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 would like to report this IP address for long-term disruptive editing. Normally, I'd report this IP to some place likeWP:AIV, but I am not really sure if this is a complete vandalism issue, or whether or not that would be the right noticeboard to report this IP to. Another reason as to why I am bringing this here instead is because the block log is quite large, with scattered blocks in terms of length (the block lengths for this IP aren't escalated in order, like most shared IP addresses usually are). They include blocks as short as 24 hours, and blocks as long as 1 year. There are a couple of block evasion/check user blocks thrown in there as well. I thought that I'd put this here instead, as this may be too complicated forWP:AIV. Thank you.172.58.38.139 (talk)20:45, 23 January 2017 (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.
Mkativerata personal attacks, profanity, and edit warring
Mkativerata is noted to tone down the edit summaries a little. Their edits are correct, however, and frustration with a block-evader is understandable. IP blocked for a week, master account also blocked for a week for block evasion.Black Kite (talk)00:14, 24 January 2017 (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.
Mkativerata is engaging in edit warring as well as profanity and personal attacks in edit summaries in these 3 commits:
And you,User:Galestar, are evading a block correctly imposed for your rabid and tedious POV-pushing that wastes the time of good editors. Of course I stand by everything I said in those edit summaries because they are unambiguously correct assessments of your editing. --Mkativerata (talk)23:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin here; just took a look over the history here, and I tend to agree that your edit summaries are overly snarky and you should tone it down some. You're in the right with your edits, but there's no reason for the editorial comments. There are higher roads to be taken in these kinds of disputes.Tony Fox(arf!)23:28, 23 January 2017 (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.
An IP editor had addedthis to the article onJ. B. Priestley. Seems grossly offensive to me, not to mention improperly sourced. An Admin has locked the page for a week so it cannot be removed by an ordinary editor such as myself. SeeWP:RfPP discussion for background. Just thought you might want to do something about it. — Cheers,Steelpillow (Talk)15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be a content dispute. The 'vitriolic' is a bit much, but "grossly offensive" it's not. Please voice your concerns on the talk-page.Kleuske (talk)15:25, 23 January 2017 (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.
Short block byUser:Gilliam for harassment (presumably ofUser:Garchy after[1] and note the stated intention to sock if blocked) resulted in this nasty (and declined) unblock request[2]. Since return from block has been following and reverting Garchy's edits, often with snarky comments or even outright attacks inh the edit summaries aimed at Garchy[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. I disagree with some of the edits but some may be valid (I have not checked all of them) but the edit summaries are inappropriate and the IP continued to comment on the user in edit summaries after being warned not to[11].Meters (talk)04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My ANI edit conflicted with an edit warring block byUser:Materialscientist. I'll leave this open for now since the IP has already stated that he will sock, and because we've already gone through one block/unblock while this was being written.Meters (talk)04:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all - I just woke up to see the work that has been done. I looked at my reverts, there were a few I did hastily and which didn't need to be done (I must have gone a little overboard while reverting the disruptive edits), but then again the IP editor was a bit of a handful - I'll not revert the good ones back, and it looks like the others were handled already. Thanks again!Garchy (talk)14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism of comics articles by 107.77.*.*
The account is suspicious (possibly banned Tirgil) and keep vandalising the pages with false edit summaries and deletions of sourced content. Have a look at the revision history ofTuran and other articles he edited(vandalized). Thanks.88.254.94.183 (talk)01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. I still doubt that this editor is suspicious and might be a new sock of that LTA vandal, but it is not only about being Tirgil or not. The user is clearly vandalizing the articles through deletion of sourced contents with false or misleading edit summaries as I showed above. He did it many times. I don't think he is here to contribute.88.254.94.183 (talk)07:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Don't have the energy to investigate the validity of the IP's claims in detail, but a few points to consider:
Both users have gone well past 3RR, so unless one of them isunambiguously vandalizing the articles in question they are both in violation.
NRP appears to be subtly implying thatboth are Tirgil34, but again I don't have the energy to check.
The OP'scontribs to other Wikimedia projects relate almost exclusively to the genetic categorization of the Korean langauge. Unless this is a pet topic of Tirgil34 it seems unlikely they are the same person.
The phrase "Thank you NinjaRobotPirate" is really amusing.
I didn't read NRP's comment thoroughly and thusly did not notice his implication. Anyway, it doesn't make sense since at the end of the day, there is no difference between pre and post edit-warring version of the article (Then what could be the purpose of that fake edit-war?) As for OP's contribs, I do not know what he did on other wikimedia projects but on en.wiki, his some contribs seem to me suspicious and also since "ascribing fictitious personalities to his socks" (and false-flag operations) is one of the habitual behaviors the LTA vandal, I thought that he might be the same user. Regarding sockpuppetry, I am less doubtfull about him now. However, as I mentioned above, this is not only about sockpuppetry. The user clearly deleted sourced content with false/misleading edit summaries.88.254.94.183 (talk)12:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not deleted sourced content. This source is a thing of interpretation. There stand written, "we MAY add as fourth branch korean and japanese", but in the articel it stand that they are always considerd as "turanian" (which is a obsolet term so i do not care anymore...). I admit that Dravidian is fully sourced and that i have made in this case a mistake, but i did not started this edid war nor do i have "other suspisious" contribs made.일성강 (talk)15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Boxing Fan
My patience has worn out withUser:Boxing Fan, in the sense that they're constantly falling woefully short ofWP:CIR and not giving a flying crap aboutMOS:BOXING. They've already had a block for edit warring against consensus on boxing weight classes, but lately they're continuing to mess with things like:
Boxing record tables, by incorrectly changing content ([17], for which they were warned multiple times for doing the same thing at a related article in December:[18],[19])
Breaking up small text parameters for no reason, and re-linking elements that only need linking on the first instance ([20],[21],[22])
Flagrantly changing result types to read incorrectly ([23],[24],[25], and heaps more). There's already serial vandals who've done this for years; we don't need another.
Adding redundant infobox stats ([26],[27],[28],[29]; for which, interestingly,an IP was very recently blocked for making the exact same edits.. I might actually call up an SPI on them for that.)
It's not my place to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE, andmy goodness I've tried communicating 'til I'm blue in the face, but they're certainly not in the habit of making constructive edits, nor are all the warnings in the world doing anything.Mac Dreamstate (talk)23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Had to go the WP:AIV route as they just wouldn't stop, but I'll be straight back here if (and when) they continue after their block. Look for a C&P dump of this same topic when that happens.Mac Dreamstate (talk)02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think we might need some admins to look overWarnerFan 1999(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log). Pretty much every edit (at least, every edit visible to a non-admin) seems to be an attempt to add in claims of one or more non-notable (and, frankly, highly improbable) crossover "movies" forTiny Toon Adventures and/orAnimaniacs to related articles; in particular, they seem to be trying to pusha user-sandbox article on one specific one into mainspace by any means possible (I'd give diffs, but it'd basically be recapping their contributions since 17 January) following itbeing denied at AfC. That article is sourced entirely to an IMDB page for it, and both it and the sandbox article make a number of highly implausible claims (Barry Sonnenfeld executive producing,Open Road Films distributing, and, entertainingly enough, no mention of Warner Bros. or Amblin Entertainment--which jointly own both shows--being involved at all), and attribute it to a filmmaking company named for a person whose Wikipedia article was deleted as non-notable, with WarnerFan, who created it, having been cautioned about creating autobiographical articles. (You can throw in highly amateurish "official art" on a number of IMDB articles attributed to the same film company... which were also all created by the same person.) I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for here--I suspect this is an enthusiastic teenager who is trying to make his fanworks more prominent, or something similar--but we should probably find a way to nip this behavior in the bud, since the user contributions show them having not once made a talkpage edit or any other sign that they pay attention to messages on their talk page. Anyone got any ideas?rdfox 76 (talk)04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like a teenager who's adding hoax crossovers based on his own fan fiction. I'll leave a warning on his talk page. Ping me if he does it again, and I'll block him.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)07:14, 23 January 2017 (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:Aunt Martha Repeatedly removes an image fromDerek Taylor. I have reverted twice, not going to do it third time. As I have also answeredticket:2017012110011085, I feel a bitinvolved, so I do not wish to take any more action myself. The image in question is a non-free image and is clearly marked as such, the size is fine for non-free. I have offered the copyright holder at OTRS to alter the page for whatever copyright notice is required, and also offered to reduce the image to 150px wide - that has fell on deaf ears.Ronhjones (Talk)14:40, 23 January 2017 (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:Soupforone, personal attack and related incidents
Possibly old cases of @Middayexpress, see the note posted byCordless Larry today on AN/Ihere.
There is a puzzlingcomment posted on my talk page in last 24 hours by the newly registered account @GabiloveAdol, that there is or will be a separate case on admin@Buckshot06: somewhere, with "Buckshot06 will also be mentioned in another case". Sorry, I do not know what that case is or will be, and am unable to provide links. Perhaps the admins can ask the affected parties to disclose and consolidate these cases?
Personal attacks: Bigot allegations. The content disputes, which has already involved two admins on the talk pages, and other editors, has escalated to a point where there is a pattern of disruptive behavior by @Soupforone, in tandem withGabiloveAdol andEthiopianHabesha with the latest being an accusation ofWP:BIGOT withthis personal attack by @Soupforone. The other parts of the discussion can be reviewedhere andhere. Soupforone justback-edited and posted that their comment "was not intended for EthiopianHabesha or you", but this is strange. The context of the discussion on that page is my edits and thepending ARB case. Even if it somehow was not against me, unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT allegation against anyone in wikipedia is hostile and inappropriate PA.
Policy shopping by Soupforone, hoping something will stick. Soupforone sought to delete sourced sections and WP:RSfirst claiming WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG and WP:ATTACK applies. I explainedhow they misunderstand the policy. Soupforone responded I may be right about WP:ATTACK, "it's apparently BLP that applies"...here. For what it is worth, multiple admins/editorshavealready explained that BLP and BLPGROUP do not apply to these articles.
Misuse of wikipedia policies to stonewall and block others from editing. For example, Soupforone invoked WP:BURDENhere, to allege "the WP:BURDEN to obtain consensus is actually on the editor who wants to make changes. That's why I asked you to present any potential wordings first here on the talk page for discussion and consensus." When I explained thatWP:BURDEN is about verifiability and providing reliable sources, and that I already provided reliable scholarly sources thereby meeting the burden, Soupforone reinterpreted the policies again.
WP:OWN behavior in Somalia-Ethiopia space articles. For example, inAmhara people demanding that I don't add any more sources or sourced content in that article at all per WP:BRDhere without consensus with IP editor (see above). Same WP:OWN atSomalis article, where Soupforone left me thecomment, "Somalis, as the page was honed through a laborious consensus process" asking me to stop removing / replacing unsourced 'citation needed'tagged "consensus" version or expanding theSomalis article with sourced content citing scholarly sources.
While content disputes can be resolved, policies can be clarified, personal attacks such linkingWP:BIGOT is hostile. That page cautions, in bold, "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry could be considered a WP:Personal attack".Ms Sarah Welch (talk)17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an ongoing dispute in the Amhara/Ethiopeia area. Essentially it boils down to 'Native/local/related editors think articles are being negatively (Not in line with NPOV) skewed by westerners of European descent'. I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks but have been keeping clear. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of culture/history with tenuous sourcing at best. If you look at the diffs provided in the (soon to be rejected) arbcom request, part of the complaint is that sources used by Sarah Welch are not relevant to the article (they do not mention the Amhara people etc). Which (if true) is whats leading to the requests not to add more content there.Only in death does duty end (talk)17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
All cites in the contested section (Amhara people#Slavery) have embedded quotes. The scholarly publications are by professors who are highly cited in Ethiopian studies, some who have lived/taught in Ethiopia. So it is not true that these are not relevant sources. Please note that the wording in the section is in part basedon rewriting by Soupforone, which in good faith we must assume they did after source checks.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: If WP:BIGOT evidence is found valid against Soupforone, I seek appropriate sanctions for PA. For rest, the request will depend on what the mitigating circumstances are.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch, not clear for me why I was mentioned here but I think it is because I criticized your recent edit that looks like paraphrasing out of context. I did explain above in detail so instead let me just list the diffs:[31][32][33][34][35]. You added content in the article saying "the conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion" while the sourcehere said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. And also why you ignored the most important part of the letter (threatening to tamper the Nile) in which that concerns the Egyptian Sultan and instead added a content as if the Egyptian Sultan is concerned with muslims in the Horn of Africa. I still did not get clarification on these two questions I asked which for me looks like paraphrasing out of context. —EthiopianHabesha (talk)20:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
AN/I isnot a substitute for the article's talk page. The clarification was postedthere about 2 hours ago. You were mentioned in this case because you are involved, as is GabiloveAdol, as evidenced bythis.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, still no response as to why you said conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion while the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. Why I explained this issue here in ANI is because, it seems, you were trying to convince admins that your summary is in goodfaith while mine is not. I explained in detail so that Admins should be informed on your paraphrasing out of context. Instead of the walls of text, as all the other editors have said, it would have been helpful for us who are accused of personal attack to address your accusations if you have provided diffs and briefly explained how they are personal attack. —EthiopianHabesha (talk)11:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand you, justlike Robert McClenon and others, above on AN/I. How was I "paraphrasing out of context"? No, not "all the other editors have said" about walls of text!! (except for non-admin EEng's strange comment, who ignored the "diff" that was already provided, and who doesn't complain of 'wall of text' similarly on other AN/I filings and discussions while responding (diff1,diff2, etc). There is nothing in AN/I guideline which says only give "diffs", "don't explain, no text at all". In my firstdraft I used both precipitated and triggered (with the meaning of stimulated), in the first and second sentence respectively. Nothing wrong with that, and not worthy of a discussion on AN/I.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)13:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch Okay people has been on my noticeboard includingyou earlier? But anyway regarding those article's and all the users involved are being looked at by the Oversight team, including the admin Buckshot06.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGabiloveAdol (talk •contribs)
@GabiloveAdol: Have you already filed, or are you going to file additional cases on another wikipedia forum, onAmhara people-related matter, against anyone else such as admin Buckshot06? Please provide links to help avoid duplicate effort, and please do sign yourcomment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
EEng#s, indeed. A wall of text by Ms Sarah Welch, yet not a single dif of a supposed personal attack by me against her. This is because I have not made any. The actual reason why I pointedGabiloveAdol (not her) to the bigot policy essay on his talk page was as a self-correction since we had both initially assumed that the blpgroup policy applied to ethnic groups, but an admin clarified that the latter was actually intended for smaller groups. Further,Awale-Abdi andAcidSnow can attest that there were problems with the Somali social stratification text, though these were eventually fixed. However, much of the slavery text on Amhara people is indeed undue and misrepresented, including the embedded text;EthiopianHabesha,Duqsene and Gabilolove are certainly not mistaken about that. Parts of it have been identified as fringe on the fringe noticeboard byThe_Four_Deuces[36], and I've also demonstrated with direct links which other phrases are synthesized on the no original research noticeboard[37].Only_in_death encapsulates the actual situation above well.Soupforone (talk)04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, @The Four Deuces neveridentified professor and one of the highly cited Ethiopia scholarDonald N. Levine source as a "fringe" source. InSomalis article, @Awale-Abdideleted the text you, yes Soupforoneyouadded, and left what I added (AcidSnow has notedited that article since August 12 2016, as you falsely allege and imply above without diffs; fwiw, my first edit ever ofSomalis article was on November 14 2016). On your personal attack, I already provided thediff above, where you wroteWP:BIGOT. The context is clearlyAmhara people article edits when you used WP:BIGOT link, and you are discussing @GabiloveAdol's ARB filing (diff2) that is entirely targeted at me. What is the context of your WP:BIGOT wording? and who are you insinuating to be the author of the alleged WP:BIGOT content?Ms Sarah Welch (talk)05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course the context ofWP:BIGOT was Amhara since GabiloveAdol alleged from the start that the page was being ethnically targeted. It's really reaching, though, to claim that I was personally attacking you for having the gall to point him (not you) to the correct policy essay on this. Also, Awale-Abdi did indicate that there were problems with the stratification stuff[38][39], as did AcidSnow[40]. As for The Four Deuces, he wrote that the Levine claim"is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing"[41]. That seems fairly straightforward.Soupforone (talk)07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
For diffs of personal attack by @GabiloveAdol, who has been working with @Soupforone (diff), please see "got caught redhanded again" and "lashed out and lied" language in thisdiff. That they were warned about PA, see thisdiff by admin @Buckshot06. That the allegations are false and I did exactly quote the WP:RS on Herbert Lewis, please seethis.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)05:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, GabiloveAdol asked for moderator assistance to fix the Amhara stratification stuff, as he was concerned that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page"[42]. That is when and why I tried to help him.Soupforone (talk)07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Uhh, that dif indicates that you originally added the stratification stuff, which is true. Nowhere do I personally attack you. Please stop reaching for what isn't there.Soupforone (talk)15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You have linked WP:BIGOT. When Cordless Larry asked you, who do you think it applies to. Youexplained, "That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by 'someone wants to put a negative light on this page'." In the ARB/C filing, GabeloveAdol's links are mostly citing your advice/comments as evidence against me! Can you explain why you linked WP:BIGOT? If that "someone" is not me, who did you apply it to, or prod GabeloveAdol to apply it to?Ms Sarah Welch (talk)16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's quite simple. GabiloveAdol indicated that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page", so I pointed to blpgroup thinking that that was the correct policy for this[43]. You instead linked him to theWP:COMPETENCE policy essay[44]. GabiloveAdol later alluded to the blpgroup policy in the arb, but an admin there indicated that the policy was intended for smaller groups. As a self-correction, I then pointed GabiloveAdol to the WP:BIGOT policy essay on his talk page, explaining that apparently this was the actual standard for his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias)[45]. Ergo, kindly stop reaching for what is just not there.Soupforone (talk)03:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You allege "his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias)"? Please provide a diff where GabiloveAdol expressed this "particular concern". The link you added above doesn't show any concern that deserves WP:BIGOT answer.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)03:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
CommentEthnic-nationalist editors have a bias that will accuse "good faith" editors of any bias(negative) if said "good faith" editor adds content that shows a negative fact on said ethno-nationalist group. That being said, it seems a witch hunt against Ms.Welch has occurred ever since her edits in ethno-nationalist congested articles like "Ethiopia, Horn of Africa, Oromo, Amhara...etc". Bigotry goes both ways in these types of articles, for example, there are dominating ethnic groups who trample on the voices of the minority ethnic groups, when said information of minority ethnic groups is brought to attention on wikipedia: 1. edit wars occurs 2. ethnonationalist editors go on editting rampages 3. good faith editors get accused of bias/bigotry etc for false "siding with majority or minority ethnic group". Wikipedia, seriously needs to do something about ethnonationalist editors who are ruining articles through various means. Pulling the Bigotry card is nonsensical when ethnonationalist editors are the most bigoted editors on wikipedia. Motto of ethnonationalist editors is "My ethnicity is superiour to yours!".HarryDirty (talk)07:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, GabiloveAdol's particular concern is obviously his claim that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page"; that is the subject-based bias[46]. On the other hand, it's unclear what assertion of his elicited thatWP:COMPETENCE policy link of yours.Soupforone (talk)15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the rationale for that was at the time, but requesting an SPI of me, Ms Sarah Welch, Buckshot06, Robert McClenon, Duqsene, etc. might be a reason to suspect competence issues now!Cordless Larry (talk)16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: See the third para ofWP:COMPETENCE, andthis section in particular. GabiloveAdol-86.89.46.70claimed "the sources are not correct/false or at least questionable" because "Source 35 Leads to a title but no article". This falls under, "Editing beyond one's means, Lack of technical expertise"; their repeated deletion of sources and sourced content sinceOctober 2016, falls under "Non-incremental changes"; theiredit summary of "I'm removing this section because it's biased and clearly inflamiatory, it's being recently added to cause division!!!" falls under "Bias-based" of CIR. As I note above, your creative (mis)interpretation of content policies/guidelines/essays such as WP:BURDEN, and now WP:CIR, continues to be disruptive. Your linking of WP:BIGOT and (mis)interpretation of content policy pages to goad GabiloveAdol is just another level.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch: EthiopianHabesha, Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, myself and Duqsene have all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. As for the wikipolicy linking, not a single dif shows that I goaded GabiloveAdol, much less that I personally attacked you. Please, do stop reaching for what just is not there.Soupforone (talk)18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: You goading GabiloveAdol is evidenced by these diffs:1 with your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT link on GabiloveAdol's talk page,2 with your "it was appended out of bad faith" comment on behalf of IP ( = GabiloveAdol),3 with your "you're right though about WP:ATTACK; it's apparently BLP that applies here" against in a matter raised by the same IP. Further evidence: GabiloveAdol quoted you and your explanations as evidence on AR/C case which has now been declined.
