It pretty clear being disruptive in "different occasions" is the word i am looking for against the user.Regice2020 (talk)02:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed an odd instance of overlinking byArmaansinghips (talk·contribs) on my watchlist:[278]. It led me to theDepartment of Criminal Intelligence of India article, where he andOsama shaikh y2aj fitness (talk·contribs) have made a big mess of incomprehensible, unsourced edits over the past year or so. Since I couldn't find any evidence to back up their edits, I ended up restoring the article to an older version; see the talk page.
But then it gets a little weird. Because Armaam Singh Khatri (IPS) (Indian Police Service) is supposedly a former undercover intelligence agent, and now special joint deputy director of the Department of Criminal Intelligence. But the Department hasn't existed by that name since 1920. And apart from the Facebook ([279]) and LinkedIn ([280] or[281]?) profiles showing him in uniform, I couldn't find any mention of him - until I found these news stories about the arrest of Aman Kumar Khatri, who "had turned to a life of deceit after he was unsuccessful in achieving his lifelong dream of becoming an IPS officer", and has a long history of impersonating high-ranking police using the name Arman Singh Khatri:[282],[283]... well, you don't see that every day.
To further add,Armaansinghips (talk·contribs)'s user page states that "Armaan Singh Is a 2007 IPS Officer .Is a Current Posting As a Assistant Director Department of Criminal intelligence (Intelligence Wing)." I couldn't find a specific policy on this, but claiming on one's userpage to be a law enforcement/intelligence officer, when one is not, doesn't seem appropriate to me.BubbaJoe123456 (talk)15:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a perfectly simple policy on this: vandalism. I have therefore deleted the user page. I have also blocked Armaansinghips indefinitely. I shall look at other editing by the same account and other accounts and IP addresses that may be related, to see if any more action is justified.JBW (talk)Formerly JamesBWatson21:11, 30 December 2019 (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.
Blocked x 2 weeks for continued disruptive behavior despite a wall of warnings and an earlier block. If this resumes they will probably have to be indeffed. Based on their track record I am not sanguine as to how this is likely to end. -Ad Orientem (talk)15:26, 30 December 2019 (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 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.
Dommiraubi continues to edit without communicating via edit summary or talk page despite warning fromOlEnglish (talk·contribs) as seenhere. examples include:
I see that Dommiraubi has continued to edit, and continued to fail to communicate, but their edits since their most recent warning appear to be constructive.This edit uses a weak-looking source to report the subject's recent death, but I was able to find further confirmation of this by searching online, so I'm not sure there's anything actionable here.signed,Rosguilltalk21:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Congrats on your adminshipRosguill! I just want to add that yes, Dommiraubi frequently makes constructive edits, especially in regards to recent deaths. One thing I did notice is that most of Dommiraubi's disruptive edits relate toClassical Indian music andplayback singers such as[289] and[290]. Maybe a topic ban would isolate the disruptive edits from the constructive edits? Idk, just a suggestion. Bait30 Talk?03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? I'm still relatively new here so I'm not sure exactly what the proper actions would be. However, Dommiraubi has shown that they can still make the same type of disruptive and unexplained edits despite admin warning, so it feels strange to simply ignore it just because he/she also happens to make constructive edits. Bait30 Talk?05:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Bait30, sanctions on Wikipedia are generally preventative, not punitive, and last I checked Dommiraubi hasn't made an unconstructive edit since this thread was opened. At this point, I think it's ok to take no action, but if they make another unconstructive edit while this is open, or if they're brought to ANIagain for similar issues after this discussion is closed, then I think a block is unfortunately in order onWP:CIR grounds.signed,Rosguilltalk06:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the messages above were posted Dommiraubi has continued to make edits with various problems, and has still made no attempt at all to respond to any messages. She or he has received numerous messages warning that continuing in the same way is likely to lead to being blocked, and has once actually been given a short block, but nothing makes any difference. It has come to the stage where a block is the only thing which has any chance at all of getting a response, so I have blocked the account indefinitely. Naturally, I hope that "indefinitely" will not mean "for ever", and I have tried in my block message to encourage the editor to reply, so that an unblock can follow.JBW (talk)Formerly JamesBWatson21:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Kenneth Saclote
Kenneth Saclote(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has returned from their first block and continued the same exact vandalism and disruptive editing practices that got them blocked the first time. I made a section for this user here a week ago when we were receiving much trouble because of them, but my report fell through the cracks I guess and was never addressed. Now, Kenneth Saclote has continued making more disruptive edits. Many of these acts have occurred on theMiss Universe 2020(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) andMiss World 2019(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) articles. Kenneth Saclote has added numerous unsourced content or has added fake sources that do not actually support the information they're adding to appear as if the information is actually sourced:Ex.,Ex.,Ex.,Ex., amongst many other instances. Kenneth Saclote additionally is removing sources, claiming that there is no need for them on Wikipedia (Ex. andEx.). Kenneth Saclote has been given many warnings, including a final warning, but has continued their editing passed each warning and seems to have no interest in following policies or talking to more experienced editors about the problems with their edits. He is makingWikiProject Beauty Pageants articles extremely damaged, and we'd like something to be done.{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] }17:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This user who started editing without signing and subsequently started using this (possibly others too) user profile user:NormanGear is a serial vandal and manipulator whose SOLE contributions on Wikipedia this far have been obsessive attempts to somehow make the Portuguese people more Jew/Berber than what they really are.Conversely, this very same user as I suspected, is trying to delete and like other Spanish/Hispanic users, minimise or delete altogether any of of the Spaniards’ Arab/Jewish ancestry. The edits speak by themselves on both the pages below. This user has now even resorted to play the victim card, when their only actions have been to disrupt, manipulate, vandalise and offend. I trust this user/issue will be resolved and as per my repeated requests, the Portuguese people page is made permanently semi-protected from this kind of repeated nefariousness:
Same user with several (possibly more) aliases
IP 46.222.138.139,IP 84.78.247.214
and now signing as user:NormanGear.
This sockpuppet was created only last week with the sole purpose of malicious editing against this page:
and conversely, try and rid the equivalent Spanish people/Spaniards of exactly the same contents which are totally relevant to Spain, more than to Portugal
curprev 16:22, 27 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,256 bytes +1 Disambiguation undocurprev 16:21, 27 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,255 bytes -655 Removed sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’s malicious edit once again. Their sole contribution is Mooris/Jewish genetics attempt to Portuguese people only. Going to add ALL sources to Spanish people as Iberia is mainly Spain and the Spanish page desperately tries to hide the Moors and Jews. undocurprev 09:31, 27 December 2019 Rodw talk contribs m 88,910 bytes +8 Disambiguating links to Berber (link changed to Berbers) using DisamAssist. undothankcurprev 18:11, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,902 bytes -1 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:10, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,903 bytes +35 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:08, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,868 bytes +1 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:07, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,867 bytes +25 Deleted phrase not supported by the source. Added literal phrase from the source itself. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 07:44, 23 December 2019 PohranicniStraze talk contribs m 88,842 bytes 0 sp undothankcurprev 13:40, 22 December 2019 DumbBOT talk contribs 88,842 bytes -15 removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info) undocurprev 16:27, 21 December 2019 EncMstr talk contribs 88,857 bytes +15 + undothankcurprev 16:24, 21 December 2019 EncMstr talk contribs m 88,842 bytes 0 Protected "Portuguese people": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC))) undothankcurprev 16:10, 21 December 2019 KylieTastic talk contribs 88,842 bytes -244 Reverted 5 edits by Melroross: Not valid - the correct place would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but its not valdalism it looks more like a difference of opinion (TW) undothank Tag: Undocurprev 15:59, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 89,086 bytes -8 Protection undocurprev 15:58, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 89,094 bytes +8 Protection undocurprev 15:58, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 89,086 bytes -8 undocurprev 15:57, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 89,094 bytes -30 undocurprev 15:56, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 89,124 bytes +282 Semi-protecting undocurprev 15:56, 21 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,842 bytes +1 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 15:55, 21 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,841 bytes -75 I reverse the issue until I discuss the problem. I have started a thread in Talk. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 15:35, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,916 bytes +74 Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undocurprev 15:34, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,842 bytes -74 Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undocurprev 15:29, 21 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,916 bytes +74 The fact there are other articles where this information is specified does not give the right to delete it in this article. And the previous sentence is not supported by the source attached. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 15:20, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,842 bytes -74 Undid revision 931834084 by NormanGear (talk) this is already in the Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula. What is the obsession with Jews and Moors? undo Tag: Undocurprev 15:17, 21 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,916 bytes +74 Extracted faithful fragments from the source: "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources." "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual editcurprev 14:21, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,842 bytes 0 Undid revision 931827447 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) same Vandalism edits undo Tag: Undocurprev 14:20, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,842 bytes -968 Undid revision 931827335 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) Undid repeated MALICIOUS edits form unidentified Hispanic IP address based in Alarcon undo Tag: Undocurprev 14:08, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,810 bytes 0 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 14:07, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,810 bytes +968 Recovered, the sources are scientific studies, not opinions. The source itself used in this article and the two new ones added by me state that Jewish and North African genetics are quite significant. And that is concentrated in the western half of the Peninsula. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 13:39, 21 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,842 bytes -968 Undid biased, unsigned edit. Al Andalus genetic mark already has a sub section on this page undocurprev 09:32, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,810 bytes -1 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 09:27, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,811 bytes +1 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 09:26, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,810 bytes -16 Third source: "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 09:11, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,826 bytes -24 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 09:07, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,850 bytes -2 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 09:06, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 89,852 bytes +1,010 The source used states that there is 19.8% of Jewish admixture and 10% North Africa. That is not limited or little. I have added more sources. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 08:48, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 88,842 bytes 0 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 08:14, 21 December 2019 84.78.247.214 talk 88,842 bytes -8 Not lead. Voyages of Christopher Columbus was the major event in the Age of Discovery undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 21:04, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,850 bytes +163 More cited sources undocurprev 20:57, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,687 bytes +190 Sourced quote, previously deleted by unsigned Spanish IP address undocurprev 20:51, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,497 bytes +246 Undid revision 931670991 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undocurprev 17:05, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,251 bytes +121 Religious affiliation data source undocurprev 16:55, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,130 bytes 0 Comma undocurprev 16:54, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,130 bytes +159 Hasdingi sourced content undocurprev 16:45, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 87,971 bytes +98 More on Suebians undocurprev 16:40, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 87,873 bytes +87 Sourced content undocurprev 16:32, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 87,786 bytes +193 Pre Celt sourced undocurprev 16:23, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 87,593 bytes +85 Goths sourced quote undocurprev 16:23, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 87,508 bytes +70 Goths sourced quote undocurprev 16:01, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 87,438 bytes +236 Sourced content added undocurprev 15:28, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,908 bytes +76 Sourced content undocurprev 15:18, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,832 bytes +53 Sourced content added undocurprev 15:13, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,779 bytes +316 Added sourced quotes undocurprev 15:10, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,463 bytes +62 Sourced content undocurprev 15:08, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,401 bytes -62 Sourced quote undocurprev 15:08, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,463 bytes +62 Sourced undocurprev 15:04, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,401 bytes -62 Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undocurprev 15:04, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,463 bytes +62 Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undocurprev 14:50, 20 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 86,401 bytes +558 Undid revision 931670638 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undocurprev 12:01, 20 December 2019 46.222.138.139 talk 85,843 bytes -246 There were other powers that lead the Age of Discovery. Removed parts without contrast undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 11:57, 20 December 2019 46.222.138.139 talk 86,089 bytes -558 Unsourced undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 12:22, 17 December 2019 Trappist the monk talk contribs m 86,647 bytes +135 →Pre-Roman groups: cite repair; undothankcurprev 12:16, 17 December 2019 Trappist the monk talk contribs m 86,512 bytes +5 →Portuguese ancestry in the Brazilian population: cite repair; undothankcurprev 04:16, 17 December 2019 Boghog talk contribs 86,507 bytes -1,226 consistent citation formatting undothankcurprev 04:14, 17 December 2019 Boghog talk contribs 87,733 bytes +649 Alter: title, pmc, url, template type. Add: isbn, bibcode, title. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Converted bare reference to cite template. Removed parameters. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | via #UCB_Gadget undothank
Now see what they did in the Spanish people/Spaniards page, he deleted all my edits which are absolutely valid, historical, academic and duly cited from reputed sources. Basically, since I noticed this malicious vandalism, they’ve subsequently opted for the ‘softy soft’ approach and try to make me out as the one who is bias. Here are their latest edits where they deleted my contributions on the Spanish page... basically trying to ‘dump’ racially motivated content in the Portuguese people page and get rid of anything remotely similar in the Spanish equivalent... why you would do that is beyond my comprehension.And this is what they did in their page:
I think the next step is to blockUser:Melroross for personal attacks. Whatever the merits of the change may be, calling NormanGear a 'serial vandal and manipulator' and referring to his 'malicious edits' is not acceptable. Also the complaint by Melroross that NormanGear is socking appears to be questionable. I have modified the title of this thread to remove some attacks.EdJohnston (talk)17:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
note that I did advise Melrosehere that it wasn't vandalism and "MALICIOUS edits" and to address the content not the editor. Also that moving from an IP to an account was not Sock puppetry and NormanGear had told mehere that they would only edit from the account. CheersKylieTastic (talk)19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In my opinion, from looking atTalk:Portuguese people#Edit war, there seems to be a couple of things happening.. unhelpful rhetoric and verbose comments fromUser:Melroross and what appears to be a misunderstanding byUser:NormanGear, who could ensure that when adding content it is 1) Relevant and applicable to the article and 2) restates content from the source. It seems like NormanGear is clear about restating the source. What seems to be falling short is ensuring that the content is applicable and relevant to thePortuguese people, which is about people of the country of Portugal.
Perhaps calmness, brevity to the key issue(s) (like in "Just the facts, Ma'am"), and seeking to understand (vs. focusing only on being understood) would help.––CaroleHenson (talk)19:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If you scroll up a bit on that talk page, you see[291]
All Brazilian, all sharing a common hatred against the Portuguese. Illegal migrants who got kicked out or refused entry in Portugal? Definitely a serious grudge there. Wikipedia is not the place for such behaviour.
which is IMO more than just unhelpful rhetoric. Of course, there's no reason why they should be posting IP details there anyway.
As I wrote here before, the regular Vandals on this page are almost invariably Brazilians or Hispanics (Spanish & Hispanic-Americans) who hold historical grudges and resentment against the Portuguese. You are just another one.
is very very far from an acceptable comment.