Please do not misquote and misrepresent Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, or Duqsene. You allege they "all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims", but you allege without diffs. Their edit history suggests no such conclusion. @Only_in_death_does_duty_end is tentative with "Which (if true) is whats leading to". I cannot find a link where @The Four Deuses states "there is some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Do you have a diff of a conversation between GabiloveAdol and The Four Deuces that supports your allegation?Ms Sarah Welch (talk)20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hardly. What I actually wrote GabiloveAdol vis-a-vis his subject-based bias claim is that "it seems that the actual standard is WP:BIGOT"[47]. Nowhere did I goad him, nor is there any dif of me personally attacking you. As for the rest, I didn't quote Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces and Duqsene in my last post, so I obviously couldn't have misquoted them. They each did though find that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff[48][49][50] (I never claimed that TheFourDeuces and GabiloveAdol chatted). Please stop reaching for what is not there.Soupforone (talk)04:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: Are you confessing you are sockpuppet of GabiloveAdol? how can you know what GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90 has in mind? They cited no WP:BLP or other policy claims, it is you explaining and inserting these on their behalf as their opinion. If you are a sock, come clean. If you are not, stop speaking on their behalf and putting words on GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90 behalf with "the ip is claiming that much of the material is WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG" (diff), "he/she [the IP] means that WP:BLP..." etc. (diff), etc. because IP never wrote so, only you did.
You misrepresent all three editors, and this is further evidence of a persistent behavioral problem with you. Nowhere in those links does The Four Deuces acknowledge or comment on GabiloveAdolclaim, just yours. Nordoes Duqsene. You link the first draft of @Only_in reply, but ignore that @Only_in revised thatdraft moments later to express tentativeness of "if true". That tentativeness does not imply "I found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims".Ms Sarah Welch (talk)13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, GabiloveAdol indicated from the start that he thought the page was being ethnically targeted and therefore asked for moderator help[51]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Also, what I wrote is that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regardingundue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. The italicized part is the actual stuff they found some legitimacy in, not all of GabiloveAdol's various claims.Only in death--"I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of the culture with tenuous sourcing at best."[52];Duqsene--"it would be inconceivable for Afar to raid Abyssinia"[53];The Four Deuces--"It is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing."[54]. Only in Death's later phrase tweak is not a tempering of his initial assertion, but rather an explanation of why there was in part resistance to the content[55].Soupforone (talk)15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Moderation is not pretensively arguing "IP means this...", linkingWP:BIGOT, etc. Note that admin Buckshot06 and others also tried to moderate theTalk:Amhara people page. They were constructive, you were tenacious with "if WP:ATTACK does not apply, then WP:BLP applies" followed by the BIGOT link elsewhere. You continue to distort what the three stated.Ms Sarah Welch (talk)14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I diffed and quoted the three above just fine. As for the WP:BIGOT and WP:ATTACK policy pages, I obviously pointed GabiloveAdol to them because he had alleged subject-based bias and asked for help[56]. There is no wikipolicy discouraging linking to wikipolicy - that is what it's there for.Soupforone (talk)16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposals for GabiloveAdol and Soupforone
Based on the due evidence gathering and discussion above, I suggest an indef ban on GabiloveAdol for PA during AR/C filing, disruptive SPI filing against admins/numerous editors and other disruptive behavior in Amhara people article. Additionally, I suggest a limited sanction/warning on Soupforone. The latter recommendation is based on Soupforone's repeated assertion of "for what is not there" which suggests they may not have linked the WP:BIGOT etc in bad faith, though they did so after repeatedly trying to put their own concerns / PA through GabiloveAdol with "the IP/GabiloveAdol means...". I hope they do not attempt to speak for other IP /editors in future. This case has no direct bearing on EthiopianHabesha (on whom there is a separate AN/I case pending above).Ms Sarah Welch (talk)14:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - GabiloveAdol specifically asked for moderator help on the talk page[57]. That is when and why I tried to assist him, which obviously there is no wikipolicy against. Ms Sarah Welch also has not provided a single dif demonstrating that I either personally attacked her orWP:GOADed GabiloveAdol. Actually, this claim of hers doesn't even make sense since I advisedGabiloveAdol to abort his arb filing[58]. Harsh sanctions against GabiloveAdol would be unfair, as others (including on the fringe noticeboard) have found that there is some legitimacy to his claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation[59][60]. Therefore, what GabiloveAdol instead needs is guidance on basic wikietiquette by an experienced admin.Soupforone (talk)15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The WP:BIGOT link was me pointing GabiloveAdol (not you) to a policy essay on the subject-based bias that he alleged. I also never wrote that you lied or were caught red-handed, nor are there any difs of personal attacks by me against you.Soupforone (talk)16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Having looked at the spamming of multiple admin pages with comments about the removal of the frivolous SPI against Sarah Welch (and reportedly others), and at the flippant reply to my admonition about it, I am concluding thatUser:GabiloveAdol isnot here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but only to engage in battleground editing with regard to the battleground region that is the Horn of Africa (or by whatever names it is called). I reluctantly have to conclude that aSite Ban is in order.Robert McClenon (talk)18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Observation: Horn of Africa
I would like to observe that this is one of THREE open threads having to do with disruptive editing having to do with the Horn of Africa region. This appears to be another region that is prone tobattleground editing because it has been a historical battleground, such as theBalkans, andIndia andPakistan. In some of those areas the ArbCom has had to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions to streamline the sanctioning of disruptive editing. While the most recent request for arbitration in this area was appropriately declined, it may be appropriate either for the ArbCom by motion to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or the community to impose community general sanctions. (For some reason, community general sanctions, when used, have not worked as well as ArbCom sanctions, but they are better than just the free-for-all without any sanction regime.)Robert McClenon (talk)18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Concur all you want
You can concur all you want, i will still make my SPI case, admin or not. All i need is to make it less frivolous(probably because of the unnecessary amount of added text i included) and just simply supply the diffs and time logs, about the editors in questions, which some of them arenot suprisingly calling for aindef ban. During the AR/C filling they said i was aiming for the things in the wrong place, regarding the gutting of the history section of the Amhara people article and neutrality/misrepresentation of the article, which were later edited byMs Sarah Welch &Soupforone. Further more on my talk page, there were reasons to question the good faith and reliabilty of that section regarding the Pankhurst sources.
Soupforone I would appreciate if you stop calling mehim i'm a woman not a man, just use my nickname otherwise.Ms Sarah WelchRegarding the disruptive behavior in the Amhara people page, i never denied i removed your article on 27 October 2016, i even said it in the Arb/com, and encouraged by it i will make my case against it in a short notice.Cordless Larry I never edited wikipedia before October 2016, i live in a household of 5, and only bothered to remove/editMs Sarah Welch section after my younger brother asked me what a caste was.
I originally made a report at AIV but that was archived as stale so I'm bringing this here as administrator attention is still required. For almost 7 years now this editor has done nothing but insert the book he has written into articles as "cites". The fact that he has gone this long is astonishing.WP:SELFCITE aside, he is clearly only here to promote his book and to insert it in as many articles as possible. His conflict of interest is also undeclared on his user page and was only made known after he complained after one of his inserts was removed. As we are unambiguously in the realm of a promotion only account I'm asking for an admin to deal with them. Thank you. --Majora (talk)21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Citing one's own book isn'tWP:VANDALISM, so it should not have been reported at AIV. He does need to stop spamming his book, though. I think we need to more closely look at where citing it belongs and where it doesn't. If the book is one of the only extant resources about an obscure subject, it can/could be OK to insert as a citation.Softlavender (talk)22:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Reporting people whose only purpose here is to promote themselves is an option under the AIV module in Twinkle. So...if that isn't a form of vandalism perhaps we need to redo that (a topic for another time). The main point here is that this person's only goal, for almost seven years, is to only insert his book into articles. Period. If that isn't a violation of NOTPROMOTION I don't know what is. --Majora (talk)23:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Uninvolved comment Having taken a look at this user's contributions and the exchange between them andRichard-of-Earth transcribed onto their talk page, I think this is just a simple issue of an editor who simply doesn't know how to edit. I'm not seeing anything intentionally tendentious here. I'd be happy to help Richard tutor him if that will solve the problem.MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.23:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed about 30 of their edits (approx 1/5th) and I found every single one I checked was primarily about including the editor's books into an article. I'll admit they've addedsome content. But there is a serious self promotion issue here. I think restricting the editor from citing themselves anymore is a reasonable action here. I was on the verge of blocking, myself.--v/r -TP23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it is aWP:NOTHERE situation, and yes, promotional/COI. At the very least at this point he should not be adding his book[s] (as citation or otherwise) to articles directly -- he should be restricted to making requests on article talk pages. At worst he should be blocked as NOTHERE and self-promotion.Softlavender (talk)00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel he is here to build an encyclopedia. He adds more then he needs to add his cite. He does not need to add anything as he could add his book as a cite to material already unsourced in the articles. I would also like to point out that the articles he adds to are in need of prose. He has written at least three books in this area and perhaps several more. (It is hard to tell, his name is not that uncommon.)WP:SELFCITE is allowed and we should be thrilled to have anyone with experience writing and informed contributing to our articles. Besides he did less then 6 edits a month last year. I think we keep up with Wikifying his contributions. Hell, maybe if we are nice to him he will cite some of his sources he used for his books. Even if he doesn't, having the prose gives us something to look for to add cites.Richard-of-Earth (talk)07:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course self citing is allowed. If his edits are good for the encyclopedia, what should we care what his supposed motive might be?Paul August☎12:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, writing the articleAlice Diamond, is certainly a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. Can we please try not to drive away useful contributors to our encyclopedia.? Please?Paul August☎13:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Paul August: Ah yes, an article with questionable notability whose only sources were written by the person being discussed. "Useful" is certainly debatable. We don't allow self-promotion and it is quite clear that this person is only here to promote themselves and their book by any means necessary. --Majora (talk)18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Richard-of-Earth and Paul August. We're always telling people that if they want their research to be included on Wikipedia, they'll have to get it published in a reliable source first. Well, he's done that.EEng22:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with above. Unless there is something actually *wrong* with the edits concerned. Merely being self-cited isnt a problem. Info only being sourced to a single reference may be undue, but from a quick look there doesnt appear to be anything controversial as such. As long as the references are from a RS as we define it for the content concerned, it ultimately doesnt matter who added it. The first question that should be asked is "Would this be an issue if a different editor was adding the information?"Only in death does duty end (talk)10:21, 23 January 2017 (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.
Prizes fan has been trying to add a personal website about a single issue to theState Bar of Texas article. They've been discussing it with me on my talk page over the weekend buttheir post this morning included a clear legal threat. They disagree with my view and I've pointed them to the article talk page and various noticeboards to get alternate views and wasn't expecting "...you will be reported and litigation may very well emerge until you are dealt with like you deserve." I'm done with this individual, please review and handle as needed.Ravensfire (talk)15:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
PerWP:NLT, I have blocked the user for this threat. Should they rescind the threat, I will be happy to remove the block, or have another admin do such. That's about as clear of a threat that I can see. The "we are on the verge of reporting you" line also makes me believe this is an account used by more than one person, which of course is also not allowed.RickinBaltimore (talk)15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I've reopened this thread based on the comment left here by Prizes Fan:[61]. It would appear that they not only don't recognize the issue in their legal threat, but doubled down in their threat of a subpoena. As I indef'd the user I'm involved, however would this warrant the blocking of talk page access as well now, and have the user go toWP:UTRS for an unblock request?RickinBaltimore (talk)13:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this warrants the removal of talk page access. They've had it explained to them that legal threats are not permitted, they've had a link to the specific policy. They responded by violating policy, again, and making it clear that their interactions will be tendentious and disruptive, even if limited to their talk page. So block TPA to put a stop tothat disruption and let UTRS turn down their unblock request.MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.14:05, 24 January 2017 (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.
Followalltherules would seem to need talk page access revoked
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.
UserCurly Turkey added an unprofessional comment onto my talk page and used profanities over a dispute with another administrator who believes that a bass guitarist who plays on 2 tracks on an album cannot be listed in the credits even though I had another admin agree with me and revert his edits. His comment is as follows:
I hope you're not going to start another edit war over this shit, SuddenDeth—especially not on a Featured Article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 24 January 2017 (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 was accused of vandalism after a single edit (addingWP:Advert tag to an article I felt was written in a blatantly biased manner; [see diff]), and subsequently threatened with a block byJim1138 for said edit, without so much as the courtesy of asking me why I tagged it. My edit history is there for the Wikiworld to see, and I implore any and all who might reply to this to do so. I rarely make contentious edits, never tenditious ones and, though accused of edit warring last week by another editor (Garchy), I didn't come anywhere nearWP:3RR (result: blocked!). Also, IMO, Garchy breachedWP:BADGER (specifically, "Wikihounding") by reverting ***every single edit I made on 18 January***. Garchy didn't once ask about any edits, but rather, reverted them wholesale. Feel free to peruse the diffs below to decidenot if my edits were acceptable, but whether they were so egregious as to warrant running me down roughshod instead of Garchy making the slightest attempt to suss outWP:CONCENSUS:
Meters injected himself into this "edit war" (by all means, you decide who was "warring"!) in a most biased and rude way, again invoking the threat of blocking with no good reason. That user also resorted to Wikihounding, reverting [edit] 4 minutes later. Even as I was adding an edit summary, Meters was here having me blocked (which I learned of when I tried to save it...buh-bye content!). Again, no questions asked of me, no opportunity to explain or defend myself.
PPS: I used some unsavoury language at several points in the exchanges above, and would even concede that some of it could be considered abusive. I'm happy to talk about apologies, just as soon as the others involved are ready to make theirs.184.145.42.19 (talk)17:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Your first sentence is not supported by the diff you provided. You said that Jim1138 accused you of vandalism when he reverted you. When you check the diff where he reverts you, at no point does his edit summary contain the word "vandalism". I'm afraid after noting that discrepancy it greatly effects the credibility of whatever you may have said afterwards. Could you please link to a diff where Jim1138 uses the word vandalism to describe that edit? --Jayron3217:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
On my [page]. Is there anywhere else one might threaten to block someone? Above diff is to show the edit itself, so people like yourself can decide if it was a good-faith edit or not.184.145.42.19 (talk)17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring tothis edit, it's most definitely not a good-faith edit. "Revert at your peril, motherfucker" has no place in an edit summary. As to the removal of the content itself, I'd suggest it, too, is inappropriate but it's certainly possible others would disagree. --Yamla (talk)17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you make more productive suggestions. I've reined in my anger for the moment, in the hopes of engaging the process as it is. Blocking me at this point would be incredibly petty. As I said above, LOOK AT MY EDITS!184.145.42.19 (talk)17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I most assuredly will tell you I have looked at your edits. You're edit warring, attacking other users, and refusing to discuss any changes you are making to articles. If you can't rein in your anger to work collaboratively, then maybe this project isn't suited for you.RickinBaltimore (talk)17:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
this edit removed cited content. Also, please read the edit summary - "Revert at your peril, motherfucker."
I've acknowledged the inappropriateness of the edit summaries, among other things. That doesn't negate the edit. "Cited content" /= NPOV!184.145.42.19 (talk)18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
this edit added an advert tag to an article that did not fitWP:ADVERT. After being reverted by this editor it was again removed byanother editor.
this edit was reverted by myself and one other editor, but in hindsight probably should have been allowed to stay.
this andthis appeared to go against other edits on the page and page consensus.
I did not revert the editors edits "wholesale", but did do a check of their editing history and removed edits that I found to be disruptive or not positive for the encyclopedia. Plenty of other editors also handled these reverts. I'm happy to answer any other questions.Garchy (talk)17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no questions of you, just as you had none of me when you reverted every single edit I made in a day. Diffs say it all, even if your fellow editors prefer to focus on edit summaries rather than the articles themselves. Whatever, man.184.145.42.19 (talk)18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm being bold. Don't like it? report the fuck out of me, goof. I'll get a new IP tomorrow. Cheers. Someone kindly block this duck, close this, and let's move on with our lives.TimothyJosephWood18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that: I duplicated the page content in a recent edit: I've undone it now, but some other people's edits may have been lost. --The Anome (talk)18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"We"??? No, Garchy. I'm talking specifically about you making comments for the sake of point-scoring. Please keep it to your edits and interactions with me. Whatever my feelings on others' opinions here, they're all surely capable of reading what's here without you adding snark.184.145.42.19 (talk)18:20, 24 January 2017 (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.
One more tidbit I just saw now, which I daresay proves my edits were mostly or entirely Kosher: Garchy's own words! You can scroll up to the section on this page with my IP at the section title. Sorry, I'm not sure how to present this...
"Thanks all - I just woke up to see the work that has been done. I looked at my reverts, there were a few I did hastily and which didn't need to be done (I must have gone a little overboard while reverting the disruptive edits), but then again the IP editor was a bit of a handful - I'll not revert the good ones back, and it looks like the others were handled already. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)"184.145.42.19 (talk)18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sock blocked, page de-hijacked, and dab returned to its previous title. NinjaRobotPirate hard at work with his new tools. Efficient, methodical, and bold...and that one guy thought "NinjaRobotPirate" was an inappropriate name for an admin! ;)(non-admin closure)Snowlet's rap08:51, 24 January 2017 (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.
Randomly came acrossJ. P. Maroney today. Originally, it was a disambiguation page that was hijacked several months ago by what I assume to be aHighstakes00 sock,Areaskz. The user replaced the dab's content with the biography of a business person, moved it, then redirected the original title (Jannābī) toAbu Sa'id al-Jannabi). Could someone please restore the original disambiguation?Sro23 (talk)03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I sorted it. I blocked Areaskz as a sock of Highstakes00, undid the page hijacking, and move the disambiguation page back to its old title. The biography does not exist any more. Technically, Maroney's article wasn't really deleted, since it wasn't ever "officially" created in the first place. Regardless, if people want me to cite a speedy deletion criteria, I would say it fitsWP:G5, a creation by a blocked or banned user. This seems the most obvious solution to the problem, but I can recreate the BLP if necessary.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)07:54, 24 January 2017 (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.
My main objection is to Volunteer Marek using reverts to get his way when the consensus on the talk page appears to be against him. My secondary objection is to Volunteer Marek improperly turning a widely held but disputed opinion about a subjective assertion into an established fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should not conclude that the editing was misleading. We should report that multiple reliable sources have come to that conclusion (and add any reliable sources that disagree if we can find them).
Note 2: A discretionary sanctions alert was posted byUser:Ks0stm on 13 December 2016.[71]
Note 3: Looking at the bigger picture, Volunteer Marek does alot of editing in areas relating to the recent US presidential election. I would like a set of uninvolved eyes look at that edit history and determine whether we have a POV problem -- I don't trust my own judgement because I am involved in a content dispute with him. --Guy Macon (talk)22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Er "He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited" is an objective fact that can be stated in wikivoice. The article contains more than enough sources to support it. 'some of which have received criticism for being selectively edited' is weaselly when you consider the ACORN and NPR videos. O'Keefe was found on multiple occasions to have selectively edited videos in order to push an agenda or distort the truth.Only in death does duty end (talk)22:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
How is whether a video is selectively edited an objective fact? How is doing so in order to push an agenda or distort the truth an objective fact? Whether someone pushes an agenda or distorts the truth is innately a subjective value judgement. In this case, it is a widely held subjective value judgement and should be reported as such. --Guy Macon (talk)23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Surely this will result in rational discussion among disinterested editors, and not at all a dog pile of everyone who has ever edited in these topic areas predictably falling in on their pre-established sides.TimothyJosephWood22:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. [Tiredly.] She's not allowed to edit Wikipedia space. She knows it. Bad 'zilla! But she makes a point. I suggest everybody discuss on article talk.Bishonen |talk23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
It's disruptive to bring a pure content dispute to ANI and then rehash the content dispute with a misleading cherrypicked excerpt to troll for what OP apparently knew would be a pile-on. Withdraw? Boomerang?SPECIFICOtalk23:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it okay if I just ignore this? I'm tired and this is obviously misrepresenting the situation. First, GM makes it sound like I'm the only one who objected to these changes, which isnt the case. Second, as GM himself notes, there's no 3RR violation here and this has been discussed on talk extensively - so why exactly is he bringing this here?Volunteer Marek (talk)23:30, 24 January 2017 (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.
TenBingo (talk·contribs) is targeting every single one of my edits that he can revert, apparently in an attempt to harass me( I don't know why). His following harassment and destructive edits are here
Given the unexplained reversions of your talk page posts and article additions with sources I tend to agree.TenBingo, you need to explain your reasoning or stay away from Petergstrom. --NeilNtalk to me18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours. Any other admin may unblock if TenBingo comes up with a sensible reason for his persistent reversion of Petergstrom, but we can't just let him carry on doing that. There may also be aWP:CIR issue as regarding English as a first language i.e.[72]Black Kite (talk)19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the block. This is definitely unacceptable and indicative of blatant harassment. If harassment like this continues after the user's block expires, I haveno problem instating an indefinite block without further warning.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)19:53, 24 January 2017 (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.
Disruption by Francis Schonken
Closing. I don't know what this morass has become, but it doesn't seem to be about FS any longer, who isn't editing anyway. AN/I is not for arguing out protracted content disputes. If you think the IP is a sock or meatpuppet, there is a place to report that. Otherwise, nothing is being accomplished here and the vast majority of the text is just the participants continuing their arguments. --Laser brain(talk)16:39, 23 January 2017 (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 have been creating content on a long articleConcerto transcriptions (Bach) for a while with perhaps 500 edits. It had an "in use" tag on it a few hours ago. Francis Schonken, who has beenTracking my edits for the last few months, was therefore aware that I was writing a huge amount of content there. I have been over the past 7 or 8 years one of the main contributors to articles on Bach's organ music; these pieces fall into that category. Francis Schonken has vandalised the article in the last few hours in an aggressive way. He did not give any warning. None at all. This was a very long article.
Could an administrator please restore the article that I was editing? I cannot even find the editing history.
It was a long article entitledConcerto transcriptions (Bach). Francis Schonken's editing on Bach-related articles was restricted before for tendentious editing on articles and their talk pages, mostly related to Bach's religious music. Those restrictions should probably be reinstated and strengthened. This editing might even warrant a block. Francis Schonken has shifted around a huge amount of content that I was creating. His aggressive actions show that he is not interested in helping the reader and indded is trying to stop me editing.
I cannot even find my editing history on the article onConcerto transcriptions (Bach) because of thr games he's been playing. He waits until the middle of the noght Europen time to make these disruotive edits. That is what is just happened. I will try to restore the article I was editing but would like help from an administrator. Perhpas the easiest wasy is to block his editing and then somehow restore the article.Mathsci (talk)05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: It must have been obvious when I made the filing that I was still correcting the original report, prepared in a state of consternation. While that was happening other editors started commenting, without allowing me time to proof-read this and then notify Francis Schonken.Mathsci (talk)08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: At this point, I believe the continuing conflict between FrancisSchonken and Mathsci, which boiled over in May 2016 and has merely accelerated since then ([73],[74],[75],[76],[77]), needs to go to ArbCom. It has lasted too long, and has still not improved despite a resultant 6-month 1RR editing restriction on Francis Schonken, who started right back on his apparent hounding of Mathsci when the 6 months ended. I'm not necessarily taking sides here; although I sense that Francis has normally been the aggressor, Mathsci has his own inopportune behaviors that exacerbate the situation. I would possibly normally in this sort of case recommend an IBAN, but I don't think that is going to work in this situation, since we have two classical-music knowledgeable editors whose contributions are usually good when they are not at each others' throats, and their editing paths may seemingly of necessity cross. I think at this point a good and thorough forensic analysis of who has done what, and why and how, needs to be done, in order to come up with solutions that work best for the encyclopedia. I would like to invite two neutral and experienced editors,Voceditenore andJohnuniq, to opine here, as they have seen some of this unfolding and have effectively opined about it here on ANI in the past.Softlavender (talk)06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have restoredConcerto transcriptions (Bach) myself having found out where it was put. There was no controversial content; I have been busy in Cambridge University Library reading reference sources on Vivaldi on the concertos transcribed. These volumes are not available on the web (they have detailed comments on hand written copies and transcriptions). The pattern of ofHOUNDING is clear enough and has been described at WikiProject Classical Music (where Softlavender commented before). Francis Schonken made no comments there. He asked about a musical genre which is not current. In the past atWP:RSN he has been told not use primary sources, only secondary sources. His current editing looks like some kind of new stunt. Howeverem the article is restored. I will content adding content to it and the related summary content concerned on the 9 Vivaldi concertos Bach transcribed (the articleL'estro Armonico).Mathsci (talk)06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"Concerto transcriptions (Bach)". IfUser:Doug Weller or another administrator is around, could they please help? I am not quite sure what happened. I probably made a careless error somewhere. It is the main article on wikipedia discussing those transcriptions. I chose the short title. This is OK, but not as short and snappy as I would like. Francis Schonken's intention was to cause distress not to help the reader.Mathsci (talk)06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Although this issue seems to have been needlessly complicated. FS started the article at Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) on 15th December and the Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach) on the 25th December. On the 31st december Mathsci redirected the Weimar article elsewhere as a POV Fork (It wasnt a fork by the standard definition at that point although arguably it is a 'fork' of content included at the latter article.) and it goes through a number of other redirects/moves before pointing at Concerto transcriptions. If the intended sole article location is to be 'Concerto transcriptions (Bach)' please start a formal move request, as at this point its just getting ridiculous.Only in death does duty end (talk)12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have this vivid recollection of Francis Schonken having been topic-banned or something like that for moving articles without discussion. I find a reprimand byBoing! said Zebedee in the talk page archive,here, and I'm sure there's more. As far as I'm concerned Francis Schonken should be barred from making any moves at all (or forking content, re-forking content, renaming articles).Drmies (talk)18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The problematic editing has not improved. All that has happened is that most of his edits are related to topics I edit. He has abandoned editing cantatas and mainly edits in the subjects close to my long established interests (e.g. Bach organ music and more generally my repertoire as a keyboard player/organist/accompanist).Mathsci (talk)22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the content because I have not edited classical music. I will comment that I have seen both editors,User:Mathsci andUser:Francis Schonken, pop up on these drama boards in the past. My most recent encounter was of disruption of thedispute resolution process by Mathsci. Francis Schonken filed a request for moderated dispute resolution atthe dispute resolution noticeboard. Mathsci deleted it. While dispute resolution is voluntary, and an editor may decline to take part, deleting the request is a violation oftalk page guidelines. I restored but archived the filing, and advised that aRequest for Comments would be in order. Francis Schonken then asked what to do because Mathsci had deleted the RFC, which is similarly a violation of talk page guidelines and is disruptive. I advised that RFCs should not be deleted. As I said, I am not familiar with the content dispute, and Francis Schonken may indeed be disruptive, but Mathsci's conduct was also disruptive. I would optimistically suggest that these editors could requestformal mediation. Otherwise topic bans may be necessary, and neither editor is clean.Robert McClenon (talk)21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
See above. As Drmies says, Francis Schonken has a history of disruption. You have been told that before atWT:DRN: you were told explicitly about his editing restrictions, but you chose to ignore it. Please then read what happened that resulted in his editing restrictions. Before his disruptive conduct was directed at many people. Now he finds it more convenient to have me as the sole target of his disruption, following some of the topics I have edited for 7 or 8 years. Here he took this anodyne carefully written article, still in the course of creation:
All the editing history was lost. That was disruptive editing. This is the kind of content I createBWV 596. I believe it is fairly well written and it certainly does not require mediation.Mathsci (talk)22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Mathsci - It is true that atWP:DRN you told me thatUser:Francis Schonken had a history of disruption. That is true. (It also true that Mathsci has a history of disruption.) It is true that I chose to ignore the statement about a history of disruption, because DRN is a content forum, not a conduct forum. In the specific case, Francis Schonken tried to request discussion of content issues at DRN, and Mathsci deleted the post, which was a violation of talk page guidelines, and then I restored and archived it as a declined dispute. Then there was a lengthy discussion at the DRN talk page, but the DRN talk page isn't either a place to discuss content (discuss it at the DRN project page) or a place to discuss conduct. We are discussing conduct here atWP:ANI. I still see a content dispute and conduct issues. Sometimes discussing content in an orderly fashion can mitigate conduct disputes. I still think that the only two feasible alternatives are formal mediation or topic bans.Robert McClenon (talk)19:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The first appropriated a vast amount of material newly created by me over a few days that I was still in the process of writing (e.g. this content:BWV 596). The copying-pasting obliterated the editing history. The second was a page move shifting that newly created content to another title. The third blanked all that content at the new title. The fourth moved the talk page at that new title to the talk page where the newly created material had been moved. This was disruptive editing.
The request atWP:DRN by Francis Schonken was a frivolous request about the articleL'estro Armonico. Francis Schonken said harvnb format could not be used on the references. He also said that no content could be added on Anne Dawson's Book because it was a primary source. He also did not want to use secondary sources for writing the content. These were by the top Vivaldi scholars, namely a 1999 preface to the work by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and a 2010 essay by Michael Talbot. I have written that content now. Normal editing, nothing unusual, no POV pushing, just anodyne content. Francis Schonken has a history of making frivolous requests at noticeboards, e.g. atWP:RSN where he prolonged the discussion for 3 weeks and ignored all advice. You were the person who told me to make a report atWP:ANI if I thought there was any disruption. The disappearance of new content overnight, content never before on wikipedia, is not something I've ever seen before.Mathsci (talk)20:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: For the record, I'd like to confirm that Francis Schonken has an extensive history of disruption, which in my opinion at this point is quite damaging to the project. Something needs to be done, as nothing seems to alter his behavior for the better, and even after admonishments and sanctions, he reverts to disruptive behaviors. This is unfortunate, because he is able to contribute constructively, but often chooses to pick battles and be non-collaborative and downright vindictive instead. Maybe an ArbCom case on Francis alone is in order.Softlavender (talk)01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I would have closed this case with the following comments but as it's only be open for barely 24 hours, I'll leave time for further comment from admins and established users. Neither of these editors is a stranger to ourBlocking Policy, for their behaviour.
I think most appropriate would a single final warning toFrancis Schonken who must now take note that further disruption can, and probably will, engender a very long immediate block by any admin, and that will not even need the services of theArbitration Committee.
Also a reminder goes out toMathsci ofWP:OWN and that we are not here to resolve content issues - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and he should be mindful about the use of the term ‘peanut gallery’ when with so few contributors to this thread it could be considered a directWP:PA at clearly identifiable, well established and respected non-admins.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
To be fairKudpung part of that "peanut gallery" comment may have something to do with my near literal re-write of their original post[83] and JKudlick's posting AN/I notification within a few minutes of the post being created. Mathsci may have felt a bit bombarded by our quick-reflex responses. I want to say that "show preview" exists for a reason, but, that's bridge under the water for me now.Mr rnddude (talk)14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I second Softlavender's confirmation of FS's extensive history of disruption. Apart from my chiming in at the random intervals when his name shows up on ANI, I have seen him behave very disruptively onTalk:Pontius Pilate's wife, at which article he removed a bunch of justified maintenance tags without addressing the issues and appeared to show a severe lack of understunding of proper sourcing standards, and atWikipedia talk:Verifiability, where he expressed sympathy for users twisting what their sources say and was very hostile while doing it (to the point of briefly making me want to take a wikibreak).Hijiri 88 (聖やや)01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Note toKudpung: Francis has a habit of not responding to these ANI threads, so it might be advisable to post your admonishment on his talk page where he can see it. Even though you pinged him, there's no actual proof that he has read your message.Softlavender (talk)06:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have undone the non-administrative close by Robert McClenon. He has so far shown no idea about my content editing. He made personal attacks on me above. Given the biased unsupported comments he has made here, which are not reflected in what other administrators have said, please could an administrator without his prejudies close this thread, possibly waiting until Francis Schonken reaapears on wikipedia. Thanks,Mathsci (talk)
Note that I erroneously thought Robert McClenon had closed this thread (as indicated by the comment above and my edit summary). I stupidly thought I was reverting that close, because I had misread the diff, which I mistook for a close. I have thanked Jaron32 for reverting my edit and apologised to him for my stupid error.[84] I have scored through the comment above. I apologise unreservedly to Robert McClenon for mistaking his new section for a non-administrative close. It was a very stupid mis-reading by me.Mathsci (talk)20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments and Proposals
User:Kudpung admonished bothUser:Francis Schonken andUser:Mathsci that neither of them was a stranger to Wikipedia’sblocking policy. When I said that both Francis Schonken and Mathsci have histories of disruption, I meant precisely that they both have lengthy block logs. Maybe Mathsci will say that they have learned from their mistakes and are a more collaborative editor than in the past. If so, good. (Some editors don’t have to be indeffed three times to learn to edit collaboratively.) I do see thatUser:Softlavender says that the current conduct of Francis Schonken is disruptive, that a strong warning is needed, and that unfortunately this dispute may need to go toarbitration. I still see conduct issues by both editors. I haven’t researched the content dispute, and the lengthy history of the content dispute is a reason why it may be necessary to have a quasi-judicial inquiry. However, this noticeboard needs to try to resolve this case without arbitration.Robert McClenon (talk)18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I had suggested, and knew that I was being optimistic, that this content dispute be resolved by formal mediation. I see that Mathsci has rejected that idea. The question now is how to resolve this conduct dispute (since content resolution has failed). I see three possibilities. First, if we have confidence in the community of administrators, give both editors one last chance with a warning that any further disruption will result in an indefinite block. Second, give both editors one last chance, with a warning that any further disruption should go to ArbCom, knowing that an indefinite block from ArbCom is aSite Ban. Third, cut the Gordian knot now and give both editors a three-month topic-ban from classical music, and see if more reasonable editors can deal with the articles, with the knowledge that any further disruption, whether by these two editors or by other editors, will need to go to ArbCom.Robert McClenon (talk)18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You did not reply above to my comments. I wrote
The request atWP:DRN by Francis Schonken was a frivolous request about the articleL'estro Armonico. Francis Schonken said harvnb format could not be used on the references. He also said that no content could be added on Anne Dawson's Book because it was a primary source. He also did not want to use secondary sources for writing the content. These were by the top Vivaldi scholars, namely a 1999 preface to the work by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and a 2010 essay by Michael Talbot. I have written that content now. Normal editing, nothing unusual, no POV pushing, just anodyne content. Francis Schonken has a history of making frivolous requests at noticeboards, e.g. atWP:RSN where he prolonged the discussion for 3 weeks and ignored all advice. You were the person who told me to make a report at WP:ANI if I thought there was any disruption. The disappearance of new content overnight, content never before on wikipedia, is not something I've ever seen before.
and that is what I meant. Francis Schonken was being disurptive in saying "Anne Dawson's Book" could not be explained in an article. There are sources that explain it by the scholarsMichael Talbot and Eleanor Selfridge-Field. The current article says the following:
TheRyom-Verzeichnis, explained in detail in the two volumesRyom (1986) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRyom1986 (help) andRyom (2007) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRyom2007 (help), contains a summary of the known surviving publications, handwritten manuscript copies and arrangements of the concertos. Of these eight were arranged by Bach: three of those for solo violin were arranged for harpsichord; two double violin concertos for organ (two keyboards and pedal); and one of the concertos for four violins was arranged for four harpsichords and orchestra. Four further keyboard arrangements appear in Anne Dawson's book, an English anthology dating from around 1720 of arrangements for clavichord, virginal or harpsichord prepared by an unknown hand. AsRyom (1986, pp. 616–617) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRyom1986 (help) points out, the fifth concerto Op.3, No.5, RV 519, is the unique concerto to have resulted in so many transcriptions: these are described in detail inTalbot (2010) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFTalbot2010 (help).
and then later:
Anne Dawson's Book, part of a bequest of baroque musical manuscripts now held in theHenry Watson Music Library inManchester, contains arrangements for single-manual instrument of the following concertos:
Op.3, No.5, RV 519 (2 violins, violoncello)
Op.3, No.7, RV 567 (4 violins)
Op.3, No.9, RV 230 (solo violin)
Op.3, No.12, RV 265 (solo violin)
Selfridge-Field describes these as replacing "the virile acrobatics of Vivaldi'sviolino principale [by] the gentle graces of virginal ornamentation: shakes, coulées, long apoggiaturas, and so forth."
These are standard edits to an article on baroque music. Just like these:
Nothing contentious, nothing controversial. (It took two or three days to create the audio file from scratch.) Presumably that is part of my history of disruptive editing. You did not that have the courtesy to reply to my comments where I made them, presumably because it would upset your case that I am a reasonably skilled content editor.BWV 39,BWV 1044,BWV 1052,BWV 1053,BWV 1055,BWV 1017.BWV 1019,BWV 611,BWV 632 andBWV 596 are all examples of that, the last three fairly recent.Mathsci (talk)20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, as explained above and below, this was an error I made in misreading a diff and thinking I was reverting a non-administrative close. Sorry about that error. See above and below. If you want to remove this section and the one below, please do so. They do not seem to serve any purpose.Mathsci (talk)20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. However, I would take exception to having any of this material removed, because the removal of talk page threads causes confusion and is usually more disruptive than whatever was said in the first place. By the way, this thread still does need an administrative close.Robert McClenon (talk)21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
However, since Mathsci clearly doesn’t want to hear my comments, and is claiming that I haven’t answered his questions (which I have),WP:IDHT, I am finished with this thread unless an administrator requests my re-involvement.Robert McClenon (talk)19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
As explained above, I misread the diff of your edit and thought you had made a non-administrative close. Many apologies for that. The comment I wrote above (now scored though) indicated that. The error does not mean that I do not want to read your comments. Again apologies for making the error.Mathsci (talk)20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, we already have an admonishment by Kudpung that:
I think most appropriate would [be] a single final warning toFrancis Schonken who must now take note that further disruption can, and probably will, engender a very long immediate block by any admin, and that will not even need the services of the Arbitration Committee.
There was no similar block admonishment to Mathsci. Since you have not researched Francis Schonken's very long and very extensive history of disruption (against many editors and articles/pages, not just against Mathsci), I think you are misreading the situation. Francis is the aggressor, and Mathsci has merely been reacting, not always in the best way, but there is only so much aggressive hounding one editor can take without losing their cool and doing something unwarranted. I don't personally think this "Comments and Proposals" section is warranted or necessary. ISupport Kudpung's proposal of an immediate indefinite block of Francis Schonken (with standard offer), if he continues to disrupt the project or continues to hound Mathsci.Softlavender (talk)06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to accept the judgment of others who have more of the situation than I have. I have reported on what I have reported and am willing to accept the opinion of the community.Robert McClenon (talk)07:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
IP editing talk page of Orgelbüchlein refusing to look at main secondary sources
This editor arrived out of the blue while I have been busy creating new content. I createdBWV 611, thenBWV 632 and am now in the middle ofBWV 621. There are two sources that cover these chorale preludes in detail:
Peter Williams, Organ Music of J.S, Bach, 2003, C.U.P.
Russell Stinson, Orgelbüchlein, 1999, O.U.P.