Of course even the opening comment says
like other Spanish/Hispanic users
and the heading mentions Spanish. At a minimum, I'll say the editor seems to have majorWP:AGF problems when it comes to Spanish and Brazilian editors.
WhileUser:JeremyVaz was clearly a problem editor, hence why they are now indeffed, there's no need to comment on another editor's mental health.
Frankly the editor is lucky to escape with only a 72 hours IMO. BTW, there is a thread#User Melroross in case anyone missed it. IMO they should consider themselves on very thin ice from now on.
Wow! Those postings are a bit scarey and I am surprised that they haven't been removed. I have never seen someone out user's names and email addresses, even when investigating known sockpuppets the user's names and email addresses aren't outed. Shouldn't they be removed?–CaroleHenson (talk)23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
CaroleHenson I requested that Oversight suppress the edit with the IP and email information. In the future, if you encounter something like this (edits that shouldn't just be reverted, but actually deleted), information on how to get the revision content deleted (so it becomes only visible to administrators) or suppressed (where even admins can't see the revision content) is here:Wikipedia:REVDELREQUEST.BubbaJoe123456 (talk)17:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Complaint about new user:NormanGear for continued deletion and disregard of Wikipedia’s pillars of conduct
This user user:NormanGear started as unsigned a couple of weeks ago, deleting whole historical sentences on thePortuguese people page.
I identified the user IP as based in Madrid, Spain. I had previously asked for Admin's to make this page semi-protected due to similar incidents:The malicious edits are invariably from Brazilians and Spaniards- both nations with different historical hang ups against Portugal. One administrator made the page semi-protected for a few days as the username:NormanGear kept on reverting my entries and accusing me of harassment because they were adding material which was sourced:The only point they were trying to make was that Portuguese people had Jewish and Berber ancestry which should be made very clear. The Portuguese people page already is linked to “The Genetic History of the Iberian Peninsula” where the “Moorish” topic is amply covered and sourced.This same user complained about me (I have been editing for years and happy to continue contributing with sourced materials on the topics I most enjoy: Languages and linguistics, history, art, ancient cultures, nature) and had me blocked for 3 days. They have not contributed with anything other than adding on the racially-motivated contents they’ve been doing for the past few weeks. No idea why and frankly I couldn’t care to know where their obsession stems from.
Now, because their only input has been about and I quote ‘the western half of the Iberian Peninsula’, I added their very same piece of text on the ‘Spaniards’ page as Iberian is made up mainly by Spain and therefore, this content is just as relevant to Spain as it is to Portugal. I also had the opportunity to investigate more the “Moors in Spain” topic and found several, very reputable genetic studies on the Jewish and North-African genetic contribution on theSpaniards.
This user REVERTED all my content, claiming it was ‘repetitive’, which it isn’t. SeeSpaniards history.
I haven’t touched the Portuguese People page in days, but this user clearly is on a “one way” mission and continues to cause disputes with other editors, seePortuguese people history.
For all the reasons above, I ask for this user to be either warned or blocked permanently as they clearly only have one aim in mind:
Make the Portuguese genetically more “Moorish/Jewish” than their Spanish neighbours. Bizarre.
And because this has been going on for a couple of months with Brazilian users who intermittently come to add malicious content, ask for this page to be made semi-protected on a permanent basis.
I identified the user IP’s location. I had previously asked for Admin's to make this page semi-protected due to similar incidents:One administrator made the page semi-protected for a few days as the username:NormanGear kept on reverting my entries and accusing me of harassment because they were adding material which was sourced:The only point they were trying to make was that Portuguese people had Jewish and Berber ancestry which should be made very clear. The Portuguese people page is linked to “The Genetic History of the Iberian Peninsula” where the “Moorish” topic is amply covered and sourced.This same user complained about me (I have been editing for years and happy to continue contributing with sourced materials on the topics I most enjoy: Languages and linguistics, history, art, ancient cultures, nature) and had me blocked for 3 days. I admit that this user did cause great frustration. They have not contributed with anything other than adding on the racial contents they’ve been doing for the past few weeks. No idea why and frankly I couldn’t care to know where their obsession stems from.
Now, because their only input has been about and I quote ‘the western half of the Iberian Peninsula’, I added their very same piece of text on the ‘Spaniards’ page as Iberian is made up mainly by Spain and therefore, this content is just as relevant to Spain as it is to Portugal. I also had the opportunity to investigate more about the genetic legacy of the “Moors in Spain” and found several, very serious and reputable genetic studies on the Jewish and North-African genetic heritage relevant to the Spaniards:
This user REVERTED all my content, claiming it was ‘repetitive’, which it isn’t.See below:
HelpSpaniards: Revision historyView logs for this page (view filter log)Jump to navigationJump to searchFilter revisionsshowExternal tools: Find addition/removal (Alternate) Find edits by user Page statistics Pageviews Fix dead linksFor any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
curprev 03:17, 31 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 67,060 bytes 0 Sentence undocurprev 03:15, 31 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 67,060 bytes +826 Added sourced content, reversed without a valid reason by user ‘NormanGear’ undocurprev 02:57, 31 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 66,234 bytes -1 Fixed undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 02:53, 31 December 2019 Dwo talk contribs m 66,235 bytes -3 MOS:ANDOR, MOS:SLASH undothankcurprev 02:45, 31 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 66,238 bytes +6 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 02:44, 31 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 66,232 bytes -955 Repetitive. There is already a mention of the jewish and berber acestry in some Spaniards. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 02:39, 31 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 67,187 bytes -68 Moved the repetition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 02:15, 31 December 2019 Dwo talk contribs m 67,255 bytes -2 MOS:ANDOR undothankcurprev 01:17, 31 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 67,257 bytes +883 Added sourced content undo
I haven’t edited the Portuguese People page in days and have no intention to.But this user continues to cause disputes with other editors as you can see below:
Portuguese people: Revision historyView logs for this page (view filter log)Jump to navigationJump to searchFilter revisionsshowExternal tools: Find addition/removal (Alternate) Find edits by user Page statistics Pageviews Fix dead linksFor any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
curprev 02:51, 31 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 87,588 bytes +4 "Some parts of Southern Iberia" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 19:42, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,584 bytes -14 undothankcurprev 19:38, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,598 bytes +28 clean-up undothankcurprev 19:23, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,570 bytes +62 clean-up of citation for Bycroft et al. undothankcurprev 18:38, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,508 bytes +299 included the most thorough 2019 study on fine-scale structure of Iberian peninsula; shows about 10% North African ancestry in western and part of southern Iberia, but little or no Jewish or eastern Mediterranean ancestry undothankcurprev 17:29, 30 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 87,209 bytes -63 Rv. "Southern and western regions" is not the same as "Western half". Wester half is all west, including part of southern Iberia and part of northern Iberia. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 04:20, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,272 bytes +9 undothankcurprev 04:13, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,263 bytes -114 →Historical origins and genetics: Aquitanians were in SW Gaul and northern Iberia, ancestors of Basques; they were never in Lusitania undothankcurprev 04:03, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 87,377 bytes -1,558 →General traits: removed OR undothankcurprev 03:54, 30 December 2019 Human Taxonomist talk contribs 88,935 bytes -96 more accurate wording undothankcurprev 22:13, 28 December 2019 Monkbot talk contribs m 89,031 bytes +16 →List of countries by population of Portuguese heritage: Task 15: language icon template(s) replaced (2×); undo Tag: AWBcurprev 19:32, 27 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 89,015 bytes +587 Recovered the source that was deleted by Melroross without explanation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 19:14, 27 December 2019 BubbaJoe123456 talk contribs 88,428 bytes +134 rewrote one sentence for better clarity (no comment on the accuracy of the substance), made some copy edits in the lede undothank Tag: Visual editcurprev 18:52, 27 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,294 bytes +13 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:50, 27 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,281 bytes +25 Reverted. The source affirms the edition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 16:22, 27 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,256 bytes +1 Disambiguation undocurprev 16:21, 27 December 2019 Melroross talk contribs 88,255 bytes -655 Removed sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’s malicious edit once again. Their sole contribution is Mooris/Jewish genetics attempt to Portuguese people only. Going to add ALL sources to Spanish people as Iberia is mainly Spain and the Spanish page desperately tries to hide the Moors and Jews. undocurprev 09:31, 27 December 2019 Rodw talk contribs m 88,910 bytes +8 Disambiguating links to Berber (link changed to Berbers) using DisamAssist. undothankcurprev 18:11, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,902 bytes -1 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:10, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,903 bytes +35 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:08, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,868 bytes +1 undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editcurprev 18:07, 26 December 2019 NormanGear talk contribs 88,867 bytes +25 Deleted phrase not supported by the source. Added literal phrase from the source itself. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
For all the reasons above, I ask for this user to be once again warned or blocked permanently if they continue with this belligerent conduct.
And because this has been going on for a couple of months with random users who intermittently come to add malicious content, ask for this page to be made semi-protected on a permanent basis.
I've blocked both editors for edit-warring atSpaniards, Norman for 48 hours because it's his first block, and Melroross for one week because it's their second block.--Bbb23 (talk)19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
User:NormanGear
Already being discussedhere, repeating yourself will not make any difference.
This user user:NormanGear started as unsigned a couple of weeks ago, deleting whole historical sentences on thePortuguese people page.
I identified the user IP address location and told them, they moved the IP address; after I identified the second IP and told them to stop their disruptive conduct, they once again pretending to be a different editor, continued with their one-themed posts and reverts. I had previously asked for Admin's to make this page semi-protected due to similar incidents:One administrator made the page semi-protected for a few days as the User:NormanGear kept on reverting my entries and accusing me of harassment because they were adding material which was sourced and according to them, relevant:The only point they were trying to make was that Portuguese people had ‘significant’ Jewish and Berber ancestry. The Portuguese people page already is linked to “The Genetic History of the Iberian Peninsula” where the “Moorish” topic is amply covered and sourced.This same user complained about me (I have been editing for years and happy to continue contributing with sourced materials on the topics I most enjoy: Languages and linguistics, history, art, ancient cultures, nature) and had me blocked for 3 days. They have not contributed with anything other than adding on the racial contents they’ve been doing for the past few weeks. No idea why this persistence and frankly I couldn’t care to know.
Their only input has been about and I quote ‘the western half of the Iberian Peninsula’, I added their very piece of text on the ‘Spaniards’ page as Iberia is made up mainly by Spain and therefore, this content is just as relevant to Spain as it is to Portugal. I have also had the opportunity to investigate more on the genetic legacy of the “Moors in Spain” found several, very reputable genetic studies on the Jewish and North-African genetic contribution on theSpaniards and added as relevant, sourced content on the Spanish page.
This user REVERTED all my content, claiming it was ‘repetitive’, which it isn’t. SeeSpaniards history.
I haven’t edited the Portuguese People page in days and would rather not get involved in another highly unpleasant and counterproductive episode, but this user clearly is on a mission and continues to cause disputes with other editors, as you can seePortuguese people history.
For all the reasons above, I ask for this user to be warned or blocked permanently if they continue with their disruptive, one-sided edits and reverts.
More importantly, because this has been going on for a couple of months with random users who intermittently come to add malicious content, I ask once again, for this page to be made semi-protected on a permanent basis.
User Melroross was recently blocked for using an accusative rhetoric[294] ("December 2019"), and he is again doing it after returning from his expulsion in 3 more complains in this page. ([295],[296],[297]).
He is now focused on saturating the Lead of theSpaniards article by unnecessarily and unproportionately expanding the Berber and Jewish genetic influence of the Spaniards even though it was previously mentioned in a summary way that there are obviously Spaniards with Berber and Jewish ancestors ([298]). Despite notifying him that he should start a discussion thread in Talk and that he is currently breaking theWP: LEAD style and that he will exceed the 3RR rule ([299]), he continues to reverse the editions.([300],[301])
The user:NormanGear keeps trying to find justifications for their edits on the Portuguese people page and conversely, as previously alerted, trying to minimise the same content on the Spaniards equivalent page. They cited their sourced quotes as “significant” for Portuguese but when I added their own text they reverted it immediately. They are now trying to invalidate my editions, this time by invoking Lead saturation and repetition. Please do intervene as this user has only a one sided conduct. They have not engaged on Talk. Instead reverted all my edits once more.Thank you and apologies for having to refer this once again.Melroross (talk)19:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log)Today, a "newcomer" to WP by the name of Lightningstrikers, for his/her very first edits, swiftly reversed text six times in a matter of minutes in theoccupational stress entry. Lightningstrikers did not justify the reversals. The edits, to say the least, were disruptive. Even the name Lightningstrikers suggests someone who is out swiftly make disruptive edits. I am concerned that he/she is acting like someone who previously hassled me and was ultimately banned from WP after operating under the a number of names Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, and 121.91.164.65.Iss246 (talk)04:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
user:Lightningstrikers is using the same tactics as Mrm7171. That is a phony justification on two grounds. First, every editorial change he/she made this morning was unsourced. Second, the deletion of a sentence in the first paragraph he/she made today, was justified on the basis that the sentence was unsourced. However, there was an internal link in that sentence to the entry that justifies the sentence.
I add that the typical way to handle unsourced text is to mark the text as unsourced as a courtesy to the WP editor who wrote the text. And leave the marker there for a few weeks, to prompt the editor to add a source, which is what I did when I came across unsourced text in the occupational stress entry. Only after a few weeks with no response to the marker did I delete the unsourced text.
Finally, user:Lightningstrikers was operating in a manner that parallels the manner in which the banned Mrm7171 operated. Mrm7171 kept working against the occupational health psychology entry day after day. Lightningstrikers operated that way on the occupational stress entry by striking references to occupational health psychology in addition to other disruptive edits.Iss246 (talk)15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers continues to undo my work on the occupational stress entry. He does not justify his edits. I would like the administrators to get him to stop. He previously went by the name Mrm7171.Iss246 (talk)02:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the information in the cited source, either. It seems that the sentence about the CDC either needs to be reworded or needs another source.–CaroleHenson (talk)03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It does not identify abnormal psychology. It does not identify social psychology. It does not identify industrial/organizational psychology.... OHP is the only branch of psychology the CDC identifies in connection to occupational stress. To quote the CDC website, "Many psychologists have argued that the psychology field needs to take a more active role in research and practice to prevent occupational stress, illness, and injury. This is what the new field of Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) is all about."Iss246 (talk)03:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Iss246, How do you know that it only identifies occupational health psychology (i.e., Where on the page does it say that?) Or is there another page that shows what you're saying?