This editor has not made many edits to wikipedia. They have disclosed that they do not have access to the two main secondary sources. They have been making arbitrary comments on the talk page, not based on any sources. When I told them that, unless they had access to the sources, we couldn't really discuss the article, they decided to go toWP:DRN.User:Johnuniq aleready informed them that the points that they were making not relevant to the article and advised them to come back at a later point. That seemed like good advice. They ignored his comments. The whole thing looks very odd to me as they don't seem to know about the subject of the article,Orgelbüchlein. They have made comments about other well-known compositions of Bach (the first Schübler Chorale), but these are quite unrelated to this article. I find this a bit odd. They left a message for Francis Schonken on his talk page. That also seems odd, for a newbie.Mathsci (talk)22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to have access to sources to edit a Wikipedia page, at least not in matters of formatting, also according to an admin comment made on the talk page. I did not disregard the other user (at least, the edits I made where before he intervened), I only kept the discussion on the talk page to avoid an edit war (User Mathsci had already reverted my attempt at solving the issues I noted), and also to not disrupt the creation on content on the page (despite the fact that Mathsci does notown the page and that "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone". All my attempts at discussion were in good faith. After seeing it did not work, I went toWP:DRN in the hope of having somebody else (WP:UNINVOLVED) comment on the issue, which wasNEVER about the content of Mathsci analysises, NOR the books, but the general formatting of the page. What is wrong with going to DRN? Isn't that a good way to resolve the (very obvious) dispute we're having?
I left a message for Francis Schonken because he had posted in the discussion before and therefore could potentially be concerned.
@69.165.196.103: If you are claiming to be an old editor on a new IP (thus explaining your knowledge of obscure WP-namespace pages and your knowing to message FS), why do you citeWP:BITE? You aren't a "newbie" if you have been editing for a while and just got a new IP. Alternatively, if you are claiming to be a new editor, how do you explain your knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, and your posting on FS's talk page? You can't have it both ways.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I cited BITE because the other involved user in this dispute was acting like I was a newcomer... It was my attempt at a friendly reminder that whatever he thinks of me, we both should respect each other.69.165.196.103 (talk)05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
A specialised article like this on a collection of 46 of Bach's chorale preludes for organ—one of Bach's masterworks—can only be edited using secondary sources. The IP has been told that but refuses to accept it. They even tried to modify the title of this section. That was not helpful.
This complex article is still in the course of creation: the talk page has a section indicating which sections on individual chorale preludes are unwritten, i.e. empty shells. I have recently been creating new sections (BWV 611,BWV 632 and most recentlyBWV 621, still in process). Meanwhile the IP has made remarks completely tangential to that content -creation and indeed the content of the article. Without any concrete suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks toCatherine Winkworth, he has made no positive suggestions about the article. Instead he has made a series of constantly shifting comments on the talk page, jumping from one point to another. None of them directly relates to the content being added at the moment. And none of it is sourced. Present and future content can be found in the two sources; when he was told that, he showed no interest in looking at the sources. At one stage he accused me of original research; he retracted that accusation when I reminded him of the rubric in the article explicitly naming the two principal secondary sources on which almost all the content is based.
He admitted that he has no access to either of the secondary sources. He did say that he had the 1933 Riemenschneider musical score. And that he also has the book of John Elliott Gardiner, "Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven" which is about the cantatas. Neither of them is useful for the particular article.
The IP was given advice byUser:Johnuniq—to go and edit somewhere else for a while while the article is under construction. He has ignored that advice. He has made very few edits to wikipedia. He has made a handful of edits related to classical or early music.Mathsci (talk)03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait, really? It's off-topic for this thread, but does that mean that attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before? I think I might have something to bring to ArbCom for an unrelated case, if that's the case.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88 - You ask whether attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before. I am sure that any sort of game-playing in order to attempt to shut down an ANI thread has happened before. What actually happens is that a DRN thread can be shut down on account of an ANI thread. Maybe I misunderstood the question.Robert McClenon (talk)19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
What Mathsci wrote is (once again, sadly) false. I haven't edited anything on the article itself (beside the few edits, that were simply formatting, that were reverted by Mathsci). I actually filed the DRNBEFORE (21:55 UTC, which is 30 minutes before) I was added here. Mathsci went here afterwards. The issue was never the books or the sources. I never actually even tried to edit the content of the analysis of the chorales on the page. The issue was formatting. Somebody, please tell me, since when do I need access to sources to edit formatting? Mathsci - Could you please stop trying to create a problem and instead cool down and try to make a solution? You attacked me repeatedly (including here) - with false statements - for example, I haven't edited the actual Orgelbuchlein page since the other user told me not to - also, I clearly MYSELF said that the Gardiner book was of no use - the issue was (or I tried to make it so, before you started talking about something else) formatting.If you disagree on that, state why clearly. I'm still a human being and the conduct of Mathsci is not very polite (this is not the first time, see his user talk page...).
Now the time for quotes: (from above) "suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks toCatherine Winkworth" - It wasn't 1 or 2, but 16...
From the talk pageTalk:Orgelbüchlein#NPOV_far_from_restored - "Mathsci said above "No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book", but the issue is not all about those books. There may be other valid sources and besides issues about the appropriateness of the images, inclusion of hymn texts, etc. will not be solved by reference to the sources. Editors who have access to good sources are essential, but others may edit and discuss articles when they do not have access to those sources and core content creators don't own the article." (by Fences&Windows 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC))
"I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." - see "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"
And now, back to what I wanted to say - I tried to talk of the formatting. Instead, every single time - I mean, look at the talk page - every single time - Mathsci instead kept mentioning how he was working hard to create content and that I was disruptive (remember - I actually only made those little edits I talked about - only once) and how I ABSOLUTELY needed to have to books to even dare put a comment on the talk page... Isn't the purpose of a talk page exactly to discuss the page and how to improve it -including issues like formatting- without disrupting the main article? Ok sorry it's 1 AM here... I'll continue my defense later.69.165.196.103 (talk)05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If there is an implied possible connection toFrancis Schonken, the IP geolocates to Canada, and Francis says he lives in Europe, although he could be visiting Canada or have a meatpuppet or relative in Canada. That said, with less than 90 edits, the IP has posted on seven of the same pages that Francis has[85], with the majority (over 60%) of the edits being on the article and talkpage ofOrgelbüchlein, the main target of Francis's harassment of Mathsci. They also clearly have an immense knowledge of obscure Wikipedia essays, guidelines, policies, and noticeboards and such, despite an extremely low edit count. And why they are suddenly taking an immense interest in a multitude of finer points about theOrgelbüchlein article is rather baffling. I would keep the IP on a short leash and admonish them that continued disruption on the article talk page -- shifting what they want to talk about, prolonging unfounded accusations, failing to make accurate or implementable edit requests,failing to hear responses, and so on -- will result in a block or a page ban.Softlavender (talk)07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been wondering who is behind the IP. Due to some recent on-wiki developments, my first thought was that the IP might be someone from Wikipediocracy hoping to get a reaction from Mathsci—a reaction that would later be used as evidence against him at ANI or Arbcom. However the simpler explanation is more likely—the IP is yet another example of the wisdom of the internet. I posted at the article talk that sinceOrgelbüchlein is being actively developed, it is pointless debating how many links should be used or whether particular passages have the right number of quotes. Those points are window dressing that come after significant development has finished. I am watching the page and my suggestion is that any commentary that is not for an actionable proposal regarding significant issues should be politely ignored. There are lots of other articles where the IP's expertise could be demonstrated and a running commentary on perceived formatting flaws is not needed. Regarding this report, unfortunately the IP's disruption is part ofanyone can edit and is unlikely to reach a sanctionable level. Just ignore it.Johnuniq (talk)09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I presume you are using the phrase "the wisdom of the internet" ironically. And yes, I think there's generally no point in even replying to nonsense, especially if it is excessively drawn out or repeated, or constantly changes its tune, invokes every wikilaw under the sun, and/or runs to noticeboards. At worst the article itself can be semi-protected if the disruption moves back there.Softlavender (talk)09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not, in any way, related to Francis Schonken. I'm a musician from Canada (so that's maybe why I edit articles about music...) who happened to stumble upon the Orgelbuchlein page, notice some issues, and since I saw that one editor seemed to be doing a lot of work on the article, took it to the talk page. Now, how is what I am saying nonsense? All I have said is verifiable and true if you look at the talk page - I brought the issue of formatting (I concede, it is a minor issue) in the hope the we could reach a consensus (since Mathsci had reverted my previous edits). It didn't work. Now I went to DRN in the hope that someone not involved would be able to help resolve the issue. I do not see how whatever I did is disruptive - I didn't edit the article after the reverts, since it clearly would only read to further reverts, and instead I kept the issue to the talk page. As such, I'll agree to stop posting on the Orgelbuchlein talk page if Mathsci agrees - as per hisown talk page - to calmly resolve this current dispute and stop overracting.69.165.196.103 (talk)15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The 5 edits of the IP toDie sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations inBWV 621. The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages, e.g. {{lang|de|Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund}}, and writes edit summaries in German. This is not a new editor. The suggestion that after over 920 edits toOrgelbüchlein, some major secondary source might have been missed is completely untenable. As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms toWP:HOUND. Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny, the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request atWP:DRN) and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation, I think it would be reasonable to block the IP for some period.Mathsci (talk)20:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I never suggested that you missed some major secondary source. Please, see that talk page. The 4 issues I mentioned were, in this order: 1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possible to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format). 2. and 3. Formatting, perWP:OLINK andWP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least. 4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus. None of those issues require access to the sources Mathsci mentioned.I admit I did make a mistake by answering to your question about content without having access to the sources - which was a bad reaction on my part to the dispute we were having - that does not deserve a ban.
Now, your response, analyzed sentence by sentence: "The 5 edits of the IP toDie sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations inBWV 621." - It's clearly different content, the translation is not the same and it's clearly identified as being from another source - thus not forked content. Why the constantad hominems? Good faith, please?
"and writes edit summaries in German." I wrote that one in German because the editor who put the language tag had, as edit summary, "deutscher", which is clearly German, so that is only good practice to make sure that it was understood.
"The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages" - No I didn't, before clicking on {{lang}}, which was in the article, and reading the information there. See? No need for a university degree to understand that.
"As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms toWP:HOUND." - No. I have edited, indeed, according the thelink provided - seven of the same pages as FS - including this page (strangely...), his talk page (to inform him of the DRN), the JS Bach talk page (for absolutely unrelated things), the Orgelbuchlein page (for apparently unrelated things), BWV 29 (for unrelated things, again), the DRN (for, as of yet, 2 unrelated topics - he hasn't yet responded to my DRN request because it's on hold) and, yes, the OB talk page (the only one we both edited recently) - he tried to contribute to the discussion and Mathsci insteadattacked him and told him he was disruptive. Also, perthis, Mathsci also edited some of the same pages as me...
"Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny," I am not using an IP to avoid scrutiny - I am from Canada and your "opponent" is from Europe (alsoWP:COLLAB) - I am trying to collaborate to solve an issue - why are you overreacting?
"the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request atWP:DRN)" - The dispute is legitimate, I tried talking things on the talk page but it didn't work, therefore I went for an uninvolved party to hope to resolve the situation about the formatting. Note that this is similar to other behaviour by Mathsci - accusing those he disagrees with of "causing disruption" - for exampletitle=Talk%3AOrgelb%C3%BCchlein&type=revision&diff=758100954&oldid=758053274 here where he cleearly accuses FS of being disruptive even though the latter provided a valid point for the discussion.
"and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation," - I didn't bring the dispute here, Mathsci did byaccusing me of being a sockpuppet, lacking experience, being from "Wikipediocracy" (whatever that is, doesn't sound nice).
@Mathsci:Peace Treaty Proposal So, I will try to end this reasonably and calmly and peacefully. Nobody is perfect. I probably have been overzealous on some issues regarding the OB page - which we discussed (without reaching consensus) on the talk page. To amend that, I propose that another, independent and uninvolved editor review the issue and determine whether there is indeed an issue withWP:OLINK. Both of us could have better behaved ourselves on the talk page - I don't say that we are both equally to blame, but neither of us is blameless, for sure. My excuses. I do not recommend any course of action on this, as I'd rather leave that to somebody else. I hope this is enough to solve this issue without resorting to further verbal abuse. Do you agree that we can come to resolve this without threatening bans or other overreactions?69.165.196.103 (talk)21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender and Johnuniq have given an accurate assessment in this section of the editing by the IP. That the IP was tracking my edits while I was editingBWV 621 is also shown by their edits to the wikilink for Soprano clef inClef, used twice inOrgelbüchlein. Johnuniq has suggested that the IP be ignored. Their request atWP:DRN, which involves Johnuniq, will therefore have to be removed.Mathsci (talk)22:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
NO. The request atWP:DRN should not be removed, although it is on hold. Requests atWP:DRN should not be removed except in unusual circumstances as pertalk page guidelines, such as if they are made by sockpuppets. The request at DRN is on hold; leave it on hold, please.Robert McClenon (talk)02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You are chasing ghosts.WP:LETGO, for one. Second, there's absolutely no link between the soprano clef being used in BWV 621 and the good faith edit I made on the soprano clef section (have you even looked at what the edit was - besides the summary???) - you don't even have a history of editing "Clef".... While we're at it -ad absurdum - the soprano clef is used in the manuscript of every Bach cantata, therefore the edit I made on BWV 29, is, if we follow your line of reasoning, an attempt to disrupt you (note - this is irony). The edit I made on the talk page if FAR from being disruptive. Softlavender and Johnuniq couldNOT have given an accurate assessment, because they seem to have based their understanding of the situation on the demonstrable exaggerated, proven false (see my preceding post) statements of Mathsci. I do not wish to be agressive - I didn't even start this ANI thread, I instead tried to go for DRN because that seemed more appropriate and less agressive, for one. WHY, why are you still clearly belligerent when I'm trying to solve the issue - I clearly am not intent in destroying you or the work you did or whatever. Actually, all of the edits I made to date on all articles (except the 3 or 4 on the OB, which you reverted for yet to be clarified reasons) have been constructive, content improving edits. Could we please stop this drama board discussion and just cool off? (note to admins: Please close discussion)69.165.196.103 (talk)23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The probability that the text I was editing—"Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund"—should suddenly appear in the IP's edits is zero. Likewise that the use of soprano clef on the Tabalatura image should suddenly appear in the IP's edits. Softlavender and Johnuniq have accurately described the IP's editing. The IP's response has beenWP:IDHT. My steady editing of Orgelbüchlein continues (now startingBWV 612).Mathsci (talk)00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Ahem. I put an "in process" mark next to BWV 621 on the to-do list on the article talk page at 00:35 on 13 January[87] and started editing that part of the article at 01:00 with this edit.[88] The first link to Soprano clef in the article was here[89] at 10:02 on 8 January. The fact that the IP has been tracking my edits seems clear. Just above for example the IP decided to bring up a coronary problem that arose some time back, unrelated to anything here.Mathsci (talk)08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There was nothing uncivil about the comment immediately preceding yours, unless one considers "IDHT" to be uncivil, but the whole point of IDHT is that the user against whom it is targeted is ignoring others. You are therefore not the right person to say "my response has not been IDHT" -- that is for others to decide. Your grasping at various bits of alphabet soup like this is beginning to make you look very much like a wikilawyer, and I am beginning to think you should be blocked from editing. If you are right on the article content and Mathsci is wrong, the burden is on you to demonstrate that at the appropriate venue; don't base your ANI case on your supposedly being right about article content unless you are able to prove it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on Mathsci to prove his allegations. All my edits have been properly sourced, with references where appropriate. I edited SWV 478 before he even touched BWV 621, as I already said and is easily verifiable on the respective pages history. You are also mis-interpreting my response; I was proving that my recent edits have no link with the actions of Mathsci... Let's hope he doesn't find a way to link my recent edits onIch weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt... I referred to CIVIL because Mathsci made repeated personal attacks on me... To resolve this dispute, I will accept to not edit the Orgelbuchlein page (and, for the matter, the talk page) until such time as Mathsci completes the analysis of the remaining chorales. I just expect Mathsci will cool down - I have no interest in continuing this pitched battle.69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC), edited69.165.196.103 (talk)02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci: I'll amend the proposal above - as per the comment I made above, I will back off the Orgelbuchlein talk page if, in exchange, Mathsci agrees to let somebody else (who is uninvolved) come see the issue I mentioned and act/not act/do whatever he thinks right upon it.Hopefully this brings an end to this dispute we're having over a couple of links and we can all go back to being friends.69.165.196.103 (talk)15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
We don't make deals on Wikipedia. And beyond that, at least two uninvolved editors have already looked at your edits and deemed them disruptive. It's also very clear that you are an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor.Softlavender (talk)01:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Why did the IP open a DRN case on behalf of Francis Schonken[90], who is not party to the dispute (FS only made a single post to any of the article-talk threads in question -- a suggested translation format on 3 January[91], nothing more, 12 days before the DRN case was ever filed)? Why did the IP not file the case request on behalf of himself instead? The dispute revolves around the IP's numerous and varied and ever-changing requests on the article talk page from 1 January onwards:[92]. I suggest the case be thrown out as suspect and intentionally disruptive. (Here is the live link to the case[93].) It's also very obvious, what with hisrequested deals, the silly "Peace Treaty Proposal", and the DRN he filed on someone else's behalf, not to mention the circular and endlessly disruptive posts on the article talk page, that the IP is playing a game of what Floquenbeam would call "silly buggers". --Softlavender (talk)03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I filed the proposal on my behalf, that is very clearly written: "Filed by 69.165.196.103 on 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)." FS is an involved user (by the fact, as you stated, he participated and the he was attacked by Mathsci for making a disruptive edit,[94]), so I added him. Your post is just short of being slanderous. My requests were simple, stable, and they did not change; here they are copied (again, you can go see on the original talk page[95]): "1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format). 2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. 4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus. I do not see why this battle must continue.69.165.196.103 (talk)03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You listed the "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken"[96]. Francis, having only submitted a sample translation format (12 days beforehand, in a thread unrelated to the putative disputed issues), isn't involved, so he should not have been listed. The dispute, such as it is, is between you and Mathsci, and you didn't even list yourself.Softlavender (talk)05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I only removed the bold marking on the first part of your post as it clearly brings undue atttention to a false statement: if you the DRN thread carefully it becomes clear that I am filling on my own behalf and that the issue I am talking about is effectively the one between me and Mathsci, and that as per later amendments other possibly involved users were added (WP:DRN).69.165.196.103 (talk)12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
IP, you'renot helping yourself. I noticed it a while ago but wasn't going to bring it up until you did yourself: why are you making such a big-ass deal out of a few DABLINKs? It seems like you are deliberately trying to get under Mathsci's skin and to waste his time, and grasping for any excuse to do so. This is why I think you are either FS (who hasn't logged on in five days) or a friend of his.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)12:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not true, here is your initial filing:[97] (I've listed it twice already, but if you want it again there it is). You plainly designated the two "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken".Softlavender (talk)13:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's resolve this calmly. Here's my POV of what happened - I was looking at the OB page and noticed that the translations of the chorales were not, in my opinion, good content (as can be seen in this thread[98]. Me and Mathsci had a, compared to this flame war, civil discussion, in which I ended conceding that the page in it's current format was the best that could be done; per the following quote: "Ok, I'll concede that we can't do anything about Christ ist erstanden because there doesn't seem to be a (good) translation that is in the public domain. As for In dulci jubilo, I'll concede because I can't find an elegant way to write what I want. There are some further issues with the page, but I'll take that into another discussion thread since this has gone long enough already, and it's about another subject. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)" Then, I went on and opened another discussion thread, which listed the four issues I mentioned,[99] and which I will again copy in the abbreviated form, as above:
1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy (beyond possibly requiring more than one source) - only the format). 2. and 3. Formatting, perWP:OLINK andWP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least. 4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (as opposed to only one or two verses)
I proceeded to implement part of them, but Mathsci reverted, stating "I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." The discussion did not go much further, because Mathsci then made an issue out of,one, the form of the article (which I had never mentioned and which I sadly got distracted into, mea culpa) and,two, his hard work on the article (which I had previously acknowledged "2. Also, per WP:OWNER, you do not own this article and although you might feel possessive about it, that does not mean that I (or anybody else) is barred from contributing to it. Also, disagreements should be calmly resolved, without resorting to attacks or whatever else. So, in a nutshell, great contribution on the article as a whole. However, I am merely trying to propose improvements to details that you may have overlooked." from the talk page), and which, for clarity's sake, I do again: good work on the article so far, Mathsci.
Then, I got baited into talking about another detail I hadn't mentioned ([100]). I'll summarize the conversation; Mathsci wrote "I have the choice between quoting (2 pieces for the analysis of BWV 632) Which do you think is more appropriate and why?. I answered my honest opinion, and I somehow managed to slip in a comment about it being OR since Mathsci hadn't put in any inline citations for the matter. He thus corrected the issue by adding appropriate citations. The discussion, then, instead of focusing back on the issues I mentioned, went off topic on various personal comments and such. Since I clearly did not see a way how this could end on the talk page, I filed a notice on DRN (concerning the fact I didn't identify myself:User:69.165.196.103 does not exist so I questioned how to go on that matter - I decided into not adding a link, as I though it was pretty clear that the discussion was between me and Mathsci, with possible involvment by FS and Johnuniq (whose name I forgot to add)). Concurrently (since Mathsci talk page is protected, I could not modify it to notify him of the DRN), Mathsci filed this dispute here at ANI; putting this on the OB talk page "I have reported you at WP:ANI, Obviously if you don't access to the two main sources that I use to create the content on this article, I cannot see how you can discuss the content of the article in any substantial way." In my opinion, that is besides the point - the issue was never the sources or content directly related to the sources.
Now, as for the discussion here; I won't summarize it, you have it just above for your own eyes to read (and to analyze). Basically, Mathsci accused me of being a sockpuppet, harassing him, disregarding sources (even though, in my opinion, the issues I mentioned didn't need sources) and being generally disruptive (for example, ignoring Johnuniq's proposal to go edit elsewhere, an accusation which, you look at my edits since January 12[101], is not exactly true). My defense, for all of those points, as can be seen in the comments above, is that they are unfounded, unproven accusations[102] which show signs of Mathsci overreacting. I already excused myself and provided many proposals to resolve this peacefully, including this (at the bottom of the diff)[103]; and this[104]; and this[105];
So here is my final say on this,I hope this will be enough to end this exaggerated dispute which is both my fault and that of Mathsci (albeit probably a lot of the blame falls on me for ignoring (and not knowing about) Mathsci's precedents with FS and getting involved in their grudge)). I excuse myself for the strife this has caused. As I already said, I will refrain from editing OB and it's talk page anymore. I could also prove that the sources I mentioned aren't totally irrelevant (and that some of the information within is actually relevant);but in the spirit of resolving this dispute (again, Mathsci said that I am seeking to anger him, but I do not wish to keep fighting),I will just stop and hope that the dust settles down - that this flame war ends without further harm. I invite Mathsci to answer if he believes that what I wrote is incorrect. Regards, from Canada.69.165.196.103 (talk)23:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is a complex article which is complicated to edit, as a multimedia article with detailed musical commentaries. The IP has shown no interest at all in the content. He doesn't want to look at the sources. And he has made comments on the talk page which are completely tangential to the article. He has drawn attention to complete trivia (e.g. thatCatherine Winkworth is linked several times). Softlavender has given her dispassionate opinion of all of this. Everything that she has written is 100% spot on. She has been very astute and perceptive. Likewise Johnuniq. The IP should address their comments. I agree with them. I have no specific comments on the above wall of text, except that it is tl;dr.Mathsci (talk)00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Removing [[ and </> ]] is not complicated, no matter what kind of article it is. Per the page you cite "Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter acronym. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them." If this is all you have to say, well then no further bad feelings. I will stop here, as I said in my "wall of text". I've seen enough, I don't have time to spend battling out over some stupid edit on Wikipedia with which you happen to disagree, I've got a life and work to do.THIS DISCUSSION CAN HEREBY BE CONSIDERED OVER. Regards, again, from Canada.69.165.196.103 (talk)00:58, 17 January 2017 (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.
Return to editing
As soon as this report was closed, Francis Schonken returned to editing. He followed me to a stub on a spurious work of Bach (BWV 142). In the above discussion, there were statements about Francis Schonken's editing by two administrators and bySoftlavender (talk·contribs) andJohnuniq (talk·contribs). Perhaps they could comment now.Mathsci (talk)10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Francis first edited that article in 2014 according to the history. Followed by some edits in August and October 2016, before your first edit in Jan 2017. Complaining that an editor has 'followed' you when they clearly edited the article first and likely have it on their watchlist, and you both edit in the same topic area, is misguided at best. Perhaps you should drop the stick now.Only in death does duty end (talk)10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but the obvious gaming in going dark while the above discussion was open is questionable at best. I also don't see the logic in saying that since he made some minor edits to the page years ago, it's okay to suddenly return to it as as soon as Mathsci does. There seems to be no reason to believe he has the page watchlisted, and since we know hat he was watching this discussion, we know he's at least partially monitoring Mathsci's edits. Technically, even if he did have it watchlisted, it may still be hounding if he got a notification that a page on his watchlist was edited by Mathsci, and he decided to show up there because it was Mathsci who had done it.This guy had edited a bunch of the articles he followed me to before I did, but he was still following me -- claiming that he just happened to decide to edit the pages again right after I did didn't work out well for him.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)10:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
What a mess. An hour afterFrancis Schonken (talk·contribs)'s last edit on 11 January 2017, Mathsci opened this report. Twelve days later, this ANI section was closed byLaser brain on 23 January 2017. Twelve hours later FS resumed editing including atUns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142 where Mathsci has recently been active. FS was there first, having made five edits from October 2014 to October 2016, while Mathsci's first edit was on 21 January 2017. FS is correct regarding Wikipedia procedures on some points such asremove Wikipedia editor's judgement about a source which wasrecently added by Mathsci. However, what a mess! FS added a "reception" section which Mathsci removed with a detailed explanation on talk stating emphatically that no sources discuss the reception of the work, so such a section would be OR. AGF tells us to assume that it is fine for FS to disappear while an ANI section is active and then restart at an article where Mathsci is active, but such behavior is indistinguishable from gaming the system. Something has to happen to stop the kind of interaction that has occurred where Mathsci performed 13 edits from 21 to 24 January, before FS resumed editing the page after three months.Johnuniq (talk)11:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: AGF is not asuicide pact. It's a near-certainty that FS was deliberately keeping quiet while this thread was open, especially given that it's happened before and that Mathsci pointed out that this would probably happen at the top of the thread. Yes, in theory "going dark" like this is okay, but it's obviousgaming since ANI threads against inactive users tend to get archived with no result or closed as unnecessary/punitive, and FS knows this. This exact thing having happened above --I don't know what this morass has become, but it doesn't seem to be about FS any longer,who isn't editing anyway [emphasis added] -- is no doubt going to make dealing with him even harder going forward.
And yes, in theory, having edited a page before and possibly having it on his watchlist means he was "only" hounding Mathsci by jumping straight on an article once it is edited by the latter, and not actively monitoring Mathsci's contribs page. (Your last sentence implies you basically agree with me on this point, but I wanted to emphasize it anyway, since so many people back in 2013 and even now in 2017 didn't seem to get that having a page on your watchlist doesn't excuse hounding.)
@Johnuniq: The problem is, for this huge AN/I section above, most of it is just the involved editors carrying on their arguments. There are no reasonable suggestions for courses of action that gained any traction or support. It is quite obnoxious thatFrancis Schonken disappeared while this report was open (albeit with an IP editor mysteriously taking up the mantle of battling withMathsci in the interim). Does any of this rise to the level of administrative intervention? --Laser brain(talk)12:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Laser brain: If you think the mysterious IP was FS, then FS was editing while logged out and repeatedly denying that it was him, which is socking. It's essentially the same as abusing multiple accounts, which is usually grounds for a block. I don't know enough about FS's normal editing patterns to say definitively whether I think it was him, but if it was (and lots of IPs get blocked for sockpuppetry without CU confirming it) then a short block and a warning against further socking is the administrative intervention I would recommend.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)12:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Damn. I had forgotten the meatpuppetry explanation (where LB could call the IP mysterious but not deny their good faith in claiming to be a different person) until just now. But recruiting a friend in Canada to do one's dirty work while one stays away from Wikipedia in order to give this ANI thread a "silent filibuster" (TM) is still disruptive, and probably merits either a harsh warning in the form of a warning or a harsh warning in the form of a short block (the latter option being because FS should definitely know better).Hijiri 88 (聖やや)13:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This is ridiculous - I propose a simple name change because the cantata's not by Bach (and sources presented on the talk page confirm that) andboth FS and Mathsci start a war over it. Now I will again confirm that I am from North America, more precisely Canada (see, on weekdays I edit mostly either around 7 AM Eastern or from 5-11 PM, with occasional exceptions). If you still believe that I am FS, then do positively use CU: I'm not. As for those two - there seems to be some kind of grudge between them - maybe a stern warning to both that this is not aWP:BATTLEFIELD would be the least of actions required.69.165.196.103 (talk)13:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
That was badly written, I meant over the article (FS added a (I don't have an opinion about it) new section, removed Mathsci's commentary on the sources, and then Mathsci proceeded to undo that; that's what I call (although a mild one) an edit war). A by war I also mean this argument here on ANI.69.165.196.103 (talk)23:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Re. "Mathsci's commentary on the sources":
06:13, 21 January 2017 – Mathsci introduces the Dürr 1977 source adding the POV commentary "Main source for discussion of authenticity problems" in mainspace
14:27, 21 January 2017 – IP 69.165.196.103 removes the POV qualifier "main" (so that it reads "Source for discussion of authenticity problems")
23:03, 21 January 2017 – Determined to have their POV in mainspace, Mathsci adds the the qualifier "principal" (which is the same POV as calling it the "main source")
08:15, 24 January 2017 – Francis removes the POV qualification of the source altogether, edit summary: "remove Wikipedia editor's judgement about a source"
09:43, 24 January 2017 – Mathsci reintroduces the POV about the Dürr 1977 source "principal publishedsource for discussion of authenticity problems" (my emphasis)
2, 3, 4 and 5 are reverts: two removing an unsourced POV (one by 69.165.196.103, one by Francis), and two reintroducing an unsourced POV (both of these by Mathsci, who also introduced the unreferenced POV in step 1). See alsoWP:CHALLENGE: if an unsourced statement is removed it can only be reintroduced with a reference that provides verifiability (that is a policy requirement).
Dürr, that is the sameAlfred Dürr who wrote the 1977 source, also was the editor of the last version of theBWV, known as BWV2a, in 1998. In that version of the BWV the cantata we are talking about here is in the Annex (Anhang) of the doubtful works (known as Anh. II). Theonly reference Dürr gives for that placement in Anhang II is not his own 1977 book but "Schering,BJ 1912", so indicating Dürr 1977 as the principal source on that authenticity issue in Wikipedia's mainspace is definitely unacceptable POV.
Re. "by war I also mean this argument here on ANI" – as has been noted above I stayed out of it before your 13:04, 24 January 2017 comment: it is quite inappropriate to reproach me something I wasn't even a part of. --Francis Schonken (talk)07:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This may be your first bitter dispute but it is the kind of issue that is commonly seen by those of use who hang around ANI. Obviously the participants would be very concerned about who did what and who started it, but frankly we don't care—we just want the noise to stop. This discussion lacks suggestions for how to move forward. Possibilities include escalating blocks starting with a month, or topic bans, or an interaction ban. A remote possibility is that the participants would recognize that for whatever reason, they are never going to get on so they must avoid each other. The difficulty is that you both have a history of working in the baroque music area, and are currently intent on editing articles related to Bach. Possibly you could identify cases where Mathsci followed you to an article (in the sense that he appeared shortly after you had been editing there), but the current fracas concerns an article where you unwisely intervened when Mathsci was active. I outlined the timing in my "11:14, 24 January 2017" comment above, including the fact that you were there first having edited the article three months earlier. It was still very unwise to intervene because despite the urgency that you perceived, it is unlikely there is evidence to show Mathsci should be stopped from editing in the area. How do you suggest the problem can be resolved?Johnuniq (talk)10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I have made many further edits to this article. Why is Francis Schonken (FS) attempting to write a running commentary on yesterday's editing? His disruptive editing toConcerto transcriptions for harpsichord and organ (Bach) was described above in detail with diffs. There are plenty of poorly written articles on Bach compositions that FS could try to improve (e.g.Clavier-Übung I,Well-Tempered Clavier,Inventions and Sinfonias (Bach)), but he prefers totrack my edits. He has followed me to a number of articles, dreaming up new things to criticise. Here he provides an outdated commentary on my ongoing edits.
ForBWV 142, I have added reliable sources and properly sourced commentary on the movements. I have added an image of the penultimate page of the earliest surviving copy (Christian Friedrich Penzel, 1756). The historical commentary of Andreas Glöckner in the latest authoritative editionNBA I/41 (2000) is being ignored by FS. He might want to write his own personal essay on what people thought about this work in the 19C when it was mistakenly attributed to Bach; but in the case of this anomalous work that does not represent modern scholarship. Given the work is not by Bach, why write anWP:OR essay on what people (likePhilipp Spitta) thought before the attribution was rejected? It is of no use to the reader. That is why Francis Schonken's "essay" was removed: Andreas Glöckner has already provided a historical commentary. The Bach scholar Andrew Talle, comparing the cantatas of Bach and his contemporaries in a recent volume ofBach Perspectives, writes of BWV 142 in the following way.[106]—it is discounted parenthetically as a spurious work.
FS has taken issue withAlfred Dürr now. Before his death in 2011, he was one of the main authorities on Bach cantatas, their Urtext publication by the Bach-Gesellschaft and their chronology. His book on the cantatas (its English translation was published byOxford University Press in 2006) is one of the main references for articles on wikipedia. As Dürr indicates in his book, publications written prior to 1957 can be valuable for musical analysis, but unreliable for chronology (or authenticity). As an example, although it was only posthumously published, he mentions the two volume work of the Bach scholarWilliam G. Whittaker, used by me forBWV 39. I used Dürr's book for creatingBWV 105. Unlike BWV 142, both these works are definitely by Bach. Indeed, they are masterworks.
This is a minor article or stub. The incident on 11 January which precipitated this report was major disruption by FS. He disappeared on en.wp for almost 2 weeks immediately after those edits. He tracked my edits on this article; if he had "urgent" issues, he would have raised them on the article talk page, where there is a long discussion about sources. He did not do so. There is not much contemporary literature (=WP:RS) on this spurious cantata; I have spent a lot of time gathering what little there is.Mathsci (talk)11:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I really wish other people would stop getting credit for things I pointed out first. Yes, it may be the case that no one reads my comments and so when they saysuch behavior is indistinguishable from gaming the system it may well have been independent of my 16-minutes-earlier commentthe obvious gaming [...] is questionable, but that doesn't change the fact thatJohnuniq suggested above that he has been gaming the system is a distortion. I suggested it, and Johnuniq repeated my suggestion. (Although actually Mathsci suggested it first, just in different words.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや)12:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: As I mentioned above, this couldn't possibly be FS's first bitter dispute. He madea minor dispute over maintenance templates extremely better for apparently no reason other than his own combativeness, and ... well, I don't wanna blame him for the incredibly bitter atmosphere atWT:V, but given that he's edited the page more than 200 times it would be difficult to imagine he could be unfamiliar with bitterness even were it not for his competitiveness on talk pages.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)10:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: There's no bitterness, also not in the issue I discussed above (I can only speak for myself obviously). FYI,in the mean while Mathsci removed the mainspace POV qualification of the Dürr 1977 source. Content issue sorted without bitterness afaict.
Obviously content issues don't belong at WP:ANI. Also, non-issues (like me waiting for a closure of the above discussion to see whether I can improve my further editing behaviour) don't belong here. Similarly, discussion about editor behaviour should be kept out of the talk pages that are allotted to content discussions.
To answer your question: I have no behavioural issues to report here currently. The one I reported above is already settled (see diff above in this post). I'd like to return to mainspace content, and, if desirable, discussion of that content on the talk pages that are appropriate for discussing mainspace content. Mathsci is currently editing the BWV 142 article: I'll re-evaluate if I see room for improvement for that article depending on that progress (for which I have no intention to disturb Mathsci's active editing sessions). If you want something enactable, then I'd suggest something that prevents that discussions about behaviour degenerate in content discussion morasses (see the admin's comment with which the discussion above was closed), and similarly prevent content discussions in the places where these belong to degenerate into mixed content/behaviour discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk)12:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Your gaming the system to avoid sanctions by "going dark" when you are mentioned on ANI is a "non-issue" now? Mathsci implied (near the top of this thread) that this was a recurring problem with you.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)12:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a general problem with FS's editing (unrelated to me or my editing, but related to his edits onBWV 142).Das_ist_je_gewißlich_wahr#Reception shows how he creates sections on "reception", synthesising content from primary sources. In that case he wrote an essay on the "reception" ofBWV 141, written as if by a historian of music and trained musicologist; and written in wikipedia's own voice. Again this was a misattributed cantata (BWV 141). As is the case for BWV 142, a published commentary does exist on BWV 141 in NBA I/41.[107] A reference was given by FS in that section but it was copied from theBach Archive. As far as I know, FS has never read that reference. My understanding is that it contains a complete account of the cantata's attribution written by the Bach scholar Andreas Glöckner. I have no idea why FS concocted that content himself, when a Bach scholar has already written content on attribution, etc. That is how he edits wikipedia.Mathsci (talk)17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci claims that FS's edit[108] on BWV 142 was disruptive, unsourced, and OR. It's subject was the 19th-century reception of the cantata. So, Mathsci says that because a section speaks about the 19th century reception of the work of Bach, it's irrelevant, because there are newer references - that's against bothWP:ITSOOLD andWP:IDLI. Also, the sources are reliable for what they are describing. Mathsci also assumes that everyone has access to every single source he can name - which is clearly wrong - there is no rationale for accusing someone of being disruptive if they don't have access to some sources - they can still make meaningful edits from other sources. The section he mentions on BWV 141,Das ist je gewißlich wahr, does not seem to be OR - and Mathsci's claim that it's "as if by a historian of music and trained musicologist" does not hold up; it does not contain anyjargon and states facts, as consistent with the MOS. Now; break from my little rant. Mathsci and FS (or at least one of them) seem to have something of a grudge, and that is the fundamental issue here - both are interested in editing articles on baroque music (often Bach's) and that means that they happen to sometimes clash (because they clearly don't share the same opinion about some issues) - which can lead to conflicts as this one here. I think that the two should be reminded that this is not (repeating myself) a battleground, that an interaction ban (for at least a certain period) would be a good idea and that a short topic ban (to help spirits cool down) wouldn't be harmful, either.69.165.196.103 (talk)00:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq saw the comments about "reception" on the talk page ofBWV 142 and has commented. In the case ofBWV 141,User:Francis Schonken edited as if he was a Bach scholar. His manner of editing has been criticised atWP:RSN—using anything he can find on the web, outdated books, primary sources, raw lists on the Bach archive, etc. It stems from not usingWP:RS. In both casesno musicologists have written about the reception of these works. Plenty has been written about their authenticity and attribution, but that is a different subject.