Yes. It is now more than 20 years old. But that would still make it a new field. I will work on it. I think Lightningstrikers will revert it. Why don't you look at what I will write, and make editorial suggestions.Iss246 (talk)03:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers has a history back when he went by Mrm7171 to try to undermine occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 got banned from WP.Iss246 (talk)03:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers has been warned about reverting these edits. I have been chatting with them on their talk page and this seems to be a misunderstanding about the concept of "failed verification" and what goes in the lede/lead. I stated in my response that I don't believe that the ledemust only include summarized article information... I think that if it sets the stage for the discussion in the article, it's cool to have it in the lede.
If they continue to revert without properly explaining their issue with the edits, I think it's likely that they will have escalating warnings and/or a temporary or more block.–CaroleHenson (talk)03:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
User:CaroleHenson, would you mind looking at my edit. If it isn't reverted, it should look like this:
Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job. Occupational stress often stems from pressures that do not align with a person's knowledge, skills, or expectations. Job stress can increase when workers do not feel supported by supervisors or colleagues, feel as if they have little control over work processes, or find that their efforts on the job are incomensurate with the job's rewards.[1] Although many different professionals work in the area of occupational stress, the CDC indicates that the relatively new field of occupational health psychology is "all about" research and practice aimed at the prevention of "occupational stress, illness, and injury."[2]
User:CaroleHenson, that is a good question. The CDC can stand because it is arguably the best known health research organization in the world, even more than the WHO. But what I will do is place an internal link around it to help readers unfamiliar with the term. 06:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Iss246 andLightningstrikers, I am not finding that either of you have bad intentions for the article. I think that each of you, though, have different approaches and the nature of the content that should go in the article. Is it possible for each of you to state your intention for the article - what motivates you to add or remove content based on how you think the article should be written? Perhaps comments on the article talk page will bring in any others that might like to add their thoughts.
I think that might be helpful in understanding each other's position... and coming to consensus on the addition of content to the article. For instance, it seems (If I understand correctly) that Lightningstrikers is concerned about making the article too US centric when it is an article that relates to the issue around the globe.–CaroleHenson (talk)18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
User:CaroleHenson, thank you for your concern. The article onoccupational stress is not U.S.-centric. That is one of the red herrings Lightningstrikers likes to use in attacking my efforts on WP. The article references the EU. The article references the effort-reward imbalance model, which was developed in Germany. The article also references Japan. The demand-resources model was developed by researchers in the Netherlands. The demand-control model, which was developed in the U.S., was expanded into the demand-control-support model by researchers in Sweden.
Yes, the article references theCDC because the CDC is a preeminent research institution. The CDC is concerned with the baleful effects of job stress. The CDC has an international reach when it comes to protecting health. This is a quote from the WP entry on the CDC, "The CDC works with other organizations around the world to address global health challenges and contain disease threats at their source. It works closely with many international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as ministries of health and other groups on the front lines of outbreaks. The agency maintains staff in more than 60 countries, including some from the U.S. but even more from the countries in which it operates."
It is unwise to state the national origin of every researcher and institution that contributed to efforts to understand and reduce job stress because it is important to emphasize that science is international. We don't want to inject nationalism into the scientific enterprise.Iss246 (talk)19:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Iss246 It is not unusual for topics on en.Wikipedia to be considered US-centric. Looking at the article, I can see how someone might come to that conclusion and I think that in general that may happen for a number of reasons. I would prefer that Lightningstrikers speaks for themselves, though.
My point was that maybe if you understand where each other was coming from, it might help lead to an approach you both can live with.–CaroleHenson (talk)20:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
User:CaroleHenson, you would ordinarily be right if I were dealing with a regular WP contributor. But Lightningstrikers is not a regular WP contributor. He pretended to be a newcomer but he is not. If he says something is not sourced, he will delete it right away and not give the writer a few weeks to place a reference to a source next to the deleted text. He uses the same MO as a banned former contributor named Mrm7171; Mrm7171 hassled me for a two years because he dislikes the occupational health psychology entry, an entry I worked on, a little at a time, until it became more somewhat filled out.Iss246 (talk)22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lightningstrikers andIss246:, I have not seen an admin chime in on this issue, so I am guessing that they don't think that this issue rises to the level of someone needing to be blocked, etc. It seems at this point, Iss246, you could open asockpuppet investigation, if you believe that needs to be done.
I came acrossJeremy E York's userpage. To be sure, he's not a new user,but he has it set up to promote his music, which is a violation of what we cannot have in our user pages. To add to that, he has an html comment that greets you when you click the edit button stating:
< !-- NOTE: I don't care if you are just an regular wikipedian or an administrator, DO NOT make any changes to my user page. If you have a concern, you ASK me on my user talk page. You have no authority to make ANY changes whatsoever to my user page. If you do, it WILL be reported as vandalizism (sic).-->
It's not just at the top, it appears at the beginning of each sub-section..
Normally, I'd clear the self-promotion away and leave him a note on his talk page, but considering that note, it's probably better if an admin addreses this. I have already notified him about this as well.Necromonger...We keep what we kill20:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I had an ultra quick look through to check for promotionalism that was directed in a paid sense, which I didn't spot any. As such, Necromonger is correct, but probably can be dealt with by Talk Page discussion (just wanted to confirm that no "right this instant" action needed to be taken).Nosebagbear (talk)00:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem although I would be happy to remove those comments which don't belong on any page here. The issue for me is the energy spent by a user on their user pages versus energy spent on improving the encyclopedia. There may be a problem in that when I checked recent edits atRichard Marx discography I found they rearranged a link, namelyBeautiful Goodbye: the problem is that that link is also on the user page. It might be worth seeing what other edits are performed.Johnuniq (talk)06:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
If you take a look at my edit history, you'll see that that is incorrect. Main page edit counts far exceeds my user page edit counts. Plus I hadn't really done anything to it in almost a year until just recently. And please state the source of your concern about the Beautiful Goodbye link you say I rearranged. That makes no sense.Jeremyeyork (talk)15:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Jeremyeyork, the Richard Marx content on your user page falls, in my reading of policy, on the good side. The extensive promotion of your own music does not.Here is what your userpage could look like with the offending content removed.Barkeep49 (talk)05:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Jeremyeyork I shall remove the promotion of yourself and someone you are connected to from your user page. You do not have the right to create your own rules that over-ride Wikipedia policies. Promotion is not permitted by policy, and that is all.JBW (talk)Formerly JamesBWatson21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
User Throwacoup has uploaded about a dozen promotional photographs of M. K. Asante through the years that are likely to not be fheirs. On commons I know how to nominate a batch of photos for deletion, I'm unsure how to do so on enwiki.1Veertje (talk)07:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I am rather dubious on these images. For one thing, the resolution and the lack of EXIF speak of images taken from somewhere.
One particular image,File:MK Asante 2013 photo.jpg, appearselsewhereon theInternet and is credited to "Lee Steffen" which appears to beLee Steffen - that article says they cooperate withMK Asante. Depending on how exactly this cooperation works, the copyright might belong eiter to Mr. Steffen or Mr. Asante (if it's awork for hire situation).
While we're on the subject, the articleM. K. Asante could be a bit less fawning. Apparently he had atroubled yet profound youth in Philadelphia, whatever that means.EEng21:36, 29 December 2019 (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.
Louis Epstein is all around a net positive to this project except regarding transgender-related topics where they get intodrawn outfightsto pushananti-LGBTagenda. I try to be tolerant of individuals who express minority viewpoints, but Louis Epstein shows no signs of stopping this campaign even if others find it disruptive. –MJL‐Talk‐☖01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be limited to talk page comments, and I don't see any personal attacks in there. While his position is abhorrent, so long as he neither attacks others nor disrupts actual article content, I'm not sure what we can do. People are allowed to, in a non-disruptive ways, express horrible thoughts, even if they are horrible. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that prevents this. --Jayron3201:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I have made a few attempts to persuade them to step back from this topic and edit constructively on other topics. I am disappointed that they have not done so but, on a careful reading of their talk page, I see that this entirely consistent with their past behaviour. They clearly do understand that policy does not endorse their behaviour. They are just unable to accept the policies when they conflict with their own agenda. I think that they are most likely genuinely unaware of just how far they have departed from common decency in their campaign. They are not able to just let it lie and focus on other topics. It is almost tragic that they probably still think that they are one of the good guys even as they do horrible things like deadnaming. When I expand the "stale" warnings section on their talk page, I see that they have been editing disruptively on transgender topics since 2017. They got their first warning for this in on 18 May 2017. Mathglot gently tried to talk them down but this was met with fundamental rejection almost identical to their more recent argumentation elsewhere. After that they got a few warnings (including final warnings) for adding unreferenced material to BLPs which was not related to trans issues but shows a more general lack of respect for policy. By 6 September 2019 they were back to theanti-trans stuff, actually deadnaming an article subject in Talk and moaning when I redacted the alleged details. (This was the first time they came to my attention.) It went downhill from there as shown in the links above. The behavioural pattern is clear and it is consistent over more than two years. There is not even the slightest sign of any learning or growth. Even if they intend to act in good faith (which seems likely but not certain) it is clear that they are so far from neutrality that they can not even see it from their current location. I see this as a mixture ofWP:NPOV,WP:CIR andWP:IDHT issues. I think atopic ban is the way to go. I would favour a topic ban covering all sex, gender and sexuality topics including all biographies of LGBTQIA people whether living or dead. If they can accept and stick to that then I think that this offers them their best chance for remaining active on Wikipedia without disrupting it. If not, well, we tried... --DanielRigal (talk)02:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I assume that this is the name that the IP based user has identified themselves as somewhere although I was not aware of this and I don't know the details. --DanielRigal (talk)02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
To push back against concerted efforts to push a "pro-LGBT" agenda is not pushing an "anti-LGBT agenda".Just insisting that NPOV does not mean complete embrace of "LGBT" talking points.--12.144.5.2 (talk)02:58, 30 December 2019 (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.
For those who enjoy a walk down memory lane, the subject of this thread is one of the old "World's Oldest People" gang who waged a long battle against putting a space after a comma or period in order to "save server space"; see[302] (and numerous other entertaining threads on that subject on that same page). And this isn't his first rodeo on the issue at hand[303].EEng05:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
(completely unrelated new editor) Sorry for posting underneath the hat, but someone will likely have to go through all recent (mainspace) contributions of the IP and correct their spelling, uhm, peculiarities. I guess I'm going to make a start.Mvbaron (talk)18:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Personally I am more impressed that this user seems to have managed to keep the same IP address forsixteen years. EDIT: Oh, according to their statement on their talk page it's because they own the company to which it's assigned. --Aquillion (talk)22:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Apparently he provides dial-up internet access to senior citizens with modem-equipped Pentium towers and CRT monitors running Windows NT.EEng01:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that, Aditi – please accept my condolences. I don't think I ever crossed paths with Aryan, but I see that he was vigilant in protecting the project from vandalism, making valuable contributions which will be missed. Thank you for letting us know; again, I'm very sorry to hear this sad news.Justlettersandnumbers (talk)18:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action. As I was tediously reverting some of the changes, I was wondering if you had a way to bulk-revert an editor's changes across articles.Erictalk17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
TLDR summary of this thread: An editor is changing the lead image on an article abouta chicken from a picture of the chicken (left) to a picture of a man holding the chicken (right), because the editor wants everyone to know that this man is the only man from whom this chicken should be purchased. Sounds legit.–Levivich21:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
SinceAugust 2019, Soramire (an SPA) has been at a slow edit war with multiple users onKadaknath. Basically, they havebeen inserting image of their preference (uplaoded by themselves). They were also trying to add sneaky promotion including the farmer being the only authorised person by govt to breed the chicken breed, theorigin of the chicken being the same as of where the farmer is located, and the nickname of the chickenbased on the location. But these things are also corroborated by reliable source (provided in article). But Soramire pushing this information in the article is plain promotional as they are"trying to promote" (edit summary) the farmer.
Soramire's photo addition was reverted by many editors, ranging from IPs to an admin. Surprisingly though, Soramire were never warned on their talkpage. Even though from their edit summaries they were justifying their edits in near-native English fluency.
When I realised this issue, at I didnt try to communicate them, but I realised the image was a doubtful copyright violation, andnominated it for deletion on commons, and notified them on enwiki as well. In a few hours/a day, Soramire uploaded the same image with meta-data. At that time,I tried to explain them about the problems with their editing, and 3RR without templating. They did the same edits adter that. So then Itemplated them (pretty pictures). And thenexplained them in plain English aboutWP:NOTPROMO, and problem with their photo. Yet again, theyadded back the same photo.
PS: The article doesnt have much editing history except the back n forth of reverts, so it is easy to go throuh. —usernamekiran(talk)17:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The image of farmer uploaded by us is the only certified farmer for this breed. It can be, as it is a paper certificate of authenticity by the govt nodel agency. We put his picture as to establish the correct facts. Unknowingly farmers have got scammed by miscreants tuneing to 700-800cr rupees where they have been sold fake mixed breeds. This farmer got certified and should be promoted for his hard work to preserve this breed. People with wrong motive are editing the page and we are trying to keep it intact. Even the replaced image of bird is a mixed breed bird.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySoramire (talk •contribs)23:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Soramire,edit warring is against Wikipedia's policies. If your changes are reverted, the appropriate procedure is to start a discussion on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. If you do not acknowledge this and refrain from edit warring, you will be blocked from editing.signed,Rosguilltalk23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not correct, I am a SME on this subject as I am in my official capacity to save farmers from getting into scammers hands. You guys are reverting the edits without talking to me and asking me to discuss this with editors who dont even understand the basic difference between a mixed breed and pure breed birds. The editors have removed references about the Nodel agency appointed to preserve this breed. They even removed references of govt of India scientist who have spent their entire carrier in preservation of this breed. Just to give you exacts, this effort has been going on since 1980's. Most of the edits who edited the articles had intrests to supress the correct information so that unknowingly farmers fell in their hands and get scammed. Just google kadaknath scam and you will all media coverage. They all will show despite of a dedicated team appointed by govt of india, still people didn't got any info as kadaknath wiki is the first page on google results and no information about the nodel agency or certified farmer is thr. So they fell for whatever is told to them by these scamsters.