The standard approach to creating content on cantatas, authentic or spurious, is to look at the main secondary source by one of the principal authorities,Alfred Dürr. In the one page Appendix[109] of the English edition of his book on the cantatas, it is indicated that the main discussion of the authenticity of BWV 141 was given by him in the article "Zur Echtheit einiger Bach zugeschriebener Kantaten," Bach-Jahrbuch 39 (1951-52), pages 31–35. These 5 pages on BWV 141 are reprinted in the 1988 book of articles by Dürr,Im Mittelpunkt Bach. This is one of the main secondary sources on this work. The only other usable secondary source for BWV 141 seems to be the summary in the critical report by Andreas Glöckner in NBA I/4.[110] They can both be consulted in a library and their contents paraphrased. The reception of Telemann cantatas is usually discussed by musicologists in books[111] and journal articles under the title "reception" or "rezeption".[112]
The IP's editing has been discussed in the thread above by Johnuniq and Softlavender. Here they reappear like a second or third witch to help stirring the pot, adding that extra amphibianje ne sais quoi. They have made a comment about secondary sources and how unreasonable they find it that they should have to look at them. They want me topic banned because of that. ButBWV 529 is edited using two secondary sources (2 editions of the same book). I also have to work quite hard on the audio files.
The main problem with FS's content editing is that it is poorly sourced—he indiscriminately and exclusively uses sources that he can find on the web, which he then synthesises into content; he has consistently refused to use a library for finding source material for specialist articles.Mathsci (talk)06:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In August 2016Mathsci committed to (among other things):"... I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills."
Above they wrote (about IP 69.165.196.103): "... Here they reappear like a second or third witch to help stirring the pot, adding that extra amphibianje ne sais quoi ..."
... which fails "strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors" afaics. I didn't see Mathsci being in any way interested in 69.165.196.103's skills either. Editing together with Mathsci takes a special kind of skill. I think IP 69.165.196.103 has that skill (or at least could develop it with some community support). --Francis Schonken (talk)07:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Francis Schonken has turned on the charm here and has probably been successful in deflecting examination of the underlying issue. However I have reviewed some of the back-and-forth and am alarmed by FS's above assertion that "There's no bitterness". That was in response to my "This may be your first bitter dispute...". I regard the "no bitterness" assertion as totally disingenuous but per Wikpedia's broken procedures we are supposed to believe that FS happily flits about the encyclopedia coincidentally arriving at an article where Mathsci is active in order to fix Mathsci's text, totally forgetting prior bitter interactions. The IP ruled themselves out of being considered seriously with their premature and repetitive commentary atTalk:Orgelbüchlein#Issues as of January 2017.Johnuniq (talk)10:48, 26 January 2017 (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.
IP 32.2218.37.8 will not identify himself and is making edits to local US political wikis. This IP number is using a Proxy server in United Kingdom and does not have a wiki signin.Please delete all contributions and ban this user. User deletes references and eyewitness accounts. Smacks of bias. They have been notified of this complaint.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJoplinplayer (talk •contribs)15:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
HeyJoplinplayer. It looks like that IP has only made two edits.This was the removal of unsourced contentious information in a BLP, andthis looks like fairly run of the mill copyediting and {{cn}} tagging, which, while not as good as adding an actual source, isn't itself openly disruptive.
So I'm afraid if there is some major disruption on a string of IPs which are likely from the same individual, you're going to have to provide some diffs of where exactly it's going on.TimothyJosephWood15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Both the complainant here and some IP's are using the term "unauthorized edits", whatever that's supposed to mean. And the complainant had several years of no editing at all. Which raises the suspicion that there's POV-pushing and article ownership going on, on both sides. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep. And perthis discussion, that seems to be precisely what has happened. Seems the editor wasn't being intentionally disruptive, but didn't really understand that unpublished eye witness accounts are not appropriate for Wikipedia.TimothyJosephWood16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
In all fairness,96.11.3.60 was the editor whooriginated the use of that term in this article. Since the 96.x address resolves to the Milwaukee area, that IP may be an associate of the subject of the article, and the term may have been used to state that the subject did not authorize the use of that information.Joplinplayer may have simply been copying the use of the term.32.218.152.233 (talk)16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Joplinplayer, your edit toJosh Zepnick has been reverted three times ([113],[114],[115]) by three different editors, all of whom noted that the assertion in question required a reliable source. Onlyone of the reverts removed a source, that by96.11.3.60. Don't you think you owe 32.x an apology for your false accusation and your label of "Sabatuer" (sic)? Editing Wikipedia requires that weassume good faith of other editors and actcivilly. It also requires that we collaborate with other editors. Your repeated insertion of material to an article constitutesedit warring. Rather than simply bursting on the scene and pushing your agenda, it would behoove you to learn something about the policies and practices of Wikipedia to help you improvewhat is an encyclopedia.32.218.152.233 (talk)16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have worked with an editor using an IP beginning 32.218 on Wisconsin settlement and school articles numerous times over the past several years. From the writing style, this appears to be him and I have always found him to be a quite excellent editor. This is a crock and should be promptly closed.John from Idegon (talk)18:53, 25 January 2017 (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.
Background- who is what according to source and relevant custom and law
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 claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to theJus soli legal principle, applied inArgentine nationality law, any person born inArgentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the categoryCategory:Argentine people toJohn Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would the difference if I added the categoryCategory:British Jews to the real and relevantMilo Yiannopoulos Wikipedia article, if: According to the general principle inJudaism andJewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr.Yiannopoulos' has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity ismatrilineal, (Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to othermonotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion.Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise Regards,RudiLefkowitz (talk)20:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No, you can't. That falls afoul of original research and synthesis. You need an RS that explicitly states what you want to add to an article.Capeo (talk)20:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking into more, I agree. RudiLefkowitz has spammed this post over multiple boards while also edit warring against consensus it seems.Capeo (talk)20:50, 25 January 2017 (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.
John Carter and Hiijri88 are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another. They are both warned that any violation of this ban will lead to an immediate block. I would also ask them both to take under advisement the statements made here regarding the community's patience for this sort of thing and the very real possibility of an arbcom case or outright community ban if they are not able to keep their behavior within the community's expected norms.Beeblebrox (talk)00:12, 26 January 2017 (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 myself disgusted and more than a bit repulsed by the at least borderline monomaniacal paranoia which Hijiri88 rather regularly displays." Really now? You want to raise a request at ANI after referring to another editor in that manner?Only in death does duty end (talk)17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are asking me whether I think someone acting in clear violation of sanctions deserves sanctions, yes. I think it would very much benefit any individual who comes to this matter to review the really extensive history of Hijiri88 here, at ArbCom, and elsewhere, and his conduct as discussed there.WP:SPADE seems to me to apply regarding my phrasing, which, I believe perhaps the most accurate summation of my view of his own conduct and of my reaction to it. Also, I believe it will be noted that I had previously left a note on Drmies's page reguesting the block, based on his involvement in the discussion earlier in that thread and here and elsewhere, and, maybe, review the history of my own edits of that section. But, in all honesty,yes, I wish to raise the question of a transparent violation of a ban from my user talk page, and I believe that according to policies and guidelines I am more than justified to do so.John Carter (talk)17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
So the next question is why are you still following Hijiri around after periods of inactivity which is obvious from your contributions. This seems like goading behaviour and coupled with your repeated accusations of mental illness on their part looks like gaslighting.Only in death does duty end (talk)18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think the next question is whether you are willing or capable to deal with the transparent violation of sanctions being discussed, and whether you have made much if any review of much of the material which relates to this matter.. I have rather clearly said on my user talk page that I am "semi-retired," and I have also, rather clearly, indicated over the years that I have a rather huge watchlist and that I in fact check some pages more frequently than others.I think the more important questions here are related to the matter of an explicit violation of terms which were previously imposed on both of us, and, honestly, I suggest that, if you are unwilling or unable to address those concerns directly,@Only in death:, that you at least refrain from any attempts at future cross-examination regarding what is a transparent violation of sanctions. Thank you.John Carter (talk)18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have reviewed the material, including the original posting which led to the talk-page ban, I see you made accusations on their mental facilities then too. As well as blatantly and provably false accusations. I think the more important thing here is that you refrain from accusing other editors of mental illness either directly or indirectly and stop trying to goad editors you know have no wish to interact with you.Only in death does duty end (talk)18:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And I think maybe the most important thing for you to do is readWP:SOAPBOX regarding your apparent attempt to turn this reasonable request to take sanctions in accord with previous discussion. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I believe that there is perhaps just cause to believe that review of your own conduct in this matter, which can I think not unreasonably be seen as being an attempt at misdirection at best, might also be reviewed.John Carter (talk)18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to ANI John Carter. This is why egregious behavior by some editors are allowed. I don't want to bring people to ANI just on the off-chance someone goes witch-hunting through my past. It's not the way it should be but it is the way of ANI, so if you bring someone to ANI your past will also be looked into.Sir Joseph(talk)18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Bingo. Its also the same situation that led to that complaint in the first place. John Carter following Hijiri around. It also contains the same personal attacks by John Carter. At this point they just need a two-way interaction ban. No one can follow the other, no one can talk to the other etc.Only in death does duty end (talk)18:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thread removed from JC's talk page, so that seems to put an end to that part of the problem.JC should be aware that such overtly aggressive snide remarks about another editor's mental health will likely result in a block if it happens again. BothH and JC are reminded that the prohibition against posting to each others' talk pages from last year remains in effect, and will likely result in a block if it happens again soon; but that isolated slip-ups a year later are not grounds to get the other person banned. Both are reminded that they frequent the same editing area, and will undoubtedly overlap in their editing, and should remain scrupulously polite to each other when interacting on project pages; responding to one another politely is not harassment, and should stop being described as such. Anything else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)sigh. I screwed up the ping. Fixing ping ofUser:Hijiri88 and re-signing. --Floquenbeam (talk)18:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I would've said let them fish their wish from the above-linked ANI and implement a full 2-way interaction ban, but eh, maybe this is close enough.Writ Keeper⚇♔18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Do I answer first, or do I look up "fish their wish" first? Hmmm.... I hesitate to implement an interaction ban because they both seem to frequent the same editing area, where they both seem to make useful productive edits. Is that incorrect? Is my read on their usefulness and productivity wrong? (not rhetorical, this is an actual question,not to be answered by either one of them, but by others.) Still, I'd much prefer that they both act like grown ups. If that doesn't happen then I guess we'll be back here soon, I'll apologize to everyone for not being aggressive enough, and we can do it that way. Now, off to Urban Dictionary. --Floquenbeam (talk)18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Generally depends on your definition of 'usefulness' which is probably not a useful conversation to go into at length. Without getting into the merits of the actual content - Hijiri is more active and edits the articles more, JC has periods of inactivity and less actual content work (where their editing intersects). A two way ban would prevent JC and Hijiri talking on the talk page or commenting on each others edits and from reverting each other (which they generally dont do anyway at this point). So in terms of impact - it will impact Hijiri's content work very little and JC's talkpage contributions a lot (regarding Hijiri). I dont see a huge down-side.Only in death does duty end (talk)19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
{Outdent}} If I might point out something which others might miss, I think it may be important that the talk page comment by the other was madeafter I responded to his comments atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, regarding Bible MOS. Specifically it might be noted that he made what gives me the impression of being what he thought was a "gotcha" comment about how all other religions were already covered by MOS, and I pointed out one rather prominent work which was not covered, and any number of other potential works. In my previous dealings with Hijiri88, I have noticed rather regularly a remarkable inability to effectively deal with having his statements found to be less substantiated than he likes, and I personally believe his comment on my talk page was probably at least partially motivated by the vindictive nature he has regularly displayed over the years, including the behavior that led to the ArbCom case regarding him. If others feel these comments of mine do not belong here, of course, feel free to remove them.John Carter (talk)21:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
John Carter has been following my edits for two years. I'll gather a bit of evidence later today, but it's there for anyone to check themselves. He has also hypocritically, repeatedly, accusedme of followinghim. He also has a long history of accusing me and others of being "insane" or "paranoid" (seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#John Carter has made personal attacks -- had I been aware of this during my Arbitration case with him I would have requested that the Arbs put the same thing about him there, as he has been saying the same things about me since April 2015).Hijiri 88 (聖やや)21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it will be ready before this thread goes into TLDR territory, if it hasn't already, and I don't want to make that problem worse, but the evidence I've collected so far is atUser:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations. This whole incident has been very emotionally draining, and having to go back over the last two years of diffs (even in this incomplete manner) hasn't helped. I would really rather be building an encyclopedia than dealing with this any more than I have to, and I don't have the will power to do any more today anyway. I apologize for not finishing what I said I would. I apologize as well for my having forgotten that the informal ban was formalized with a threat of enforcement by block. My excuse, such as it is, for forgetting can be read in my reply to Softlavender below. I will try my utmost to do better in the future, both in fulfilling my own word and in fulfilling the formal requirements that are placed upon me. I cannot say any more.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control, from causing the premature retirement of others due to your own hounding. The best example of that is the now inactive Catflap08. Trying to keep your uncontrollable petty vindictiveness from causing further damage to the project is I think a goal most would find acceptable. And I wonder what anyone else would say about your regular demonstration of keeping "attack files" regarding others, including me, and your repeated requests of others to e-mail you for them. One such file right now is your newUser:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations, which, unusually, is actually being kept here now, as opposed, apparently, somewhere on your computer for you to be able to easily e-mail to others, something you have repeatedly indicated a desperate willingness to do. I only noted this given the remarkable lack of further verbose editing by Hijiri88, which, as I think the history of this page indicates, is extremely uncharacteristic, perhaps even unique, in his recent history.
However, I once again note, none of the comments above seem to directly address the substantial matter here, which is an explicit violation of a explicitly placed sanction placed against both of us. I really think ending the blather and dealing with the explicit violation of sanctions, in some form or other, is probably what is needed here, not more of the comments such as the above.John Carter (talk)23:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control" WHY are you doing this? You two CLEARLY have issues with each other, to the point where you've been warned, repeatedly, to leave each other alone. So explain to me WHY you would go out of your way to do this?
I admit I am not 100% familiar with this entire case, but this seems horribly clean cut.John Carter comes out of an extended break and immediately starts houndingHijiri 88, and then whenHijiri 88 rightly tells him to cut it out, he reports him trying to wikilawyer a block. John, do us ALL a favor and walk away from this. Stop replying to him, stop interacting with him, ignore him. If you are incapable of doing this, you will quickly find yourself blocked for this bullshit I'm sure. --Tarage (talk)00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I like to read these things when I get board .. ok so this would be a "boomerang" thing right ?? this John carter thinks Hijiri88 is ... not right in the head but ....Jena (talk)23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe you might actually read the comments which have repeatedly said that this thread is about an explicit violation of a sanction which had previously been imposed on both of us, and which Hijiri88 has rather clearly and blatantly violated. That is the substance of this matter which caused this thread to be started.John Carter (talk)01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I misunderstood what you meant. Everyone else, please seeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to, which states "Both John Carter and Hijiri88 are hereby banned from each other's talk pages on pain of a minmum one month ban. Such restriction applies if either editor is logged out. The only exception is that either may post on the other any required notication, such as an issue being raised at WP:ANI concerning them." A check ofthe history of Hijiri's talk demonstrates that John hasn't edited Hijiri's talk (except to post said notification upon starting this thread) since well before the ban was imposed in April 2016. There's no way that this is a WP:BANEX or unexpected WP:IAR reason, so I see no reason not to impose the "minimum one month ban", but I suppose someone might complain WP:INVOLVED if I did it (I filedWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, being unrelated to the dispute but seeing persistent disputes between those two), so I'll urge anyone who's 100% uninvolved to impose the requested ban. Whether or not John deserves sanctions is an unrelated matter.Nyttend (talk)01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend:I don't recall any ban being put in place in April 2016. John and I both placed an unofficial ban on posting on each other's talk pages early in 2015. In April 2016, John (or someone with the same IP) posted a logged out comment on my talk page, which I think is what you are referring to. But violating informal talk page bans is the least of my concerns.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oh, wait. I had actually completely forgotten until just now that Mjroots actuallyhad closed that thread last April with the implementation of a formal ban. I apologize for the slip-up. I will do my utmost to ensure that it does not happen again.
Re-pingingUser:Nyttend so he doesn't get a notification of my above post and not the retraction.
How can you "not recall" it when not only did Nyttend link directly to it there, but also it was enacted in the administrator's close of that April 2016 ANI thread that you yourself started, and then was also posted immediately thereafter on your talk page[117], and not only that, you proceeded to argue about the TP ban with the closing admin on their talk page[118]? And not only that, it was mentioned and linked to yesterday in the thread you started on John Carter's talk page[119], and then reiterated in the OP of this thread.Softlavender (talk)08:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC); edited 09:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Again, my apologies for not recalling correctly. If you really want the reason (apart from the notification having been almost a year agoand the close having been several days after I stopped posting in the thread) it is that it was more than a year after the informal ban had been put in place, and that informal ban had come up so frequently in the intervening time (as opposed to the formal ban, which has never come up until now) that it was all I remembered. I remembered the discussion as an IBAN discussion that failed to result in a standard IBAN. When I saw Nyttend's comment to which I was responding, I thought he was misreading the many commenters who agreed that the informal ban should be adhered to as constituting a formal "ban". But these are feeble excuses. I should have gone back to check the last time this was brought up, before posting on John's talk page. It was a mistake, and I will try my best to keep it from happening again.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri, Nyttend not only linked to the TP ban,he quoted it directly, with quotation marks. Not only that, I did the same down below (and you read and replied to my post at the same time as you replied to Nyttend above), and John Carter mentioned it in the OP here. Even considering that despite the facts that the ANI was one you started, and your subsequent discussions of the admin's TP ban spanned two different talkpages (including yours), you might have somehow forgotten about it, it strains credulity that you did not bother to read Nyttend's clearly worded, quoted, and linked post, or mine either, even though you replied to both[120] (even if you did somehow not bother to read John Carter's OP here or his last reply to the thread you recently started on his talk page).Softlavender (talk)09:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear from my response to you and MR below, I was replying to specific misconceptions in what both of you said. I did not read the rest of what you wrote very closely. The same is true of Nyttend's comment above; or, rather, I misread the latter half of his comment as containing the same kind of misconception, but if I had been more careful I would have noticed earlier that it was not a misconception at all. I admit this was out of line, and it's not something I normally do, but (as is hopefully clear from my comment above) this entire experience has been very emotionally draining on me, and I was getting sick to my stomach by the time I wrote that.
As you point out, my mistake was incredibly obvious -- I could not be lying, because I would not have expected to get away with it. I had legitimately forgotten, until after you posted your first reply to me above, that there had been a formal ban in place. I remembered an informal ban that both of us had violated multiple times over the course of more than a year, and this had ended after I reported one violation last April. The close had apparently come several days after I had given up on the thread, and I had filed it away in my head in the incredibly thick "I reported John Carter but he got away without sanction because the thread got too long to close" file. It might also be worth noting that I posted several days agoI'm aware that JC doesn't like me posting on his talk page. I figured one message telling him to back off would be okay but I'm not going to hazard editing there again.[121] I was still very much of the mind that this was an informal mutual request to stay off each other's talk pages rather than a formal ban. Again, this does not excuse my having failed to remember that I was subject to a ban, and I am legitimately sorry that I violated it; I have every intention of being more careful going forward.
You can choose to believe that I thought I would get away with violating a direct an unambiguous ban that I was fully aware of, or you can choose to believe that I had forgotten about it. I hope it's clear that I know that if John Cartercan report me hewill report me. You and I have had positive interactions before, so I don't need to assume good faith on your part (Iknow you are acting in good faith), but I hope you will assume good faith on my part.