Your status as a subject-matter expert is irrelevant, you need to comply with Wikipedia'sconsensus-based decision making process. If you would like to make accusations of bad faith edits likethey even removed references of govt of India scientist..., please provide links to the edits where these changes were made.signed,Rosguilltalk23:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
You say "you guys are reverting the edits without talking to me," but I see no evidence thatyou have attempted to talk to other editors, such as on the talk page of the article, after your edits were originally reverted. Based on your contribution history, this appears to be the first time you have engaged in conversation about your edits, save for via edit summaries.WP:EW explicitly states "'my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense," and your claim of being an expert does not excuse edit warring. If I were you, I would take Rosguill's advice above into consideration. --Kinut/c23:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and imposed an indefinite block for violating sanctions and adding unsourced content despite warnings, but am open to having this be overturned or shortened to a specific duration.signed,Rosguilltalk23:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor has been active on that article for one day short of two years (unless there are even earlier edits that I haven't noticed). Unfortunately the editor uses throw-away accounts, some of them used for only one edit, meaning there is not much to be done via actions on the accounts, so I have semi-protected the article. I am always somewhat unhappy about having to protect an article for a long period, but on this article in the last two years there has been, as far as I can see, only one edit by an unconfirmed account other than this editor, and two IP edits, one of which was reverting this disruptive editor. Consequently the amount of collateral damage is likely to be extremely small if any, so semiprotection is not too bad an option.JBW (talk)Formerly JamesBWatson21:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes on all the above points, and thank you. After reverting the most recent spam links, I made the mistake of following a few to check the sources, and had my desktop essentially disabled, perhaps by malware. Hence the shutting down and returning as this IP. Happy new, etc.2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk)21:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Reverting my talk page edits and posting personal information about me
There is an angry editor IP that continues to revert my talk page as well as posting personal information such as my comments from Youtube. He alleges that the way I wrote the articleMedia bias against Bernie Sanders is bias and he thinks I should admit that. This, of course has no relevence to the article. I would like my personal comments from Youtube removed from the talk page as well as removed from my talk page. The editor in question isUser:208.75.30.195.Contributions link.Andrew Z. Colvin •Talk23:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Libertarianism
Not necessarily urgent, but would an uninvolved admin mind having a look over the"Neologism tag. Do not remove until resolved." section atTalk:Libertarianism. The discussion appears to have deteriorated to the point of focusing on other editors, their beliefs as regards the article subject, and foruming of the article subject itself; no longer a discussion of potential changes or improvements. I have tried to "hat" the off-topic parts of the discussion[305], but have been reverted[306]. Thanks in advance. -Ryk72talk04:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated all the game playing and whatnot pages. I've seen lots and lots of fake drag race games (as well as fake big brother and others). I don't see anything that strongly connects these two accounts. AS for blocking them for not here, I'll leave that to an admin to weigh in. --Whpq (talk)02:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Editor adding dubiously-sourced material despite repeated requests to stop
This editor showed up last month and reinserted highly dubious content[307] (inone case based on a source thatclearly got the information in question from the Wikipedia article) that had been removed from the articleMottainai almost two years earlier by a consensus on the talk page. He then edit-warred over it[308] while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page (Ctrl+F "personal opinion"here). He threatened to canvas !votes with a biased RFC question, which Itold him not to do so without consulting me buthe did anyway.
The RFC ended a month later with minimal uninvolved participation, but most favouring the replacement of what was there with either a fuller and better-sourced etymology section or something like the bare-bones etymology that was there following the February 2018 discussion. (The simple !vote count was tainted somewhat by two bad-faith editors who showed up because of their history with me, but clearly had not actually looked at the content.)[309] MTW thentried to reopen the RFC despite it being obvious no one new was coming to support him (literally no one had supported his "version A" in three weeks, with almost everyone new supporting "version C"). My only guess as to his motivation for this move would be to make me and others have to wait another month to remove the dubious content from the article. Ireverted, for which actionEdwardx (talk·contribs)thanked me (so I can only assume my action was procedurally sound; if not, I apologize). MTW's next action was to restore the dubious content.[310] I originallydrafted this report several days ago, which had seemingly convinced him to drop it for the time being, but hereturned on Christmas Eve to renew his bogus accusation that my edits (accurate representation of reputable scholarly sources) constitute "personal opinions".
It seems like there is no end in sight, so could someone please block the user? Or do we need to have a TBAN discussion? The editor has donebasically nothing on the project for the last 45 days except troll me (if you read through the discussion it should be obvious that he isn't pushing a consistent POV; he just wants content out when I want it in -- Ctrl+F "etymology" to see how his view changedexactly when mine did -- and wants it in when I want it out, even when overwhelming talk page consensus, an honest reading of what the sources say, and simple common sense support my view) so an editing restriction seems like the wrong move here.
Okay, without speculating onwhy this didn't work, I'm just going to say I withdraw it and am taking some time off from editing Wikipedia. I wish you all a merry Christmas, and possibly a happy New Year if my break lasts that long.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)07:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm unwithdrawing the above. Of the relatively large number of uninvolved editors, only two have expressed substantial disagreement with me, and of those two one has only 300 edits to his name and the other is apparently nursing a grudge against me for some issue his repeatedly refused to elaborate on. (The latter also has a history of disruptively ignoring the substance of ANI reports with bogus "content dispute" dismissals, at least in specialized/scholarly topic areas like this one.) I only retracted the above in the hopes that the reprisals would stop and the thread would be closed, and after well over two days this has not happened -- and at this point it would be unfair if the opinions of Ryk, Reyk, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, SN54129 and Bonadea were dismissed just because at one point early on I was tired of being harassed.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
comment From the talk page, I can definitely see major problems with Hijiri88's tendentious editing. He's quite dismissive of the side that has the facts on their side. Hard to say what is best to do, but there's no cause to sanction Martinthewriter here.Krow750 (talk)20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Martinthewriter hasn't misrepresented sources. Firstly, the book Hijiri88 just added from 2018 is a different source from the 2014 article Martinthewriter used. Secondly, the 2018 book never says that mottainai isn’t Buddhist nor does it say that its meaning concerning regret of waste hasn't been connected to Buddhism. What Martinthewriter added earlier was 100% in accordance with the sources. Hijiri88 is taking a different source, interpreting it in a wildly imaginative way, and using his own creativity to somehow accuse Martinthewriter of misrepresentation. This is exactly the reason why Hijiri88 has been repeatedly accused of editing from his personal opinion. That's exactly what he just did! It's Hijiri88 who is clearly pushing a POV by repeatedly denying the Buddhist roots of mottainai, despite overwhelming material arguing the opposite, and falsely claiming that the 2014 article did not contain quotes that it actually did.[311] Hijiri88 even cites himself as Hijiri 2019[312] as if his opinion is better than the historians. If Hijiri88 isn't going to be sanctioned, this thread really can be closed. Martinthewriter is doing a great job and I can guarantee you he isn't going to be sanctioned here.Krow750 (talk)04:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Krow750:Martinthewriter hasn't misrepresented sources. That's an incredibly creative interpretation of the evidence, and one virtually no one who has looked at said evidence seems to agree with. Did you read through the analysis of theGenpei issue and determine that Taylor 2015wasn't a circular source? Did you read Siniawer 2014 and determine based on careful analysis that Siniawer agreed with the view she was attributing to Yamaori, thereby justifying Martin's citing Siniawer 2014 to support presenting Yamaori's views as fact? Have you located evidence that Shuto and Eriguna 2013 isnot an article about kindergarten teaching, written by a child psychologist and a kindergarten teacher, and entirely inappropriate as a source for Japanese religious history? At this point in this ANI thread, you really should either (a) change your stance due to the evidence you hadn't read earlier and the overwhelming consensus against your view or (b) just cut your losses and leave. Doubling down makes you lookWP:NOTHERE, and could potentially subject you to other editors monitoring your behaviour to make sure other instances of such disruption don't occur in the future.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)01:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Something really needs to be done about this.This edit clearly shows that Martin will support anything, evenridiculously bad content edits, as long as I oppose them.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)01:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Support TBAN, reluctantly. I do not often support sanctions, but unfortunately, Martinthewriter shows no signs of understanding that scholars & publications are not necessarily reliable outside their fields of expertise, or even engaging with discussions about such. Additionally, their use of sources displays a pattern of cherrypicking "deep cuts" from within sources, ignoring the context of the cherrypicked material and ignoring the main aspects of the source. e.g. a) Siniawer 2014 & 2018, excellent works by an historian; reliable and as yet underused; overall narrative is of a deliberate rebranding ofMottainai during the early 21st century - selects to include a quote from Yamaori Tetsuo to support "Mottainai is a Buddhist term"; neglects to include that Siniawer places this as part of that deliberate rebranding, describing it as "problematic". b) Shuto & Eriguna 2013, a departmental bulletin by an educational psychologist & a kindergarten teacher; not necessarily reliable; overall paper is about how children understand the concept of wastefulness - selects a piece of the "Background" section (not reliable) to support "Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage."; neglects to include by whom, neglects to include that Shuto & Eriguna reference their text to "Hirose, Y. (2008). Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior. Kyoto: Kitaohjishobou. (Japanese)", which should be used in preference if suitable. After investigation by Hijiri88, Hirose appears to also be a psychologist (environmental & social), not a linguist, historian or scholar of religion. Each of these, and other sources, has had to be argued over extensively on the article Talk page; now in excess of 45,000 words. The camel's back straw, for mine, isthis comment, which shows that Martin will continue to filibuster the Talk page until the article reflects their desired version. -Ryk72talk02:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that Ryk and I strongly disagree with each other regarding the viability of the proposed edit on which the above diff was a !vote, and Ryk was involved in this thread for five days before deciding to support my original proposal; I add this clarification because there have been a number of accusations of cronyism and canvassing throughout this dispute (here,here andhere, for example).Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – per the OP's opening statement this revolves around a content dispute (quoting from the opening sentence of that opening statement "... reinserted highly dubiouscontent ..." – my emphasis), and after withdrawing and re-activating the request this still appears to be the case ("... Martin will support ...content edits ...", original emphasis, see 01:05, 31 December 2019 comment above, written after reactivating the request). E.g.this diff is given as a support for presumed misconduct, while that seems to all extents and purposes an entirely appropriate contributionon content (whether one agrees with that content or not), including a constructive discussion of appropriate methods to settle content disputes, at the talk page of the Mottainai article. See the#Comment subsection below for my thoughts on attempts to use ANI for settling content disputes. --Francis Schonken (talk)11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, Hijiri88 was warned about edit warring[314], but is still reverting now with offensive edit summaries.[315][316]
I think the talk page discussion establishes Hijiri88's problematic original research and misreading of sources, but it becomes a big issue when he uses harassment to impose these changes on the article. I propose that this user no longer be allowed to edit this article.Martinthewriter (talk)06:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least, so to come here demanding a straight block of another editor is going to require some investigation. At the moment what I am seeing is a straight content dispute and the venue for that isWP:DRN. Or we can handle this here and now with an iBan for both editors and a T-ban for them both to the disputed article. Whatever, I'm not going to issue any blocks or untangle this mess to establish who is right and who is wrong - let DRN do that first.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)06:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: An IBAN wouldn't resolve the issue, though. Multiple other editors (not pinging for fear of canvassing accusations, but their names are Imaginatorium, Curly Turkey, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Ryk72 and HAL333) have already voiced support for my position (the article should summarize the relevant scholarship and not include misrepresentation or citation of unreliable sources) -- does MTW need to be banned from interacting with them as well?
Aone-way IBAN might prevent MTW from trolling me on this or other articles further, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that he intends to follow me to other articles, so a page-ban would be better.
And what good would DRN do that the RFC hasn't already? If I voluntarily change my position to accommodate MTW (as I already did), he will just change his position to whatever the opposite one of my current one is. All DRN typically does is allow both parties to a dispute to express their opinions,maybe get one new constructive outside opinion, with no solid dispute resolution method if those opinions are intractable, and MTW has already demonstrated that he is more interested in disagreeing with me than in pushing any particular content point (I have made concession after concession on issues like the length of the etymology section, the discussion of Buddhism, and the citation of Siniawer, but he has consistently shifted his position so the argument can continue).
Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour. I wasn't talking about a one-way ban, I was talking about keeping youboth away from each otherand both of you away from the article. Traditionally iBans and T-bans need some community input but If I were youHijiri88, I wouldn't belabour the issue too hard otherwise there might be asting in the tail which an admin can handle unilaterally. Take it to DRN first and see what they say.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)07:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I figured someone might bring up my "long history", so for what it's worth I have filed a grand total oftwo ANI reports in the last year.[317][318] I am not sure exactly what history of mine you are referring to, but my only negative interaction directly with you in the past, as far as I remember, was in the 2013Enkyo2 (talk·contribs) issue,[319] when, if I recall, my "unsociable behaviour" was mostly me expressing frustration that you were being an irresponsible admin and refusing to look at the evidence of disruptive behaviour that was presented to you.
In this case I have been busting my ass for the better part of two months trying to accommodate this editor while also maintaining the integrity of our article and its sourcing standards, but this approach has not been working. If you are not actually going to click on the diffs provided, I would ask why you are even commenting here.
SupportMartinthewriter's proposal, which boils down to topic-banningHijiri88 from themottainai article, if I understand correctly. I'm not going into all of the details why (will just elaborate four points below). I've largely stopped my attempts to improve themottainai article, awaiting the time thatHijiri88 would no longer be editing that article (and its talk page), while as long as that continues any attempt to improve the article is futile. Here are my points:
Despite my warning (earliest onehere),Hijiri88 continued toWP:BLUDGEON every participant in theRFC on article versions who happened to not agree with them (all listed diffs after I had warned Hijiri88 to stop bludgeoning):
After I had moved that comment to the Discussion area, to join it together with the rest of what followed my original !vote, and after I had extended my original !vote, being requested to comment on some additional versionsHijiri88 blugeoning my extended !vote,and again
Hijiri88 should have been the last one to assess the outcome of the RfC, yet that's exactly what Hijiri88 did (seeTalk:Mottainai#Consensus?), despite the tally not showing that the version which Hijiri88 preferred (and implemented [sic], even edit-warring over it[320],[321]) was what most participants in the RfC would have preferred. Hijiri88 had a very simple workaround for that disparity between the RfC tally and the forced outcome they implemented: call everyone who disagreed with them a troll (see e.g. edit summaries in the edit-warring, links given in previous parenthesis, to force their outcome in mainspace).
Hijiri88 intimated several times, on the article's talk page, that what Eiko Maruko Siniawer had written about mottainai was not correctly represented in Wikipedia's article. Afaics that is indeed the case, andI said so on the article's talk page: "imho the article should give a good summary of the main points of Siniawer's analyses. Siniawer seems a decent author on the topic." It doesn't seem too difficult to write a decent summary of Siniawer's views in the article, and I would volunteer to do so. I can only come to the conclusion that Hijiri88 didn't do so thus far, nor anyone else, and that no matter how long we wait, Hijiri88 is not going to remedy Wikipedia's article in that sense. With Hijiri88's present hold over the article (which can only be remedied by removing them as editor of the article and its talk page afaics) it also seems unlikely that Hijiri88 would allow anyone else (they're consistently called trolls by Hijiri88 remember) to write up such decent summary of Siniawer's views in the Wikipedia article.