OK, so, the user-talk ban came with an "on pain of a minimum one month ban" consequence[122], so technically Hijiri is due that. On the other hand, from what I've seen on ANI about this in the past, I largely agree with Only in death that, despite Hijiri's failings, John Carter largely is and has been the longterm aggressor here, and that a 2-way IBAN is probably the way to go. That or ArbCom. The fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs is rather curious though. But that, in my opinion, is no reason for John Carter to stalk or hound him.Softlavender (talk)02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm seeing too. Hijiri's technically at fault, but was very clearly goaded into it by John. Neither editor is faultless, and frankly, I'm more bemused by John's wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk)03:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Rethe fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs. I am subject to two IBANs, one with a retired user and one with someone who was one-way hounding me. The latter was proposed as a one-way IBAN but the other Arbitrators voted it down on the technicality that one-way IBANs don't work. I don't want to go into any more detail for obvious reasons, but the evidence is there if you want it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well what we have is a brightline violation by Hijiri88 of the restrictions imposed upon him. It would not be unjustifiable to follow through with a 1 month block. That said, it is also abundantly clear thay John Carter has made several personal attacks on Hijiri in the course of just a single post; ranging from a variety of mental health problem accusations to not here to build an enecyclopaedia. So it would only be just to impose a block on John Carter for those. Either all transgressions are sanctionable or none are. I think a one month block is in order; one week for the accusation of incompetence and for the declaration of not here, and three weeks for the minimum three varied accusations of mental instability, paranoia and delusions. Alternatively, close with no action and tell both editors to stay away from each other or further transgressions will involve far more serious repercussions; lets see who is willing to double down on this childishness. For what its worth, I think Hijiri's comment about hounding/stalking is unfounded if not baseless. But this is plain Wikilawyering, and Id far rather see the two editors separated than sanctioned pointlessly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia and the editors, and support a full two way IBAN over any other action.Mr rnddude (talk)05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: Not meaning to imply I don't appreciate your comment overall, but my case against John Carter has never been primarily about hounding, so you can reject all my claims on that point if you like. I'm currently TBANned from the two articles John Carter most blatantly followed me to, so I won't name them, but they are in the list of links I've been compiling in my user space. It would also be extremely difficult for John Carter to explain his relationship withCurtisNaito in a way that didn't show him following me to various articles and a GA reassessment in 2015. The rest of the evidence is pending, but some of it ishere if you really wanna see it. But again, if he were civil and didn't try to undermine me all the time, I wouldn't mind him showing up in so many places I edit. The most recent instance is one place where he was basically civil and agreed with me on the substance, so the only problem is the hounding, but even when he overall agrees with me he also usually finds bizarre excuses to disagree with me on some small points, like claiming that Bart Ehrman's (non-existant) translations have probably been criticized[123] or that being a Roman Catholic might lead someone to reject the gnostic classification of the Gospel of Thomas.[124]Hijiri 88 (聖やや)08:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate the response and linksHijiri88. I took a look through them, and to methis one really stood out. If I am following the page history correctly and talk page discussion in archive 2, John Carter exercised complete ownership of your own edits toKenji Miyazawa. Edits which you self-reverted and they forced back into the article by edit-warring? not only that but he had no prior involvement with that article at all, jut a little bit of talk page commentary a month prior. Making absolutely no comment about anybody's behaviour it is abundantly clear that these interactions do not positively impact the encyclopaedia. A few of the other links that I looked at struck me as being provocative, but, at the same time a few of the diffs I am unconcerned about; if I had contributed heavily to an article or discussion it would be on my watchlist permanently and I might return after years not months to them. I am wary of taking any evidence from distant pasts to take actions now, very much so, so I would not propose any block or T/PBan based on these diffs, but, I am only drawn even more so to the conclusion that this needs to be met with a full two-way IBAN.Mr rnddude (talk)11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Enough already. They obviously need a complete, permanent 2-way IBAN, with an understanding that the first one to violate it gets a lengthy block. These two arenever going to get along, and they've already wasted more than enough of everyone else's time.Fyddlestix (talk)07:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with above. A block on one party with no change in the ban would solve nothing. A block on both parties would do nothing given the ongoing issues. Put it to a full interaction ban. I also think John Carter needs an explicit warning to not cast aspersions on others mental state. From the Arbcom case Hijiri linked above (completely unrelated to Hijiri) its clear this is a go-to insult for JC and has been going on for years. Accusing others of not being competent is one thing, accusing multiple editors over a period of 4/5 years of mental issues is entirely another.Only in death does duty end (talk)11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I generally edit only two days a week recently, by choice, and those two days have already taken place, so I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. There may well be repetition and bad phrasing, for which I apologize now, but I am not going to waste a lot of time here. FWIW, I have to say that one of the reasons I have been less active in recent months is to avoid this individual and his behavior. It will be noticed that I, now, admittedly perhaps stupidly, after the ArbCom regarding Hijiri88, thought that a ban from Christianity would not be required. I have deeply come to regret that statement of mine.
I also very seriously regret my language used above, which was, to my own eyes, based on the failure of the first responders to actually make any attempt to review the whole situation, including the explicitly stated existing ban, and that in my irritation I basically "blew up". It should, I think, be noted that I asked only for the minimum ban under the previous statement, and that I only posted here after commenting on Drmies page and receiving no response there. The combination of circumstances, combined with my own profound irritation by the other editor involved, which is one of the primary reasons for my recent break, reflects very poorly on me, and on that basis I cannot oppose such a ban, and would support it.
I would ask the individuals who say I am the primary party at fault to review the most recent interactions. I commented on a thread at ANI specifically addressing Maunus now atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy in which Hijiri88 was involved on the basis of seeing Maunus's name there. I have had numerous contacts with him in the past, including at theBartolomé de las Casas page and its talk page, and have, generally, thought well of him. Yes, it is also a thread in which,for the first time that I can remember having ever seen at ANI, someone requested an interaction ban with someone else based on the latter's conduct during the time of the ANI thread, that someone else being Hijiri88. My few in that thread were about the length of the thread in general, largely because, as I indicated, the length in general was such that I would not comment. Finally, after the interaction ban with Hijiri88 was proposed, it should be noted I did not in fact support it or address it at all, although I clearly could have, but, instead, mentioned that the lack of self-control Hijiri88 displayed there and elsewhere seems to have benn involved. I also note that, as per the recent two threads atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, the first of which was specifically linked to by Hijiri atWT:X, a page I have watched and am in fact one of the most active editors at. To accuse me of "stalking" on that regard is to my eyes laughable. I have also commented in the past regarding theWikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and, on that basis, in previous discussions I am too lazy to link to here, I was accused by him of thinking and stating that the Bible was Christian only. I responded, more than once as I recall, that the Bible project is transcluded in the noticeboard, and that I was referring to it on that basis. Those discussions were, apparently after he actually looked at the links and saw what I said was accurate, were, as seems to be his habit, collapsed by him with a pejorative hatnote I believe because he could not and cannot face being found to be in error. FWIW, I personally believe that the primary, if not only, reason for this post on my user talk page is, as I first said in the Kenji Miyazawa discussion, that I have basically seen numerous indications that in and of himself he can never acknowledge being in error, and that my commenting at the ANI thread and the Bible threads were clearly taken by him as being only motivated by my apparent stalking of him. Again, the thinking that, somehow, I, who have been one of the most active editors at the Christianity project ever, might somehow, apparently exclusively for his benefit,not respond to messages there, seems to me to raise basic competence issues. In fact, given the recent history of that page, I wonder whether it would be reasonable for him to think anyone else would have responded first. I also wish to point out that the note on my talk page seems to have come after the Bible threads, and that leads me to believe that his posting on my talk page was, I said, more motivated by personal vindictiveness on his part than anything else. I accept and support the possibility of Iban as stated below. However, I would also ask that those involved look at the recent history atWT:BIBLE, including a thread asking a question about the Apocrypha which is actually specifically addressed in the first visible screen of the project page. Even if, as I personally believe, the second thread was started to try to distract from the potentially poorly thought out one immediately before it, there are I believe very serious questions regarding basicWP:CIR in general regarding someone who has to ask a question so clearly and visibly answered on the project page itself, and, possibly, regarding whether the community is in some way required to continue to exhibit patience for someone so clearly unable or unwilling to make any visible effort to not waste the time of others with such an obvious question. I have no reservations whatsoever about an Iban, but I believe that taking into account that perhaps the only reason he was not earlier banned from the Christianity area or perhaps the broader religion area was that I did not support or propose it myself, I would welcome consideration from others regarding whether based on his recent conduct such a ban, based at least in part on the competence issues involved at the pages above, is worth considering. I will not do so myself based on my own lack of trust in my judgment regarding the matter the first time the idea was proposed.John Carter (talk)
So, what you are saying is that another user was behaving disruptively and requesting a POINTy IBAN with me based on my having chimed in on a random ANI thread, and soI should face sanctions for that? I'm sorry for not reading the rest of your above wall-of-text. It doesn't apparently include diffs or any other kinds of evidence, so I can assume it's just the same personal attacks and bogus accusations you've been treating me to for two years, and I would likely be happier if I never read it and never have to read anything you write about me again. I would request that others judge it on its merits, though.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Well first of all you preceded a wall of text with the statement that you won't "spend a lot of time on this", and second, you never mentioned the fiasco with Catflap, CurtisNaito, and TH1980, where you filibustered several ANI threads, RfCs, and a GAR, and made POINTy or otherwise unproductive edits and reverts on articles you had never edited before, simply because Hijiri88 was involved in them. You supported the most ridiculous arguments and positions simply because they were either supported by the above-named users or the opposite of your perceived opponents' (something youcontinue to do).ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話)03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL at anyone on the side of Hijiri complaining about walls of text, particularly the individual who has been counted by others as among, if not the first, of what they basically described as Hijiri88's knee-jerk defenders. :) The matters which raised this discussion are to my eyes directly relevant to Hijiri88's almost total lack of self-awareness and self-control, specifically including the sometimes completely nonsensical disparagements of me, which led to my leaving the project for three months to avoid the almost incessant disparagment by him. And, yes, in many cases, it seemed to me rather obvious that the motivation for the conduct was the same sort of petty vindictiveness when he had it pointed out to him that his comments were at best poorly sourced, similar to his recent comments atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, which led to his posting on my user talk page and this whole matter. Basically, his continuing to engage in the same sort of behavior which got him topic banned from what he himself described as his primary area of activity in theWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case. There is, I think, as per the discussion there, and the discussion that led up to it, as well as the discussion in the previous ANI when so far as I can remember the first time in history someone requested an IBAN which someone they had never apparently encountered before the ANI thread, more than sufficient cause to think that the same sort of behavior which led to his topic ban there has been continued, and in theWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy matter previously linked to, sufficient grounds for concerns that his behavior may have started to generalize out to others, and causing yet further disruption to the project, which is I believe a legitimate enough concern for it to be brought to the attention of ArbCom.John Carter (talk)14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88's almost total lack of self-awareness and self-control You realize that even if you get the IBAN that you claim you want because you claimI've been houndingyou, you will still likely be blocked if you continue to make comments like that about other users, right? Virtually everyone in the section below is in favour a final warning for questioning other users' mental states.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)21:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think that might be open to question, if, as I have requested, the matter is taken before ArbCom, and, whether, in their eyes, such assertions can be considered supported by the evidence, and there is a great deal of evidence regarding your problematic behavior. And, yes, the evidence of the previous Arb, and of this page, although, admittedly, I haven't provided much here, as I said above, can be taken into account in determining whether such statements are within the bounds of acceptability. However, having said that, I thank you for once again rather clearly demonstrating your tendency to react very, very negatively to any sort of criticism, and your apparent desire to do virtually everything in your power to avoid having to see or deal with any form of criticism of you.John Carter (talk)16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposed IBAN
Extended content
It's obvious that informal warnings haven't worked here, so I would like to formally propose an indefinite 2 way interaction ban betweenUser:Hijiri88 andUser:John Carter. Hopefully this will resolve things and if this happens yet one party continues to directly and/or indirectly interact with the other, further measures can be taken to resolve the dispute.Twitbookspacetube (talk)12:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. This has been on the table and requested by both editors since before the last ANI. Let's see if it resolves the issues.Softlavender (talk)12:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Although I have to admit I find John Carter's accusations of mental issues quite disturbing. It seems to be a trend with him, as I recall him doing the same thing with the Ebionites ArbCom case. Since neither "side" here can seem to let things go, let's see if this works. If it doesn't, I can't see anything but an ArbCom case working.Ealdgyth -Talk14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, it's a shame that such productive editors should need this but I'm sure a formal, recorded decision such as this will help them both to avoid conflict with one another.Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)18:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support to see what happens, but with the full knowledge that H88 is already IBanned with Catflap, was IBanned with Tristan noir (who hasn't edited in a year) until that was converted to a one-way ban for TN towards H88, and is the subject of two topic bans and a 1RR restriction. On the other hand, John Carter has one IBan (with Ignocrates) and a topic ban, so it's uncertain whether this IBan, if it passes, will "solve" anything. (All these sanctions can be seen atWP:Editing restrictions.Beyond My Ken (talk)21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support (obviously) This was what I was gunning for last April (and probably how the thread should have been closed then, given the unanimous support).Hijiri 88 (聖やや)22:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware that if the IBan passes, you'll need to immediately have your page of information on John Carter deleted, right, using "db-author"? The only legitimate reason to keep information such as that in your user space is that you plan to use it for some kind of request for sanctions or relief, but the IBan will prevent you from filing any such request. John Carter, I haven't looked, but if you have anything similar collected on Hijiri88, it, too, will need to be deleted, as keeping it would be a violation of the IBan.Beyond My Ken (talk)01:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Technically, from a pure policy standpoint, I don't think I would be under an obligation to speedy the page myself, as my having made it prior to the IBAN would not count as a violation, any more than having John Carter's name appear 24 times in my talk page archives would be a violation. I also have a bunch of dormant/redundant user pages:User:Hijiri88/JoshuSasori rebuttal isn't an example of grave-dancing just because the user in question was banned several months after I created it.
I'm making this point just because I don't know if in the past two years I may have mentioned John Carter somewhere else in my user-space, and I don't want to be accused of violating the IBAN just because I didn't search out and excise those references. I also don't want to see speedied a certain other page that Ido know mentioned John Carter until Iexcised that part a moment ago.
If someone else put the page up for speedy, and I opposed,that would be a violation of course.
That said,of course I would be happy to have the page speedied anyway. The sooner I can forget about this whole mess, the better, so I wouldn't want someone else to come along and speedy it and notify me months down the line.
The point is that since such pages are only allowed for a short period of time while a complaint is being prepared, and since the IBan would rule out filing a complaint, the page would thus automatically, with the passage of the IBan, contravene policy. Any prior mention of John Carter wouldn't come under the same policy, so it should be OK.Beyond My Ken (talk)02:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not so much that an IBAN would "rule out" filing a complaint. Since the purpose of my complaintwas to request an IBAN, getting that result makes the evidence I gathered redundant. The fact that I submitted the evidence above in an unfinished state doesn't mean I would have tried to "finish" it and present it in the form of a further complaint at some future date; the evidence was only being gathered in the first place with the goal of getting the IBAN.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the ultimate point is that you should delete the page if the iban is implemented since policy requires subpages of evidence in user space only exists for a short time until the evidence is copied to an appropriate case which can no longer happen once the iban has been implemented. And in any case, such a subpage isn't really appropriate when John Carter has zero ability to comment on anything contained within. As for other pages, it should be trivial to look for all your subpages although you should really keep track of your subpages anyway. Comments you've made elsewhere are obviously not a problem unless the comment is a problem without the iban.Nil Einne (talk)07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support As with others, I find John Carter's suggestion of mental health issues disturbing and it's something which I'd consider close to enough to warrant a fairly long block by itself. In addition, while I've commented before it's difficult to prove following from only 2 or 3 instances, the number of times where John Carter happens to come out of a break to comment on something Hijiri88 has said is concerning. As for Hijiri88, accepting they didn't remember there was a formal ban on posting on each other's talk pages, it's still a violation and if you're going to wrack up bans, you need to remember them. Actually remembering a ban is more important than remembering the problems you have with the other editor (even if I can understand why it's easier to remember the later).Nil Einne (talk)07:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I'm a "he" (I think it's on my user page), so you don't need to use the singular "they" on me (and I havea somewhat messy history with the singular "they"). And in case it wasn't clear from my above profuse apologies, I know it was a violation, and I will be much more careful going forward. If it helps, I could point out that (1) it would be a lot easier to remember a full and formal IBAN, and (2) if we had already been fully IBANned I would never have posted the message anyway, as it was a request to stop following me.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)10:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Currently, both parties are involved in (separate) active interaction bans. When editors have to be banned from interacting with multiple people, perhaps it's not the chemistry that's at issue. How long until we're back here again with one of the same names up against someone new? Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and if editors find themselves unable to work collaboratively and unable to remove themselves from the situations causing problems, we should resolve the behavioral issues or remove them from the community until they convince us the issues are resolved. If John Carter is harassing another editor, as seems the case here, that's cause for a block, not a saction which pushes that behavioral problem on to whoever has the misfortune of annoying him next. I don't see enough problematic behavior from Hijiri presented here to warrant any action there. ~Rob13Talk07:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's either this or ArbCom, and attempting this should precede ArbCom for protocol reasons. As you note both editors already have IBANs, and at least one has recurring behavioral issues. If either of them get reported (even independently of each other) here again, I imagine an ArbCom will ensue. But there's not enough (time or) evidence here to block either one at present, beyond Hijiri's apparently forgetting his TP ban. And there's also a disinclination to get thoroughly into the multitudinous exact facts and diffs of behavioral issues at present when this is simpler, and the former would be more appropriate for ArbCom. I imagine that, if John Carter has been following this thread, he has presumably taken on board that he is on notice for questioning people's mental health [and for stalking or harassing other editors] and that if he does it again strong sanctions will ensue.Softlavender (talk)08:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying block editors who harass other editors so they don't just go harass someone else. An IBan will not be effective, as it has been shown already that both of these editors have behavioral issues not just with respect to each other but with respect to other contributors as well (see existing IBans). ~Rob13Talk15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned, there is neither sufficient evidence, nor any support, nor even remotely sufficient value to blocking either or both editors, much less for a long period. They are both productive and constructive editors, and simply need more rope to prove it. It would not be in anyone's interest to block either of them at present, especially without a fair hearing.Softlavender (talk)22:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A hearing? Are you talking ArbCom? This isn't a trial, but nonetheless, the evidence on display makes it pretty clear that John Carter is hounding Hijiri. Moreover, he's been interaction banned in the past for similar hostile behavior directed at other contributors. Administrators have a response to prevent harassment from happening, not just react to each individual instance with an interaction ban. In this case, a block would be preventative. I'm not saying a long-term block is necessary immediately, but a block of a sufficient length to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable would be wise. If it continues, then we'd be talking long-term blocks. ~Rob13Talk01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Where are the diffs presentedon this thread that provide sufficient evidence for an immediate block that John Carter is stalking Hijiri across numerous articles over an extended period of time despite an official warning that if he continued to do so he would be immediately blocked? No warning has ever been given to that effect. We do not block longterm, constructive, productive users without warnings, and for warnings we need sufficient evidence of longterm abuse, and the opportunity for rebuttal. Where is the opportunity for John Carter to rebut any possible such evidence and provide his own evidence? There has been none because there have been no diffs presentedon this thread (there has been a link to a start-up one-sided evidence page being collected by Hijiri, but that material has never been submitted into evidence here on this page, much less been give the opportunity for rebuttal and counter-evidence). Hijiri is and has been subject to multiple interaction bans as well. If John Carter were blockedat this juncture, it would be strictly punitive (as you yourself said, "to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable"), because he is not at the present moment stalking or hounding Hijiri. If you would like to propose a block, or propose a final warning about stalking, perhaps you should do so in a separate subthread with separate header. As is, we do not have sufficient consensus and broad enough overview for such an immediate drastic measure.Softlavender (talk)01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If I may chime in, there is plenty of evidence of long-term incivility and hounding on the part of John Carter. I'm not sure if you'rerequesting this evidence be provided, but that can be arranged.ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話)03:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It would need to be provided here on this thread, and rebuttal and counter-evidence allowed and considered, before an immediate block would in any way be justified; and even then, since no official warning was ever given, and since hounding is not occuring at this very moment, such a putative block would be purely punitive, not preventative.Softlavender (talk)03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of "official warnings", the many previous warnings and a past ArbCom case leading up to John Carter's other IBan is all the warning needed. An editor is expected to correct their behavioreverywhere in response to behavioral concerns, not direct the problematic behavior at a different contributor. ~Rob13Talk21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you please link to a previous official final warning that if John Carter engaged in X he would receive an immediate block? And can you explain how a block at present would be preventive and not punitive? An official final warning, which people are supporting, would be preventive. A block at present would merely be punitive.Softlavender (talk)06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologies in advance, to@Softlavender andSturmgewehr88: for planting this in the middle of a discussion as it may make it somewhat difficult to find, however it seemed the best place to add it. While reading StG88's comment about evidence, it came to my mind that I supplied something along those lines during Hijiri88 and Catflap08's ArbCom case back in 2015.This link may be of some use. Most of it pertains to the interaction between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 but ANI's involving John Carter were also included in the evidence I collated for ArbCom's appraisal.Blackmane (talk)01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: It prevents him from harassing editors, as he has shown that he's willing to do multiple times. One does not need a formal warning from the community before being blocked. Previous ANIs which were closed with sanctions are sufficient warning that the behavior is unacceptable and will result in further sanctions if continued. It would take an impressive bit of wikilawyering to convince anyone that previous sanctions related to the exact same conduct do not constitute putting the editor on notice that their behavior may be sanctioned in the future if continued. ~Rob13Talk00:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Catflap08 essentially stopped editing in February 2016, and only just made a couple of edits recently, and Ignocrates has been indef blocked since March 2015, so it's really not possible to evaluate what you're asking for, at least in terms of recent editing.Beyond My Ken (talk)12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if one of the parties is indef'd or merely stops ediing, the IBAN still applies. So the question is whether the two editors currently being discussed for an IBAN have honored their existing IBANs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you really asking if the editors are continuing to harp on about other editors who have disappeared? That sort of behaviour is frankly close to blockworth even without an iban.Nil Einne (talk)14:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support However, I think "further measures" is too vague - I'd like to see some specificity in the consequences of breaches. I'd also support a two-week block each if that was proposed.GoldenRing (talk)16:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support IBAN, plus a promise of a minimum one-month block on the first violation. I would also really like to see an additional 2-week block of John Carter to drive home that we take accusations of mental illness very seriously. --Guy Macon (talk)18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe there are more than enough indications in the editor's history, possibly including the regular accusations of most anyone who disagrees with him on a somewhat regular basis of being a "stalker" in the matter leading to the ArbCom case, the inability to deal with any sort of substantive disagreement, petty vindictiveness as I have repeatedly stated, etc., are more than sufficient to indicate that the individual can be reasonably described in the ways I did. I however would have no reservations about the matter going to ArbCom.John Carter (talk)22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, he's been right on the money when he accuses someone of wikihounding. But I would also support this going to ArbCom, since you so fully believe in your innocence.ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話)03:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support IBAN - The interactions between these two editors do not demonstrate that they have the ability to co-operate without issues. Because both editors are capable of contributing to the encyclopaedia when separated, but not together, it seems logical to keep them separate and allow them to contribute without interaction. That is, ban them from interacting. I could also endorse afinal warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status.This sort of commentary just is not an acceptable way to deal with other editors under any circumstances.Mr rnddude (talk)19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Addendum:Also support final warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status, particularly since he has repeated the accusations two hours ago above.Softlavender (talk)00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolute strongest possible oppose perBU_Rob13, common sense, and years worth of disruptive conduct, including more ArbCom and ANI sanctions than can be easily tracked at this point. How long are we going to go around in circles with these editors? IBANs havenever succeeded in keeping these editors out of conflict with anyone, but have in fact have been gamed over and over again to create further disruption. Hijiri in particular has many times violated his IBANs and then pleaded that he was incited to do so or "forgot" about the ban, as he was caught out doing above. This has nevertheless not stopped him from invoking the same bans against other users across numerous ANI threads that have collectively exhausted untold hundreds of community man hours, to the exhaustion of those who have tried to keep him separate from those he falls into these spirals of disruption with.