There's more I could explain in detail (e.g. Hijiri88's forum shopping, etc, etc), but I think I've made my point. I'd suggest Hijiri88 not to bludgeon this extended comment of mine on this noticeboard, but instead, for instance, demonstrate they can provide a good summary of Siniawer's views on the mottainai topic, which could be used in Wikipedia's mainspace. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) – Stricken my "support", in favour of my proposal in the#Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk)09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, despite my posting a statement of wikibreak on my talk page and my withdrawing this ANI report, others have apparently continued to seize on the chance to badmouth me on ANI. I do still intend to stay away from the site for a few days, and I don't intend to pursue further sanctions given the mess this has become, but I will defend myself against Francis's lies and half-truths if he is going to refuse to retract them. Needless to say, virtually everything in the above comment is either (a) completely untrue or (b) a gross distortion of the truth. Two of the worst examples are addressedhere
I didn't "bludgeon" anyone, and responded politely as far as patience would let me to editors who both agreed and disagreed with me -- I will leave it toSMcCandlish (talk·contribs) to dismiss the about untruth that he had become less supportive of my preferred version of the article;
Francis Schonken is not now, nor has he ever been, interested in improving the article, and his taking credit for my proposal to give a fair summary of Siniawer 2014 -- posted almost immediately after I finally gained access to the source -- is disgusting and offensive; I have put hours and hours of painstaking research into building the article, while Francis has made one minor edit to the article almost two years ago[322] and has used that as an excuse to post no less than 18 times on the talk page, mostly making snide remarks about me that have nothing to do with the substance of the article.
The proposed paragraph is largely insufficient as a summary of Siniawer's writing on the mottainai topic, as I said & explained atTalk:Mottainai#Consensus?
I'd suggest Hijiri88 stop interpreting and implementing what they call consensus (and usually only reflects their own ideas forced on others), at least as long as ""has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute" (asRyk72 put it above).
For the time being I see no reason whatsoever to withdraw anything of what I wrote above, instead I'd askHijiri88 to go through the entireTalk:Mottainai page andWP:STRIKE whatever denigrating comments they gave there about fellow editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) – Stricken suggestions in #2 and #3, in favour of my proposal in the#Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk)09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
So ... is anyone going to reinstate Francis Schonken's recently expired year-long block for this blatant IDHT and disruptive pestering? He was essentially blocked for refusing to get the point, and then almost immediately after his block expired he tracked me down and proceeded to not get the point again, as demonstrated by the above.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)08:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Apropos #2, I think that it's clear fromHijiri88's initial post in the "Consensus?" section (and indeed from the question mark itself), that they are asking if a consensus has formed, not declaring that one has formed. I do not see that this is problematic. -Ryk72talk11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88 implemented their view on the outcome of the RfC by edit-warring (diffs given above, #3 of my first contribution to this section), whether or not they stated explicitly that that was how they saw the outcome of the RfC – the language they used in the edit summaries of these diffs is explicit enough: anyone thinking otherwise is, in their view, a troll or some such otherwise negligible contributor. That's far below what is expected from a contributor by behavioural policies. --Francis Schonken (talk)16:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I see a gap of some days between the start of the "Consensus?" section and those edits, and note that during that time at least two other editors opined that there had been a consensus reached, and that it favoured the version implemented.[323][324] -Ryk72talk20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Re. "I see a gap (etc)" – what are you trying to say: that it is OK to call co-editors trolls because there is some sort of gap in time? No, that is not a justification – it is just wriggling to find a reason to defend the indefensible: Hijiri88's behaviour was far below what is acceptable per Wikipedia's behavioural policies. I've given the diffs, read the edit summaries of these diffs: unacceptable, period. --Francis Schonken (talk)22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
No. It was implied that the editor had unilaterally declared a consensus and implemented their preferred version. I do not believe the evidence supports such. -Ryk72talk22:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Francis, your own behaviour (including what could bepolitely referred to as trolling due to the absence of any conceivable good-faith alternative -- worse descriptions for the same behaviour could, depending on interpretation, include "far-right nationalist POV-pushing", "deliberate battleground behaviour" and "stalking") has been far, far worse, and is especially surprising coming from someone who recently came off a year-long block that had been put in place for refusing to get the message of a previous long block that had expired only 11 days prior.
You can either stop engaging in behaviour for which "trolling" is the most civil possible description, or you can stop trying to get people sanctioned fordesperately trying to assume good faith even long after you've drained all their patience: you cannot have it both ways.
Oppose proposal. Clearly inequitable. In so far as there is blame to be apportioned, and I am not yet convinced that sanctions of any kind are warranted, it would be grossly unfair for it to be laid entirely at the feet of this one editor. They have outlined clear reasons as to why content should or should not be included; opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons. -Ryk72talk20:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Re. "opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons" – the main reason for that is quite ostensibly Hijiri88 behaviour towards fellow editors (see above): if they can't write two paragraphs in a reply to an editor they disagree with without lashing out at such fellow editor for being a troll, being otherwise incompetent or whatever, it is Hijiri88 who buries reasonable discussion in a marinade of rationale (i.e. the "ad hominem" rationale) which one should not engage with. --Francis Schonken (talk)08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Hijiri found himself alone against several editors who have a minor, negligent or zero competence in Japanese, let alone Japanese scholarship. He has proved by sedulous source scrutiny to be right in most cases on the talk page, but finds himself outvoted. It's true his style is often annoyingly bludgeoning, and I have often remonstrated with him to not waste such enormous efforts on arguing with people who have no intention of listening, esp. when their competence is just googling key words and reading around a bit without an indepth knowledge of the contexts. I do wish Hijiri would stop wasting his and my, for one. fucking time by allowing himself to be sucked into useless TLDR talk pages. But, you know with him, that any page's sourcing will be minutely checked, even to the extent of him making library searches to ascertain exactly what primary sources say, as opposed to what skimpy unprofessional secondary sources report. I can't say that of most editors who get into disputes on this topic area with him. He really however should take a break and think over why anyone would want to waste their lives arguing in defense of the obvious when it is not going to run on this or that page due to the contingencies of random curiosity by editors visiting it. It's up to him to wake up and the personal cost of dedication to minutiae on Wikipedia, when he will often be overruled by disattentiveness. He should not be punished by a rackety arbitration process not aware of what is at stake, simply because he happens to be right but is ignored by editors who dislike his argumentative attitude, and don't evaluate precisely the value of hgis input on articles. It's all very Framish, if on a minor scale.Nishidani (talk)21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose very strongly. Hijiri is competent, which is (or ought to be) the most important thing here, and I fail to see anything other than pretty mild expressions of very understandable frustration in what is linked and quote above. Also, what Ryk72 and Nishidani says. --bonadeacontributionstalk11:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose both proposals, because a block isn't how we handle such matters (the OP was a bit over the top), but this is nothing like aWP:BOOMERANG (Francis Schonken's counter-proposal is even more off-kilter). A topic-ban might be appropriate for Martinthewriter. This kind of says it all: "My edits prove that mottainai is a word of Buddhist origin". One's edits don't prove anything; sources do, and the sources on the matter are not in agreement. I arrived at that article in response to aWP:FRS RfC notice, and have no particular interest in the topic. A review of the talk-page activity demonstrates that Martinthewriter has been rather tendentious about it, and only wants to accept the view in particular sources (WP:CHERRYPICKING). As for Francis Schonken's big rant up there (and continued below), it's obviously motivated by old-history animosities, and someone just returning from a quite lengthy block is in no position to be taken seriously in criticizing others' behavior, and it's hypocritical to label Hijiri88 as combative andad hominem in the same breath as spinning his every post as "bludgeoning", over and over again like a chant. While I agree with H88's decision to take a wikibreak, maybe F.S. needs one as well. H88 is correct that F.S. is misrepresenting what the diffs show. For example, I did not waffle at all on my support for "version C", I simply added (after "Version E" was posted) that "Version E" might be acceptable, with certain changes, while still explicitly preferring "Version C." — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I wouldn't mind Martin getting a TBAN or a PBAN. I just think it's unnecessary red tape (how many usernames taking up space atWP:RESTRICT belong to SPAs or editors who have since been indefinitely blocked or site-banned?) for an editor who is not so much pushing a particular POV as changing his positions constantly in order to be as annoying as possible to the editors he doesn't like. To give another example (separate from the "etymology" one given above): the "personal opinion" thing doesn't actually help in advancing the far-right nationalist POV most of his article edits lean toward, but he has repeated it seven times nonetheless. Most of my historic edits in the "Japanese nationalism" area have seen me on theother side, asTalk:Korean influence on Japanese culture will attest, so Martin knows my personal opinion actually has nothing to do with it -- he has just been repeating the comment for sole purpose of annoying me, and while a page ban would ameliorate the problem it likely wouldn't solve it, as Martin would either follow me to a different article (I've written hundreds) or find a different editor to badger.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)01:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
OP on wikibreak
Hijiri88, the OP of this ANI section announced their wikibreak, just before editing this noticeboard at 07:52, with a
My interpretation is that Hijiri88 realized they had lost perspective and that they were thrashing about hurtfully and really need a breather. I think they sometimes get a little overwrought, but that they care deeply and that makes it worse. Perhaps they just need a vacation.--Deepfriedokra08:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Re: "That's a pretty imaginative interpretation" – Indeed it is. While H88 can be abrasive, so can F.S., including in this very thread. In my experience, H88 is deeply committed to the encyclopedia's accuracy, and is the furthest thing from "contempt[ous] ... toward Wikipedia". Like some of the rest of us (myself included), H88 does not suffer fools or PoV-pushers lightly. Any contempt that H88 evidences is in that direction. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Someone close this now, please. The OP has struck his complaint and proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)13:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, I would appreciate it if you struck the above offensive and groundless remark about me. hI wasforced to come back and address the personal attacks that were madeagainst me. I can understand if you are not going to either refrain from commenting on ANI threads without clicking on the diffs or actually click the diffs and act accordingly, but to attack an editor like this is clearly inappropriate,whatever the calendar date.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)13:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Note I've unstricken my complaint, given that Kudpung has refused to comply with my request that he withdraw the above personal attack while the (worse) attacks from Francis have continued, and more than two days have passed without any sign of the thread being closed, but with other editors showing up and, almost uniformly, agreeing with my complaint (or at least disagreeing with Francis/Martin), who probably shouldn't have their commentary ignored just because two days ago I was too tired and gutless to defend myself.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: You commented a lot early on in this thread, apparently motivated by your own past history with me personally more than a sober analysis of the evidence presented (which issue I will attempt to address separately at a later date perWP:ADMINACCT -- my already-drafted message, which blames you for the failure of this thread to accomplish anything, is now woefully outdated). Since you stopped commenting, a relatively large number of editors have commented, and they overwhelmingly disagree with you on the substance. Would you care to strike yourde facto !vote in the above subsection pending your own careful analysis of the substance of this dispute (which hasn't been a "content dispute" outside the scope of ANI since November 15) or finish doing said analysis and modify/clarify your opinion accordingly?Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88, Until you brought it up, I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of a previous interaction with you so many years ago. Your outrage and comments are borderline personal attacks and harassment. I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. I am not going to be bullied by you into commenting further on this issue in which my comment or recommendation was to close it. Whether my admin colleagues have agreed with it or not (seePhil Bridger immediately below) is not for you to decide and I will not be striking anything.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Umm ... how can you say you had absolutely no recollection of your previous interaction with me, when you said things likeHijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least,Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour and[Hijiri88 has] proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks. Phil's comment was obviously motivated 100% by the status quo of the thread at the time he posted it (two users had supported a boomerang proposal, no one had said anything otherwise, and I had withdrawn my complaint and posted that I was on a wikibreak); the same excuse cannot be made for your comments, since you repeatedly (in all three of your comments) honed in on some undisclosed past "disruptive behaviour" on my part. Indeed,Your outrage and comments are borderline personal attacks and harassment. I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. is the same thing again:WP:WIAPA clearly defines such[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence as personal attacks, and they areextremely unbecoming of an admin such as yourself. Your filibustering ANI threads that happen to have been opened by me (an editor you clearly don't like, even though you have refused to disclosewhy this is the case) regardless of all the evidence presented and all the commentary coming from other users youapparentlydon't think are scum not worth listening to is downright disruptive.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I second the proposal to close this. Keeping it open serves no useful purpose, and hopefully the discussion so far has shown people that, however frustrating it might be, even if an editor is in the right consensus might go the other way. That's just something we need to accept, and get on with more important things in life - in my case playing with my baby grandson.Phil Bridger (talk)13:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a balance, however, betweenWP:TRUTH andWP:ENC, and the latter is ultimately more important. SeeWP:FALSECONSENSUS andWP:SYSTEMICBIAS. It is not okay for a broken pseudo-consensus to result in WP distributing misinformation. It may not need a particular editor to address it, especially in a hotheaded mood, but it does need to be addressed. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, that last sentence is exactly why I came here; if Kudpung or Krow750 is willing to monitor the article and keep Martin and Francis in check (and keepthis bogus abuse of sources out of the article), I would bevery happy to step away. But given that, as a direct response to this ANI discussion, Francis is now threatening to distort the article further (by dismissing the premier dictionary of the Japanese language as a source for a dictionary definition), and Kudpung has essentially denied that there is an issue with these editors' content edits, I'm reluctant to do so. (Hundreds of articles written by the blocked editor Enkyo2still cite an unreliable source more than six years after Kudpung refused to recognize the issue with that editor based on his own unexplained assumption of bad faith on my part -- more than six years later, exactly the same thing has been happening here!) I really don't understand why the community can't be bothered page-banning an editor who has engaged in nothing but disruptive behaviour on the article for a month and a half so I don't have to do this.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The "fate of the article and its contents" matter, as it were, doesn't strike me as an ANI (disciplinary) issue, but more of aWP:RSN orWP:NORN one. As for the first part (the hounding thing), that would be a disciplinary matter but would need more evidence than problems at one article. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88, Until you brought it up, I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of a previous interaction with you so many years ago - or even your name. Your outrage and persistent comments about my participation in this ANI case or my previous admin work are borderline personal attacks and harassment (sanctionable issues). I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. Whether my experienced and respected colleagues have agreed with my suggestions with or not (Phil Bridger,SMcCandlish ) is not for you to decide and I will not be striking anything. I am not going to be bludgeoned by you into commenting further on this issue in which my last recommendation was to close it or take it elsewhere.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The above IDHT (obvious misrepresentation of what SMcC said, for instance) is downright jaw-dropping coming from an experienced admin such as yourself. Your referring to SMcC and Phil asmy experienced and respected colleagues (emphasis added) is unusual -- are you using "colleagues" to refer to your fellow Wikipedians, insinuating that I am not part of the Wikipedian community and do not deserve your respect, or are you referring to the admin corps and incorrectly believe SMcC is a sysop? Either way, it doesn't look good. Moreover, I would appreciate it if in the future you would not ping me twice with simultaneous comments that have identical opening sentences. I very nearly did not read the above, as I assumed based on the notices I received that you had inadvertently posted the same thing twice.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Moreover, your claiming you didn't recognize my name (the only difference between the opening sentences, which I again missed because I didn't bother re-reading a seemingly identical sentence) is either an obvious lie, or evidence that you were just hurling mud for the hell of it (!?) with all five of your comments: you are the only commenter here who has been focusedexclusively on alleged past disruptive behaviour by one of the participants (of which behaviour, again,you have thus far refused to provide evidence), and yet you claim you didn't even recognize that participant's username? Seriously? Whatever the outcome of this ANI thread (and the related RFC), I will be asking a series of questions on your talk page after the dust has settled,and I expect answers. (Technically, ADMINACCT obliges you to replyhere and now given that these questions have been floating on ANI for close to a week, while you are supposed to replypromptly and civilly to queries about[your] Wikipedia-related conduct -- you have been neither prompt nor civil in my estimation -- but I would be happy to wait. Honestly, the most important question would, if your actions and/or refusal to act resulted disruption to the article space, why you allowed this to happen, and it will not be known that such happened until both this thread and the RFC are closed or archived.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや)04:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yet more misrepresentation of sources
Another source has been found that explicitly contradicts the content Martin has been trying to include in the article despite his having previously claimed the opposite. If there ever was a "content dispute", it ended a month ago when it was first found that Martin was misquoting sources: now the only question is what to do about it. SMcCandlish suggested that he might be in favour of a page-ban (or topic ban?), and I would be amenable to that. I still think that this is not a case of tendentious POV-pushing in a particular topic area but rather targeted trolling (given the flip-flopping on certain points mentioned above) and would support a block for the edit-warring, IDHT, willful misrepresentation of sources, etc. (anything from a one-day block to an indefinite one). But again, I'm open to other suggestions and would support a page ban or other kind of editing restriction if others still disagree with me on this point.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)15:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Trout them all. Presenting religiouslymottainai as if there was something worth the trouble, is a joke. Using a Japanese word to change a banality into some mysterious and ineffable concept, is only a promotional trick. This is for Martinthewriter, Francis Schonken etc. And then, why trouting also Hijiri88 ? For such a poor defense of what was obvious from the beginning. Don't mottainai our precious time with such a bludgeoning quarrel about a non-existing concept. Striking all of this shameful article is not what can be suggested here. But this is not an argument against the suggestion itself.Pldx1 (talk)16:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Sorry to bother you (merry Christmas, by the way!), but would you please block the above editor (or at least strike/collapse his comment and warn him) for violating yourrepeated warnings to him to stop hounding me? He hasn't edited ANI in eight months (and has hardly edited English Wikipedia in four months), so there's very little room for AGF in this case. That plus the fact that he is an anti-Japanese Korean nationalist who in this case is essentially defending editors pushing a Japanese nationalist POV just because in this case the latter are fighting with me ("don't ban them, just trout them -- and trout Hijiri too!") makes it really obvious that the above cannot be justified.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Francis Schonken's edits
Given themassive number of problems with Francis Schonken's recent rewrite of the text in question, I think a reasonable case could be made that he also needs to be TBANned or at least page-banned. Not only has he repeatedly referred to his obviously highly problematic rewrite (including such howlers asMottainai is the classical Japanese terminal form mottainashi. and multiple needlessly inserted grammatical errors) as either an "improved version" or "a vast improvement" or "an improvement of ... two paragraphs" (Ctrl+F inthis section, but see alsothis edit summary) but he even brieflyedit-warred over its inclusion pending talk page discussion despite a large swath of editors (well over half of those who commented in the RFC) having already explicitly supported the inclusion of the text he was removing/bowdlerizing (contrast making a change for demonstrative purposes and then immediately self-reverting for talk page discussion[326]). Add on to this his adding apointyWP:ONESOURCE template to the section[327] despite my having already explained to him that I consulted multiple sources to verify that the information in theoneexplicitly cited sourceone source that was explicitly cited using an sfn template was accurate[328] (he evenadmitted that he hadn't bothered to read the message where I said I had consulted multiple sources) -- this kind ofWP:CIR behaviour is something I have literally not seen sinceUser:Rochelimit -- an Indonesian editor with poor English who eventually had to be blocked because he wouldn't stop copy-pasting from sources -- and is quite unbecoming of someone who has been here as long as Francis has, let alone someone who has been here as long as Francis has and who, like Francis, just recently came off a very long block (which had to be implemented for IDHT behaviour and edit-warring not dissimilar to what is displayed on the mottainai talk page) and should be on his best behaviour.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC) (Edited 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC) )
It should also be noted that this is not an isolated occurrence, as I've noticed similar problems with his edits going back years ago in unrelated topic areas that were also, apparently, outside his area of expertise.[329][330][331] My having been the one to notice these was apparently what prompted Francis to show uphere andhere (apparently his first interest in the present article), and was almost certainly why he appeared at the present RFC in the first place (no bot notified him of the RFC). (Actually my first extended interaction with him washere, where he was quite openly advocating for "That source doesn't verify that content" to be rejected as a rationale for removing cited-but-unsourced content -- an extreme position that should send up red flags for anyone who reads it -- and in fact he was openly advocating for the inclusion of such "cited-but-unsourced" contenthere, and seems tostill be doing so.) Given that this editor is apparently hounding me,and his hounding has been disrupting the article and talk namespaces, I think it would be fair to TBAN him from Japanese topics in general (my normal area of interest, and the area where he has shown the least ability to read specialist sources even in English), but a page-ban fromMottainai and a final warning about Japanese topics in general would be worthwhile.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)06:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems like this is not going to stop. Hijiri88 has thus far not stricken any ad hominems and has discovered my user talk page to retaliate ([332],[333]). Would appreciate some advice how to handle this. --Francis Schonken (talk)18:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
My first suggestion is to make more of an effort to collaborate with your fellow editors Francis. I've noticed you tend to have a "It's got to be my way" approach, and this leads to problems. (as your block log will attest to.) Work on being open to compromise and listen to other editors with an ear toward the idea that they may offer good suggestions as well.— Ched (talk)18:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Not helpful: I'm open to compromise, and collaborate easily. This is just blaming the victim in the situation. Please find some advice that would actually help, if possible. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk)23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
How are you the victim? You could walk away from the articleany time. I could too, but that would involve allowing you to destroy my hard work with your OR and poor writing. Your edits clearly show you have no real interest in improving the article and are only there to undermine me, and you have, in six weeks, made no attempt to "compromise and collaborate", but have in fact changed positions several times specifically to oppose whatever position I have been forced to take as a compromise with you and others. And in the past 24 hours I have asked you, politely, twice to strike or remove needless personal attacks directed at me: on the first occasion you blanked the message[334] and doubled down on the personal attack[335] with another snide remark[336], and on the second occasion you blanked the message with no further action.[337] What is even more serious, though, is that by repeatedly accusing me of "OR" you are showing your complete and utter lack of understanding of ourWP:NOR policy, which clearly states thatThis policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. -- it isnever OR to remove rather than adding content. (Let alone the fact that the first diff in this subsection shows you engaged inactual OR, while the third diff shows you edit-warring said OR into the article meaning it was not your intention to seek opinions on the talk page.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや)00:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please block Francis Schonken until he agrees not to make any more personal attacks like the ones linked to in the above diff?This has reached farcical levels with no one addressing it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is why Wikipedia sometimes struggles to hold onto solid content editors.Hijiri88 is one of the hardest working and most dedicated editors I’ve seen and one who brings vital specialized knowledge to the project. The treatment he has been shown throughout this entire ordeal is frankly appalling. I don’t want to get into the content dispute here, but something absolutely needs to be done about the sheer volume of personal attacks and bullying being directed towards this editor. No editor should be treated this way regardless of what the content dispute is about.Michepman (talk)17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The gist of my then-time closure being that if Hijiri88 (and the other disputant in that then-time ANI report, who has not participated in the current one) would return to ANI to get a content dispute solved, that is, without previously exhausting appropriate methods for settling content disputes, they should be dealt short, and increasing, blocks. After I explained the reasoning behind that (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Clarifications), the prevalent opinion in the AN after-discussion remained that my ANI closure had been too lenient, and more solid blocks (30 days was e.g. mentioned) should have been imposed immediately.
If I remember correctly Hijiri88 has since received some blocks which would conform to my 2015 closure report (whether or not the rationale given for such blocks mentioned the 2015 closure report). The last of such blocks seems to have been issued less than two months ago. Since my suggestions above that e.g. Hijiri88 strike their ad hominems in the Talk:Mottainai discussion to reduce problematic aspects of the content discussion (etc) seem to be going nowhere, I've withdrawn my !votes and suggestions in that respect above, replacing them here, in this subsection, by the suggestion to block Hijiri88 for, say, a week, per theWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding by Hijiri 88 outcome: I see, currently, no other method to make clear to Hijiri88 that WP:ANI is *not* for settling content disputes, for which there are other venues. --Francis Schonken (talk)09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
So ... you engaged in disruptive user conductduring the ANI discussion and are now trying to rehash the already-disproved claim that this is a content dispute, and are citing another ANI thread from over four years ago by an editor who has since been site-banned partly for hounding me, but mostly because my pre-2015 assertion that he was a POV-pushing troll had proved accurate? Your having been one of thebad ANI closers whose failure to address the problem with Catflap08's blatant trolling, harassment, POV-pushing, and misrepresentation of sources ultimately led to an ArbCom case is a point against your own credibility, but otherwise how is it relevant?
And no, since the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case in late 2015, I have received three short blocks, for various reasons, two of which were immediately removed on appeal and the other (the earliest, from April 2016) was repealed after I promised a few days into the block (not in the form of an appeal) not to gloat about the fact that an editor who had been harassing me had been blocked -- how is any of thisremotely relevant to my dispute with you and Martinthewriter on the mottainai talk page??? You, on the other hand, just recently (as in, less than a month before this dispute started) came off a year-long block that had to be implemented because of your edit-warring and IDHT behaviour, both of which you have been engaging in on the mottainai article and talk page. (Edit: Sorry, I had forgotten, until checking my own block log for an unrelated comment posted elsewhere, about my self-block, implemented by Bishonen about a year ago. Like most good Wikipedians, but not apparently Francis Schonken, I take significant blocks, and their messages, seriously enough that I can remember them all off the top of my head, but apparently the same is not true for self-requested blocks.)
Moreover, both this ANI thread and the mottainai article/talk page were quiet for over two days -- why did you choose to come here with this complaintnow?
You both need to stay away from each other and refrain from commenting on each other or on each other's talk pagesNOW, as nothing good is going to come out of any sort of continued back-and-forth here or elsewhere. Blocking Hijiri88 for using ANI to bring up issues of user competency would be nothing short of petty, as there's clearly more to this than simply trying to win a content dispute. That being said, this thread needs to be definitively closed by an admin.SportingFlyerT·C11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
IP spamming and reverting themself
I don’t know where the best place to post this would be. I’m curious what should/can be done to deal with the behavior of an IP atApple Look Around. They’ve been adding a bunch of crap/incorrect information to the page and then promptly removing it. If nothing else it gums up the revision history. To the point that it is now the entire first page and half of the second page of edits. It seems overkill to protect a page that is as relatively un-trafficked as it is.redspartatalk11:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted the article back to prior to the Ipv6 editor starting. Pretty sure it's one person or minimally one company. I think the only other editor was the OP. If it starts up again, either the IP will need to be rangeblocked, or the page semi protected.WP:RPP would likely have been your best venue for this.John from Idegon (talk)11:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Undiscussed split
Not an urgent or intractable behavior issue, no need for admin intervention. Any further discussion of this issue can continue on a relevant article talk page.signed,Rosguilltalk20:42, 29 December 2019 (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.
Update, I have changed the title per the discussion of the split and also added other content of the involvement of other parties.--SharabSalam (talk)14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion favoured splitting the sections, and I supported the split as well. I don't have strong views on what the title of the new article should be, so I boldly named it with "NATO" as the talk page discussion didn't come to an agreement on any name. The article only discusses American and British involvement (some from France as well), so it's not accurate to call this "Foreign" as there are many other foreign parties to the conflict. I don't mind the name of the article being changed so really we can snow close this as no further action needed.Onetwothreeip (talk)20:34, 29 December 2019 (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.
Closing due to the discussion beginning to go off the rails and a lack of consensus for implementing sanctions at this time. Onetwothreeip has made written commitments to being more careful with article splits in the future. Additionally, an IP editor with a vendetta has been canvassing people to this discussion in an inappropriate manner and the discussion is turning into an open hearing on every edit that Onetwothreeip has been reverted on in the past six months. Being reverted is not necessarily a sign of disruptive editing, and we should all bear in mind thatWP:BOLD saysif you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.signed,Rosguilltalk20:53, 5 January 2020 (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.
Rosguill, this editor has split the article to a new article called NATO involvement without any discussion about it. The term NATO is not even mentioned in the article talk page. Isn't this disruptive? The article title was designed to be called POVFORK. It was as if it was saying delete me. Now an editor who obviously seems not to be informed about the subject of the article is insisting that the article is a POVFORK even after I added all parties and fixed the title issue.--SharabSalam (talk)21:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, per the comment that they made above, Onetwothreeip doesn't have any issue with you renaming the page. The disagreements and misunderstanding related to the AfD is something that should be discussed in the AfD discussion. I don't see any reason for this issue to be addressed at ANI at this time.signed,Rosguilltalk22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, So... are you saying that it was OKAY for him to just split the article to that name without even informing us? This whole AfD wouldnt have occurred if this editor didnt title it that way. Yet, this editor gets no warning, absolutely nothing for this disruptive act.--SharabSalam (talk)22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, the discussion was stale, there was a consensus to split but no consensus of what title to move it to. NATO was not mentioned in the discussion, so it was a valid attempt at a Bold solution to the problem. Perhaps Onetwothreeip should have realized that you were likely to oppose this, but I see nothing sanctionable here. If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested and brought to that editors attention,then ANI would be appropriate.signed,Rosguilltalk22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, okay, this editor was opposing the split that we were proposing. I have little doubt that they created that article with that obvious POV wrong title so that it gets deleted and if we attempted to split the article in a neutral way we would be referred to that AfD. Notice that he didn't vote in that discussion .--SharabSalam (talk)22:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, please assume good faith of other editors. You have now repeatedly accused Onetwothreeip of opposing the split, despite their first comment on it having beenStrongly agree with splitting the article, you have provided no diffs substantiating this accusation, and Onetwothreeip has specificallyasked you to stop misconstruing their position. As for not voting, that's their prerogative, and given what a trainwreck that AfD is (in part due to your unilateral decision to move the article while the AfD discussion was ongoing), it is in no way evidence of wrongdoing. Finally, please stop misgendering Onetwothreeip: their user page clearly states that they prefer they/them pronouns. I wouldstrongly suggest that you stop trying to get an admin to impose sanctions at this time and go discuss the content dispute underlying this at the AfD.signed,Rosguilltalk22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, no they were opposing the proposal I gave with nonsensical reason.The problem with that is Saudi Arabia is a foreign country to Yemen as well. We could have an article for Iranian involvement, Saudi Arabian involvement, and involvement from all other countries. I want an admin to solve the problem in the deletion discussion. People are coming there thinking that the title is the POVFORK title. How can I solve this issue. The editor who nominated the article for deletion is not well-informed about the subject and obviously he saw the fucked up title and thought that it is POVSPLIT.--SharabSalam (talk)22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to discuss this, but I did oppose the article being titled as "foreign intervention" when it was only about the United States and the United Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is also a foreign country to Yemen, and its involvement in Yemen also constitutes foreign intervention/involvement.Onetwothreeip (talk)05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, what in God's name is wrong with you? Who said we are going to add only the UK, France and the US? We were going to add Saudi Arabia, foreign private contractors, Iran etc. That was going to happen but now, you the one who only put UK, US and France only. And the title, wow. NATO?!!. I meando you realize that there was no mention of the word "NATO" in the article(Not just the talk page) whatsoever?.--SharabSalam (talk)07:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Please remain civil. One of the proposed splits was for the involvement from United States and United Kingdom. The following is what you said on the talk page.Just to let you know we will have three sections removed from this article "Allegations of Iranian involvement" "Western involvement" "Private military involvement". What I have split is essentially the "Western involvement" part that you clearly said you wanted to split. I decided to title it with NATO rather than Western, but the title isn't final.Onetwothreeip (talk)08:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, what? I was referring toSaudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. The reason we wanted to split is to remove content from that big sized article. How come Grayshark gets it and you don't? Your split was totally against the consensus in the talk page. Also, who lied to you and told you that you can boldly split the article to any title you want when there is a discussion about the title name and most editors have agreed for a different title than yours and your title is not even mentioned in the talk page?--SharabSalam (talk)08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Cban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip
An IP editor provided further examples of questionable article splitting behavior from Onetwothreeip, documentedhere andhere, andhere. While any one of these examples could be dismissed as either a bold edit or a careless mistake, taken together they begin to add up to disruptive behavior. I would thus tentatively propose implementing a ban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip.signed,Rosguilltalk02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill They were certainly bold edits but they weren't careless, and two of the three you have raised are still in effect. AtList of unsolved deaths, I agreed to revert the split that I made, and I am glad that we came to an agreement to split the article in a different way. ForMythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, I became engaged in a very lengthy discussion where another editor was accusing me of causing a split article to be an orphan, which wasn't true, but I added more links to the article anyway. Although this editor did not disagree with the actual split that I made, they were trying to canvass other editors to report me to ANI by copy-pasting their grievances to other talk pages that I was participating on. Likewise withAmerican-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, this was only an issue that resulted from the use of list defined references, and I was determined to find a quick solution, which involved me seeking out assistance while another editor had reverted the split. Once we were able to resolve the errors around references, we promptly restored the split.
I have certainly made bold splits of very large articles, and whenever there has been disagreement about how to split them, I have sought out the views of participants at the talk pages. The vast majority of the splits I have made weren't contested, but of those that were, I am proud that myself and others have been able to come to good solutions.Onetwothreeip (talk)05:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The splits do appear to have all eventually been resolved satisfactorily. However, the talk page discussions immediately following the splits themselves suggest that other editors nevertheless have found them a bit reckless. I think that even if we resolve this situation without any blocks or bans, you do need to be a bit more careful with these article splits.signed,Rosguilltalk05:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I certainly take that on board. I genuinely don't want other editors to feel negatively towards this, so I intend to take things easier moving forward.Onetwothreeip (talk)05:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Strong support Cban I am so sick and tired of this editor behavior. Look at the mess they has created. AsCorker1 said in Onetwothreeip's talk page,
"Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:
Step 1: Create a discussion
Step 2: Add notice
Step 3: Discuss
Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus
Step 5: Perform the splitting
Step 6: Clean up
You performed Step 5" They always performs step 5 only. And this one was very likely aWP:Pointy split.
There was a discussion to split, the talk page wanted to split it, but it didn't come to an agreement on the title. I took a bold action to split and to give it a default title, which can be changed in the future. You don't seem to actually be objecting to the split, you claim to have supported splitting, the title is now the one that you have chosen, and you have accused me of being opposed to the split, so what exactly is the problem here?
As for splitting articles generally, there have on a few occasions been issues, and they have been resolved quite properly through the talk page. Some of the people you have linked have nothing to do with splitting articles, they are editors with whom I have had disagreements on completely separate matters. This is quite obviously an attempt atWP:CANVASSING.
However, as I want these actions to be more harmonious in the future, I will be taking things slower and seek greater consultation where possible. Let's put all this drama behind us.Onetwothreeip (talk)07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Canvassing? The links above and the discussion above are totally related to them. We should actually have sent them an ANI notice. It doesnt surprise me that this isn't your first time to make these splits. I am surprised that editors haven't raised the issue yet to the ANI.--SharabSalam (talk)07:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That's because most splits have been completely uncontroversial, and whenever there have been issues, they have been discussed and resolved through the talk pages. I would like for us to see if we can resolve the issues ourselves, without a noticeboard.Onetwothreeip (talk)07:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, the problem here is you. We were discussing this. Most editors agreed with Foreign involvement that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc. You went an made a completely irrelevant title with no discussion whatsoever, against the consensus and now wants us to discuss it? It is nominated for deletion, we cant split the article to an article for foreign involvement anymore. There is nothing called bold split when there is a discussion open and most editors agree with the title foreign involvement. You have repeatedly made splits without going throughWikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. You are the problem here. Everything was fine until you made that split.--SharabSalam (talk)08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Most editors agreed with Foreign involvement that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc. That's the entire article though. What split article(s) would you have preferred?Onetwothreeip (talk)08:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, What? Thats not the entire article? As I said we were going to include all these involvements and add a {{main|Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen}} over Saudi or Arab coalition involvement. Can you tell me why would you perform a totally different split without getting to the talk page and discussing it first and getting consensus?--SharabSalam (talk)08:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This is getting tedious. The talk page was discussing and favouring splitting out the "Western involvement" section, which detailed the involvement of United States, United Kingdom and France. What would you have preferred to split out?Onetwothreeip (talk)08:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, nope. The majority of them were supporting "Foreign involvement" see even the latest comment by Grayshark. I understand that you think your opinion is superior to other editors opinion and that you have got no respect to other editors prospectives as shown by yourrepeatedly splitting with no consensus and that you chose to name it to "NATO involvement" regardless of the discussion regardless of who is going to disagree. You don't even have to discuss the new title, you are superior to us. We don't have the wisdom that you have.--SharabSalam (talk)08:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This really shouldn't be discussed here, it should be discussed on the relative article talk pages. I agreed with the consensus that determined the article should be split in this way, but I certainly admit that I acted boldly in naming the new article. I did not intend for this title to be permanent, and you have decided to change the title yourself, and I have not objected. I have to ask you though, what would you have preferred to split from the article?Onetwothreeip (talk)08:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, the problem is that the article got nominated because of your name and because of you bold split. Yourepeatedly have performed bold splits against a consensus in the talk page. The Cban will prevent further disruption. It is necessary because you have proved that you learned nothing from previous warnings. It will not affect your editing or your discussions in the talk page. It will make you discuss and listen to other editors prospective. Do you really want to perform more disruptive splits again?--SharabSalam (talk)09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In response to my complaints thatOnetwothreeip's corrections were inadequate,Onetwothreeip stated that I should make these corrections myself.Onetwothreeip citedWikipedia:Do it yourself when making these statements. I consider this to be just one of many examples ofOnetwothreeip's failures to adequately collaborate with other editors afterOnetwothreeip split articles without assuring that the splits did not significantly damage the pages that the split created.
To be completely honest here, I did my best to ascertain what issues you had but it was difficult to understand what you were trying to say. When I split the article, I can assure everyone that I did not create any errors. The issues with the articles were part of the original article before I came to it.
Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker was not made into an orphan, and Corker1 demonstrated that they were completely misinterpreting the definition of an orphan article. They were relying on a definition that described an orphan page as one that does not have links from othermainspace articles. This of course simply means links from any articles, with mainspace meaning that there is no prefix before the page name, such as "Talk:" or "User:". Corker1 believed mainspace meant the article had to be linked from eitherCommemorations orBenjamin Banneker.
For some reason, circular discussion kept happening about this on my talk page. I decided to add more links to the new article, but mostly I could not help any further so I suggested that Corker1 do the edits himself. Corker1 was making these demands that I make particular and specific edits, which I did not follow. I certainly didn't tell them to do these edits on their own immediately after they raised concerns with me, this was after some prolonged period where I was being bludgeoned with these demands.Onetwothreeip (talk)11:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Since I've been pinged twice now, I will comment to prevent further pings. Thanks. I was only a party to one of the splits mentioned above, theTimeline of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War, split from the parent article,American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War. The split simultaneously createdseveral hundred cite errors in both articles seenhere andalso here. Those cite errors (over 500 of them) were eventually fixed by myself and another editor. I have no problem with editor's makingbold edits, but if you choose to be bold, make sure those edits aren't going to be controversial or against consensus. And if your bold edit gets reverted, don't be upset and don't edit war, instead, discuss on the talk page and obtain a consensus for your bold edit. Furthermore, when making a bold edit -If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself. I would argue that any reasonable person would recommend fixing those several hundred cite errors yourself, instead of relying on (or hoping) that someone else will come along and fix the unambiguous errors for you.Instead of a cban, I would prefer that this editor make a firm commitment to follow the steps listed above (especially step 6: clean up), when performing any further bold splits, and listen to other editor's concerns and take on board some of the advice offered.Isaidnoway(talk)11:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The simple reason why I didn't resolve those errors myself is that I didn't know how to. If I knew how to, I most certainly would have done so, and I did not anticipate the errors occurring. Whenever I see errors on Wikipedia that I can fix myself, I fix them whether or not I decided to make edits that day. While it's unfortunate that there were alarming messages generated in the References sections, I'd like to point out that no references were actually lost, it was just that there were redundant references in the section that weren't being defined. I was trying to get this fixed by asking people at different pages how I could implement the solution myself, and someone volunteered to do the bulk of that work. I did not ask anybody to fix the problem for me.
I feel proud of my cooperations with other editors to find solutions, particularly ones who I have disagreed with. As a result of this controversy, collaborating with other editors is most certainly something I will give even more attention to. I can absolutely give you that assurance, as it's in my own interests to do so.Onetwothreeip (talk)11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The simple reason why I didn't resolve those errors myself is that I didn't know how to. If I knew how to, I most certainly would have done so, and I did not anticipate the errors occurring. That pretty well sums up why you shouldn't be splitting pages, then.Grandpallama (talk)14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, in light of their response, I have struck out my comment and nowsupport a cban. Frankly, I just don't believe they didn'tanticipate the errors occurring, when the day before when they trimmed the infobox, they created multiple cite errors, which I reverted with an edit summary detailing how the article usedlist-defined references –diff, they then reverted my edit with an edit summary that saidUnused references should be removed from the article as a result -diff. So how could they not know, or anticipate, that the same exact cite errors would occur again when removing a large chunk of content from the article the next day. I also believe they saw the cite errors they created in the reference section in bold red text, which clearly states -(see thehelp page), where it explains inissues and resolution on how to fix the cite errors. I don't understand why they wereasking people at different pages how I could implement the solution myself, when the solution was staring them in the face. Additionally, if they used the show preview button, and saw the hundreds of cite errors generated from their edit, anddidn't [know how to] resolve those errors myself, they shouldn't have made the edit until theydid know how to resolve those errors.Isaidnoway(talk)18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Grandpallama: and@Isaidnoway:, I feel that I didn't express myself how I intended to. I completely agree that what I did was wrong, I was just trying to explain that I was trying to act in good faith and I made a mistake in not properly previewing the article before I published the split. I will most certainly agree from now on that I will be very carefully looking over the result of the attempted split, and if there are errors that I cannot immediately resolve, I will most certainly not make that split until they can be. Please do not take my previous comments as trying to justify what I did, as I am admitting that I shouldn't have gone about it the way that I did.Onetwothreeip (talk)21:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
When I said that I did not anticipate the errors, I am saying that I did not take enough care to make sure there were no errors. I am not claiming for a second that I made sure there weren't errors, which was entirely my fault and I won't be repeating that. I certainly realise this and I regret my actions.Onetwothreeip (talk)22:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Why not just agree not to perform any splits, and leave them to other editors who are more proficient in this area? That is a very small area of Wikipedia editing, so there would be plenty of other things that you could do.Phil Bridger (talk)21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I've made about 150 split articles and the vast majority have occurred without any issues. The problem here was that this particular article used list defined references, which I was not familiar with. I'm fairly proficient in splitting articles generally, but I admit this was an instance where I should have slowed right down and been more careful not to generate any errors.Onetwothreeip (talk)21:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Exactly. Onetwothreeip, I don't understand why? There are many things you can do other than the splits? The damage you did to the Yemeni civil war was so unacceptable. This is the lightest sanction that you can get for all the damage you have done in the Yemen civil war area. However, I will try to fix this issue slowly and carefully on the talk page and see how we can perform a split. I will start in the sandbox, I will work to fix any real issues. See if anyone is going to suggest a change and then recreate the article (if it got deleted) or edit it (if it didn't get deleted). Unlike you, I am not going to split the article to an article with a different title that the editors have agreed with and on top of that you didn't notify us. I only knew of the split when I saw the deletion discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)22:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
What damage are you talking about? The deletion discussion is criticising the content of the article, which I have not written. Again, the talk page agreed to a split, but didn't come to an agreement on a title, so I boldly chose a neutral title which can be changed at any time. You changed the title of that article yourself, so there doesn't appear to be any problem there. As for notifying you, I clearly described the split in the edit summary.Onetwothreeip (talk)22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You really need to show better judgment about where bold editing is appropriate. It's fine for articles about computer games or pop songs or football teams, but for articles about serious geopolitical issues much more care should be taken.Phil Bridger (talk)22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree. I certainly don't want to cause any controversy or distress, so I can commit to taking much more care around potentially contentious articles.Onetwothreeip (talk)22:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip:Your message above toPhil Bridger stated that you: "can commit to taking much more care around potentially contentious articles. This is not an adequate committment. As you can read in the discussion on this page, the community is reaching aconsensus to imposeCban (Community bans and restrictions) on you. Your repeated refusals to adequately respond to comments that a number of editors have placed on this page and on your user page is helping to achieve that consensus. I therefore suggest that you immediately place a message on this page that states thatyou will stop splitting Wikipedia articles.Corker1 (talk)20:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not all I said. I also said that I will make sure all article splits do not result in errors before the splits are made, and I agree that contentious topics deserve greater care. Please feel free to ask me any questions you would like for me to respond, either here or my talk page.Onetwothreeip (talk)01:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: That is not enough. You have made similar statements in the past. Nevertheless, your splits continue to result in many errors.
Further, you do not inform prior editors that you intend to split articles. When they learn about your inadequate splits, you do not satisfactorily respond to their complaints and suggestions.
It is difficult to split articles without correcting errors that the splits create. As many comments above, in the Talk pages of articles that you have split and inUser talk:Onetwothreeip indicate, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are either incapable or unwilling to do this.
I therefore again suggest that you immediately place a message on this page that states thatyou will stop splitting Wikipedia articles.Corker1 (talk)18:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
What past statements are you referring to? Whenever there have been issues, I have been more than willing to discuss them, in the few times that there was any dispute regarding splits I made.Onetwothreeip (talk)20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Support a ban on splitting articles, largely based on the pattern that has been laid out of problematic splits in the past, the repeated acknowledgments by Onetwothreeip that they aren't prepared to deal with the damage repair that is necessitated by their overly bold splitting, and the ongoingIDHT here in response to editors asking them to voluntarily stay away from splitting.Grandpallama (talk)03:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Grandpallama: Can you explain what you are referring regardingrepeated acknowledgments by Onetwothreeip that they aren't prepared to deal with the damage repair that is necessitated by their overly bold splitting? What I have said is that if I split an article in the future, I will check the preview with great care and promptly deal with any errors. If there are errors which I cannot deal with, I would then not perform the split. My mistake was that I did not properly look at the preview to find these errors, and I completely accept that. The purpose should be to prepare articles so that repair isn't required from the start.
I can confirm thatI am voluntarily staying away from splitting, I have done so and I will not be splitting any articles for some time, but I do eventually want to return to splitting articles. I have made about 150 articles from splitting, and only a small few have resulted in any significant concern to this extent, with this being the first time that I have been reported to the AN/I over splitting articles. In the last few weeks I have been attempting to perform a greater amount of splits in a shorter amount of time than I have been doing in the past, which I deeply regret. If/when I return to splitting articles, I most certainly commit to taking much greater care than I have been taking as of recently.Onetwothreeip (talk)08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I have done so and I will not be splitting any articles for some time, but I do eventually want to return to splitting articles. And therein lies the need for the ban from splitting.Grandpallama (talk)14:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against that article being deleted. The issue there is entirely regarding content and not that this was a split article. I didn't want to make judgements on whether the content was notable or not before splitting, given it already exists. It doesn't appear that this ANI discussion has been brought up in that AfD.Onetwothreeip (talk)21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is moving in circles at this point, with Onetwothreeip insisting that a ban is unnecessary and ban supporters remaining unmoved. I think that the consensus is in favor of the ban but would prefer if another admin closed this, as the cban is a remedy I proposed even if I haven't formally voted for it.signed,Rosguilltalk19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
(ec with Rosguill's post above) Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the mix but Ioppose CBAN and support more-specific voluntary commitments – There is a problem here, but I'm not convinced it requires a CBAN. Three examples have been put forward:
List of unsolved deaths – It appears everyone involved agreed this article should be split, just not how. There was a discussion on the talk page about splitting that had slowed down[338]. Then 123IP performed a split. An editor complained on 123IP's talk page[339] (I thought the complaint was rude but 123IP's responses were cordial) about how the split was done. 123IP reverted. More cordial discussion on the talk page followed. The complaining editor then performed the split a different way, intoList of unsolved murders andList of unsolved serial killer murders. The latter subarticle was draftified (I think as part ofWP:NPP); it's been three months and it's still atDraft:List of unsolved serial killer murders. I would call this an unsuccessful split, by an editorother than 123IP, and I don't see this example as an example of 123IP doing anything wrong.
Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker – I strongly disagree with Corker's point on 123IP's talk page"Mythology_and_commemorations_of_Benjamin_Banneker" (reproduced above in this thread), essentially suggesting thatWP:PROSPLIT doesn't allowWP:BOLD article splitting. PROSPLIT specifically allows BOLD splitting. I don't agree that after splitting, it is upon 123IP to draft the new content that Corker thought should have been added to the article. The editor doing the splitting doesn't have to make the resulting sub-articlesexactly the way another editor wants it. The second editor is free to add the content to the sub-article if they think more content is needed (e.g., to provide context). However, I do agree that leaving one of the sub-articles as an orphan, otherwise not appropriately updating backlinks, and leaving citation errors, is not the right way to perform a BOLD split. So, I do see this as an example of a legitimate problem that was brought to 123IP's attention that 123IP did not adequately address.
American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War – Same as above; reference errors need to be corrected as part of a BOLD split. However, I understand that someone unfamiliar with list-style references may not have anticipated it or known how to fix it. The answer is that an editor must learn this before splitting any other articles that use list based references. Also, I agree with Phil that this was not an appropriate topic for BOLD splitting, but I think 123IP has taken that feedback on board as well.
That a sub-article is nominated for deletion after a split (e.g.,List of Teen Wolf minor characters) doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the split.
So I think there are problems here, but that 123IP's eagerness to take these concerns on board means no CBAN is necessary. My big problem with a CBAN is that if we just prevent 123IP from splitting articles, then 123IP will never learn how to fix their mistakes–they'll never learn, for example, how to split an article with list based references. Instead of being prevented from splitting articles, I think what 123IP needs ismore practice splitting articles. It won't benefit the encyclopedia to prevent a volunteer who wants to do a particular task, from doing that task. It benefits the encyclopedia if we teach the volunteer how to do the task correctly.
I agree that more-specific voluntary commitments from 123IP would go a long way towards assuaging editors' concerns that further splits won't be disruptive (e.g., cause citation errors, or orphaned sub-articles),and it'll allow 123IP to continue volunteering their time and also to become better at splitting articles. Specifically, I would suggest the following (some of which 123IP has already said they'd do):
Be more conservative about which articles to split BOLDly – e.g., not major geopolitical topics – with the understanding that too much inappropriate BOLD splitting may lead to a future ban from BOLD splitting
Not leave any orphaned sub-articles post-split
Not leave any citation errors post-split – This may mean practicing a split in userspace by copying over an entire article, splitting it into two articles in userspace, then cleaning up the userspace sub-articles, to make sure 123IP can get to a place where there are no citation errors in the new sub-articles. If 123IP has trouble doing that, they can ask for help. Once 123IP is confident they can technically perform the split, then they can do the "real" split in mainspace. Yes, this means doing the split twice, and it will take 123IP twice as long, but in cases where 123IP isn't sure of their technical skills (e.g., list-based references), this is preferable to leaving citation errors in mainspace for others to clean up. If 123IP performs a BOLD split and sees citation errors they can't fix, they should self-revert the BOLD split, practice in their userspace, then do it again when they have it down.
Not edit war over reverted splits
Maybe these list items should be re-worded, or entries added or removed, but I would generally support something like this over a total ban from splitting, because a total ban won't do the encyclopedia any good.–Levivich19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban from splitting, especially a "permanent" one. Not seeing the IDHT of 123ip other editors seem to see. 123ip has stopped splitting and has repeatedly said they will take more care in future splits. Bans are preventative, not punitive. Unwanted behavior has stopped, a commitment to change has been made. Let's give a bit of rope.TelosCricket (talk)21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Objections andoppose: I haven't looked into this very deep. I read through the section that was closed, figured it made since, and upon continuing to read I realized it was in fact not closed, even though it appeared to be, so is a continuation of a closed discussion. I became confused when the closing admin, apparently on talk page comments, decided to self-revert the closing decision then it went to a Cban discussion with some apparent canvasing issues. Either the closing should have been reversed or a new discussion opened and if we are going to look at a CBAN then something more than thepage size split, with only one editor that agreed to the split just not liking how it was done. Also, if editors are going to be pinged then ping all the ones involved in all the articles in question. That would be why it is called a community ban. It seems obvious there have been issues. If the subject did create a split against consensus that is one problem. An agreed upon split that has issues could have been solved by BRD and other resolution procedures. I am not defending that concerns are invalid. I would offer that any split that degrades the current assessment of any article means the split likely should not happen. I do not see a level of conduct that would bring a suggestion of a permanent ban for sure.
Comment: I've been pinged a few times in relation to this discussion, so I'll make a comment. While I think some type of remedy is necessary, the suggested prohibition against splitting articles doesn't address the underlying issue. The underlying issue is Onetwothreeip'sWP:IDHT attitude, and that has been manifested in multiple ways. On theDonald Trump article, for example, he has repeatedly made large-scale removals of longstanding content while being reverted by nine different people. He has done this at least twenty times:
Onetwothreeip has continued doing this over the objections of other editors on both the article talk page and in his own user talk. Discussions where others objected to these actions arehere (July 2019),here (September 2019), andhere (November 2019). Two other examples of the same pattern of refusing to listen to other editors, on other unrelated articles, are the discussionshere (December 2019) andhere (December 2019). These discussions, too, concerned other issues besides undiscussed splits.
I am not sure what type of remedy is appropriate for this pattern of actions. Is there a possible remedy that could address the undiscussed splits, the repeated removing of longstanding content without consensus, and also the editing of others' comments on talk pages that was discussed in theDecember 2019 thread in BullRangifer's user talk, as well as by My Very Best Wisheshere?AndewNguyen (talk)10:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, AndewNguyen is raising this on the explicit prompting of an IP user, both of whom are in some kind of editorial dispute with myself and others atTalk:Race and intelligence on the inclusion of certain sources. "I encourage someone (perhaps @AndewNguyen:) to raise this problem in the AN/I thread". AndewNguyen has been pinged here once, on 30 December, and did not respond then, and has had nothing to do with any article that I have split.
As for the contention of these diffs on theDonald Trump article, there is really not much at all to see here. Clearly I've made bold edits on this article, including those which have been reverted, while many have been accepted, and I have probably reverted at least twenty bold edits on that article myself. This list does not say anything about whether my initial edits were justified, or retained in the long term of the article. I have been a frequent participant in discussions on theDonald Trump talk page, including on content that has concerned these edits.
Much of this isn't simply removal of content of course, they are at least mostly attempts at reducing the amount of citations in the article, or condensing the content. Anyone familiar with the article would know that it is very frequent that good faith edits are reverted, as can clearly been seen from itsrecent article history. (Of the last 50 edits in ~9 days, 14 edit summaries explicitly refer to reverting, restoring or undoing.) Of course this hasn't actually been a problem for AndewNguyen, who has had very little involvement with this article if any, until they came to a disagreement with me on theRace and intelligence article.
Personally I haven't notified editors who have been satisfied with and have thanked me for splitting certain articles, but I find it quite unfortunate that there have been attempts to use this AN/I thread to threaten me, such as withChoose your answer wisely, because it may potentially affect the outcome of the ANI report currently underway about you by the aforementioned IP editor, for simply responding with civil disagreement on the talk page.Onetwothreeip (talk)11:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't look at all 20, but I looked at the first three and the last three, and I don't see any IDHT or any removal of longstanding content (or any removal of content at all, really). What I see is some tweaking of language and removal of overcitation. I generally agree that you don't need six bundled cites when one will do (June 20). TheJuly 2 diff's edit summary expresses aWP:DUE concern, which seems reasonable (and certainly within the normal parameters of a content dispute). TheJuly 5 diff removed "He has called golfing his 'primary form of exercise'," and "he usually does not walk the course" cited to one of Trump's tweets and to Golfnewsnet.com. Not seeing how this is an example of IDHT or any other problematic behavior. Is 123ip edit warring over these removals?–Levivich19:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Canvassing issues
Onetwothreeip has alleged thatSharabSalam has improperly canvassed some editors to this discussion. There was some back and forth discussion of this on my user talk page between those two editorshere. From reading through the linked discussion that SharabSalam provided to justify the pings, three editors, JalenFolf, AndewNguyen, and BullRangifer were pinged inthat discussion but did not participate, making it unnecessary to call them to this discussion. Further editors whodid participate but have not been pinged wereAlanM1,RopeTricks,MrX, andDrmies.signed,Rosguilltalk17:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I apologize, I accidentally pinged them because their usernames were in thatdiscussion but I didnt notice that they didnt participate. I dont know any of them. This doesn't change the fact that Onetwothreeip splits are mostly disruptive. I am actually having a fever and a sore throat and I was going to take break from wikipedia but when I noticed the deletion discussion and that this editor has split the article without notifying us so I returned and reported them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)18:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
For those who I didnt ping, I pinged only those who have had problemsregarding Onetwothreeipsplits as I said above. The ip comment in that discussion tricked me because the IP pinged those editors and saidIn the past few days all of you have recently commented on similar problems this user has caused.. I assumed that the IP was replying telling them about the split Onetwothree has made. Again I apologize. This happened because I was so sick that time and I was even making a lot of mistakes in my comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worthSharabSalam, I don't hold any grudges against you. Whatever happens, I hope we can both participate in the discussions and cooperate on what to do with the articles.Onetwothreeip (talk)22:12, 30 December 2019 (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.
Done –bradv🍁02:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Facepalm Did you missthe large red banner when posting this? In any case, I'd guess it's just someone without much privacy knowledge posting their own email address in the public. –Frood(talk)19:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done
~ ToBeFree (talk)02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
When was the last time someone solicited such?
![[1]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aMac_OSX_Lion_screen.png%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d927791190){kind=link}
![[2]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aMac_OSX_Lion_screen.png%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d927795178){kind=link}
Moved fromWP:AIV
Confirmed toCardistann and likelyCardicharts based on the ranges that they are using. Лукас Двиба has been doing a good bit of logged out editing as well. They are unrelated to Spacejam2 who is in a different country.