Worse still, he actively games his IBANs in another way; if another user on this noticeboard asks him to restrain his conduct with regard to another editor and points out that he has a history of needlessly personalizing content disputes, he has been known to accuse that user of "trying to get me to violate my IBAN so he can get me banned", even if the IBAN was never mentioned by anyone, and the editor in question is uninvolved in the dispute and has no history of personal conflict with him. Do we really want to give him yet another sanction to play this trick with whenever he wants to avoid scrutiny of incivil and/or disruptive behaviour?Sturmgewehr88's is hardly uninvolved here John Carter's conduct is hardly stellar here, and yet I agree with his assessment that Hijiri retreats quite quickly into paranoid accusations whenever his behaviour is called out--and either he believes these nonsense accusations ("You pointed out an issue with my behaviour--you're clearly out to get me and trying to get me to break the rules!") or he just uses them to muddy the waters and avoid the consequences for his frequently abrasive and disruptive conduct. And it really doesn't matter which is the case at this point--the pattern is clear and no amount of community effort to arrest it has ever had any lasting impact on his behaviour. And if his conduct is not exactly identical in the details, John Carter's issues with not keeping his distance from other editors he does not like are clearly known this noticeboard as well.
I can understand why some community members might want to give this option a go if they were unaware of the history between these two editors and the other handful of contributors involved in this roving brawl, but I suggest everyone look at the search results for their names, cross-searched against the keyterm "IBAN":[125],[126]. Holding out hope that this approach will work with these editors at this point, once you are aware of the record, is ludicrous. I view IBAN's as dubiously useful in general (if an editor demonstrates proclivity to incivil or disruptive behaviour with regard one editor who "gets under their skin", they'll eventually embrace that same approach with someone else, if the root issue is not addressed, and both editors should be sanctioned or otherwise guided to baseline conformity with our behavioural policies,regardless of who they are interacting with). But even if you believe they can work in isolated instances, this is clearly not going to be one of them. Just as it was clearly not going to work the other multiple occasions it was tried with these parties. Defer this today and I guarantee you have a the next ANI thread in this long-running conflict within a couple of months, if not weeks or days, as has happened in the past. It's time to consider long-term blocks. I'd even support sitebans at this point, as I believe at least one, and probably both, of these editors have engaged in such consistently problematic conduct that they have demonstrated themselves to be net-negatives to the project (and part of one of the largest recurring headaches of ANI in partciular). Their dislike for another is clearly larger than their concern for the disruption they cause or for the time of their fellow volunteers. Enough is enough.Snowlet's rap21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Question withdrawn; extended comment distracting from specific topic of discussion
@Snow Rise: It's clear that you're adamantly opposed to an IBan, but somewhat less clear what your specific proposed solution is. What would you propose, that both John Carter and Hijiri88 should be long-term blocked? Indef blocked? Site banned? Which is it? The same thing for both of them, or one thing for one and another thing for the other?I'm only pressing the issue because of the strength of your opposition, but if there's no IBan, and no other sanction is invoked, how does that help us? I think you need to make aconcrete proposal to counter the IBan if you feel that strongly that an IBan won't work.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Without intention of appearing flippant, I'd probably support just about any serious sanction aside from the IBAN. For all of the forums that these users have been marched through over this ongoing battle of wills, no party to the dispute has ever had to face a single substantive consequence of their disruptive behaviour. At least a dozen ANI threads were launched over recent years regarding the nexus of interpersonal conflicts that ultimately became the basis for theCatflap and Hijiri ArbCom case, to which class this grudge between Hijiri and John Carter belongs--and those threads are just the ones I saw with myhighly intermittent review of this noticeboard over that same span of years. And in all of that time, with all of the accusations (and tangible evidence of) personal attacks, stalking, harassment, evasion of sanctions (and just general blatant disregard for the principle of civility, the good of the project or the patience of the community) there has been not one single block--at least, not that I ever saw. The only sanctions that have ever been handed down for all of those collective disruptive behaviours are IBANs (here at ANI) and ultimately topic bans (ArbCom). So it is little wonder then that these parties have continued to feel no compunction about ignoring or gaming the IBANs when it suites them. They haven't had to face so much as a five minute timeout over this years-long nonsense, which has surely cost the community hundreds of volunteer hours at this point.
But in a collective sense, we deserve it. We abrogated our responsibility to establish a line of unacceptable conduct in the very first thread on this matter. Myself included: despite significant reservations, I !voted in support of the first IBAN in this sordid mess, and every iteration of the dispute that has surfaced here since has been connected to that one poor decision. So perhaps in that light, you can understand why I felt the need to oppose perpetuating that cycle here and now, regardless of what the alternative courses of action may be. That said, you've (reasonably) pressed for what alternatives I think best suit here. At a minimum, I'd hastily support a two-month block for each editor's conduct in this most recent flair-up. I'm not 100% certain John Carter was following Hijiri with his most recent edits, but my fellow community members seem to have formed a consensus to that effect, and I'm all out of giving the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, Hijiri clearly violated the terms of a community sanction meant to keep the two of them separate when he posted his accusations directly to John Carter's user page.
That is where I think consideration of the penalties needs tostart at this point in time. If there was a proposal tabled for a siteban, I'd probably not have a major issue supporting it. With regard to John Carter, I'd have to review his conduct in greater detail to be certain it was warranted, but, again, I'm pretty low on presumption of good faith at this point. For Hijiri, the case is a little stronger; the manner in which I've seen him maneuver around and game his IBANs and the continued problematic behaviour I've observed him to engage in here on this forum (even after the ArbCom sanctions) and the never-give-an-inch/"anyone who criticizes me is out to get me" attitude he brings to these disputes (complete with conspiracy theories about the motives of uninvolved editors) have convinced me that he lacks sufficient socialcompetence (and the requisite level of ability to take feedback onboard to improve his conduct) necessary to be able to participate on this project without massive disruption.
That's about as clear as I can be about what I view as the span of reasonable sanctions at this point, I hope it suffices to address your inquiry.Snowlet's rap02:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It makes me very upset to see the above long string of false and unsupported claims. I will not respond to all of them as I do not have the time or the inclination, and as thinking about why someone would hate me enough to post such lies makes me want to cry, butthe manner in which I've seen him maneuver around and game his IBANs in particular is complete and utter nonsense. I have historically been subject to three IBANs. The first was voluntary on my part, and was invoked only once before being repealed and replaced with a one-way sanction, as I was the victim of hounding.[127] The third was proposed as a one-way sanction because I was the victim of hounding, and was only made two-way for technical reasons;[128] it has been invoked once, because the other party violated it by accusing me of sockpuppetry on their talk page.[129] The second is a little more complicated,[130][131] but needless to say I have not been "maneuvering around" it, and no evidence could ever be located for such a claim. The claim that I have avoided consequences for it would be laughable if it weren't so offensive and hurtful.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri, it's part of the problem I am trying to hilight here that you think that I (or any person who criticizes you) must "hate" you because I (and they) have qualms with your conduct. I simply don't have any particularly strong feelings about you at all, and I certainly make no judgements as to your general worth as a person. I just have specific problems with specific patterns of behaviour which have landed you in this forum time after time. That is the sum total of my experience with you, and I don't have any thoughts about you which expand beyond the confines of those threads. Imagining that those who criticize you do so only because they abhor you and are out to get you is a filter that really hinders your addressing the concerns that get you repeatedly sanctioned by the community. And at this point you really need to be able to think clearly about those patterns without assuming that all criticism of your approach comes from those who are biased and out to get you.
There's also a problem with the fact that you think it's acceptable that you've been subject to "only" three IBANS. 99.99% of editors get by on this project without ever getting banned from interaction with anyone. You not only have been subject to three, you seem more than willing to embrace more as an acceptable result to the personal disputes you become embroiled in. IBANs are not meant to be a regular means of responding to disputes or ongoing behavioural issues; they are meant to be deployed only in rare instances where two editors in good standing just can't seem to get along and can't disengage from one-another. At some point, when they start to pile up on one editor, we have to acknowledge that there seems to be a common denominator in said editor's approach to interaction on this project. I also stand by my statement about maneuvering with regard to them: you have more than once ignored or "forgot" bans on interaction when it suits you (you got caught out for that in this very thread), but you don't hesitate to start a thread here when you think someone else has violated the ban in the other direction. And I've more than once seen bizarre instances in which you accuse others of having complicated plans to lure you into violating your IBANs, when they would have no reason to do so.
Look, no one here considers heavy sanctions lightly; this space is known for it's generous issuance ofWP:ROPE. And I don't view the disputes you've been party to as entirely one-way. You may recall that I gave some support to you in the past (enough so that you pinged me to more than one ANI thread to validate your perspective, during the early days of your dispute with Catflap, before I suggested you should stop doing so). But giving you the benefit of the doubt has become increasingly problematic because you never concede to the smallest problem in your approach, nor apologize, nor work to address the issues that keep bringing you back here. You can't seem to conceive of the possibility that your approach is in error or that anyone criticizes you for anything but petty and personal reasons, even if there is no logical reason why they should "hate" you. That's why the discussion has come to this point. You want to know what Ido hate? Indeffs and sitebans. I loathe the idea of giving up on a member of our community. So it says something that I've come to the place where I'm willing to consider them here. And there's still time to avoid that kind of result--at least as far as I'm concerned--but it requires reaching down deep to examine your own behaviour with a critical eye and at least accepting thepossibility that there is fault to be found in your conduct which has contributed tot he disruption that brings you here repeatedly. You have to at least consider the possibility that its not all about everyone else you interact with, are banned from interacting with or who has criticism for you.Snowlet's rap03:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
But youdon't "have qualms with [my] conduct". Neither does John Carter. The claims you making (and John Carter has been making for years) about "my conduct" are simply false. This is why you have not provided any evidence.
Another example of a false claim is that I have been "subjected" to three IBANs. This claim is made without evidence, because no evidence for it exists. I requested two of them (like I am requesting this one) because I was being hounded. In one case, ArbCom confirmed my claim and imposed the IBAN I requested; in the other, a huge, unanimous consensus of (mostly) admins (including at least one current and one former Arb) confirmed my claim and granted me the (one-way) IBAN I wanted. I broke down your untrue claim above with specific links to the sanctions in question, and where and why they were put in place, and clearly demonstrated that your claims about them are plainly false. I cannot imagine why you would say these things, but it does seem like you have a strong dislike of me.
I don't make this claim of, say, BMK or Softlavender, with whom I have conflicted multiple times in the past and in this thread, because they genuinely appear to be acting in good faith. I think your choosing to post your comment in the form of a massive wall of text is a good-faith action rather than a deliberate filibustering attempt, as you have done the same thing in the past when it was clear filibustering was not your intent, but the content of your comment is very questionable, in parts demonstrably false, and overall difficult to take in good faith.
Well, you are free to interpret the motivation for my comments as you choose. I've stated my opinion on the proposal and we'll see how it bears out. I only commented the second time to address BMK's inquiry and the third time to address your belief that I must hate you in order to judge your conduct as I have (in short, I don't--it would be impossible for me to contribute to this project if I had feelings that came even close to hate for every disruptive editor I came across at ANI). As to the fairness/accuracy of my perspectives, I'll leave it to my fellow contributors to rely on their own memories or the search function on the AN/ANI archives to assess the matter for themselves. And you may consider it just one more dig, but I genuinely hope you'll reconsider what I've said, because I have doubts that you'll be retained in this community in the longterm if something major does not change in your approach to criticism/conflict.Snowlet's rap04:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a more cordial tone than before. And I appreciate your advice; I will reflect on it.
I also apologize for assuming, just above, that you have some particular problem with me -- the balance of your comments seemed to imply that you were here to request one-way sanctions against me (which would put you at odds with the other two opposes) but I guess you may have a philosophical opposition to IBANs. As Rob does (see[132]). And as in fact do I, at least when it comes topermanent IBANs, except in extreme circumstances -- I would be happy if the two IBANs that currently affect me were dissolved once it was clear that the hounding problem had abated, and a year or two down the line if John Carter and I are both still here and editing constructively and there has been no further problem (or if one or both of us is no longer editing at all) I may well request that the ban currently proposed be dissolved as unnecessary to prevent disruption.
It's got precisely zero to do with this proposal, but I do suggest you read up a bit on how Arbitration works, as both here and in another thread in which I was pinged you appeared to indicate a belief that community sanctions of individuals who had previously been involved in Arbitration cases were inappropriate. Community sanctions can beappealed to ArbCom after they are put in place, and ArbCom may choose to reject the appeal, remove the community sanction, or turn it into an ArbCom sanction, but there is no general moratorium on community sanctions unless either (1) such a community sanction would conflict with an ArbCom sanction in some way, or (2) that has been specifically stated in the ArbCom decision.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)05:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) (partly retracted 08:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC) per evidence to the contrary)
No, for the record I don't think community proposals/resolutions are voided in cases where the community has adopted a course of administrative action that overlap's with ArbCom's remit. For example, when I !voted to support the siteban for Catflap bellow, I did so despite reservations that AE was probably the best first stop for the issue. But as you say, it can always be appealed to ArbCom (which seems unlikely given CatFlap's dismissive attitude towards staying on the project and last kamikaze activities. Or ArbCom can step in if they object--incidentally, someone should probably tell them about that through a formal channel, like the AE page, or at least to an Arb's user talk. And I have even less reservation in this case, because the conduct and users we are talking about are separate from (if somewhat overlapping with) an existing ArbCom case. Insofar as this has been an issue that has largely played out at ANI, I would think a community resolution here completely appropriate and certainly legitimate. So we are on the same page there, if I read your previous comment accurately.Snowlet's rap06:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh. You did support. I saw your first "comment" that read very much like a "kick it to ArbCom" and missed your "support" below. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Unrelated to the 2015 case in which I was a party, I have seen "kick it to ArbCom because this seems to kinda-sorta be covered under Case X" abused quite a lot (and in one case the opposite problem) in recent months, and may have been reading some of that into your comments.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)08:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen quite a bit of that too. I support AE as the port of first call for incidents that fall under a case, but ANI will do in a pinch, if the degree of community involvement in a discussion is high enough and the consensus clear enough that ArbCom is likely to stick to the outcome.Snowlet's rap09:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I personally prefer AE to ANI as well (notice the AE entry I linked above), but AE has a very specific purpose, and can't be used to impose new sanctions. It is only for enforcing earlier ArbCom sanctions.New ArbCom sanctions are not requested on AE but on ARCA, which is very formal and a lot more complicated than ANI-based community discussions, as it is essentially like a miniature form of opening a new Arbitration case, and so should be treated as a last resort. In cases like this (or the Rjensen/Maunus case from last month, which was alluded to above), where the community appears to be able to resolve the problem, there's no need to go straight to ArbCom.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)10:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Snow Rise, your wall-of-text tirade, devoid of any diffs or evidence and devoid of any valuable solutions, is in my opinion detrimental to this discussion and I urge you to strike it and/or collapse it and the ensuing responses. Onlyindeath has clearly explained above (above the Proposal section) how and why an IBan would work in this situation and why it is the best colution. And as far as I understand in terms of Hijiri's IBans, in each of the cases the other editor has subsequently been banned or topic banned. And also one was converted into a one-way towards Hijiri (not the other way around); and one was originally intended to be a one-way towards Hijiri but the then ArbCom decided that one-ways were inopportune. Cf. the current thread on this page about Catflap. Also, it's odd that you have not gone off on a similar tirade about John Carter and his multiple IBans and ArbCom case and relinquishment of adminship. There's no point here of stirring the pot about either of these editors; the point is to resolve the situation, and since both editors requested and agreed to this IBAN in the last ANI, and OID has explained why it would work, there is in my opinion no reason to oppose it or to place any other sanctions on two otherwise constructive and productive contributors.Softlavender (talk)06:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No I'm afraid I won't be striking or rescinding anything, because nothing I've said can't be found in the record. Nobody else !voting has been asked for diffs here, other than John Carter as OP. And do you know why? Because we are mostly all painfully aware of the details of this clash of personalities. I shared my perspective, having seen this issue cycle for years now. BMK asked me to be more concrete about my counter proposal for what I thought was needed to end this disruption and though I wasn't keen to, I decided it was a fair thing to ask, so I responded in full to that inquiry. Hijiri then made a comment which I thought needed a response, so I did that to. None of this is inappropriate, and it ended on as good (or at least civil) a note as the discussion might have under the circumstances. In any account, neither my motivation nor the end of my actions has been to stir things up. I happen to disagree with the proposal, and have outlined my entirely valid reasons, born out of three years of observing the relationship of these editors.
All of that said, if you want me to provide a specific diff or diffs with regard to a specific comment I made in describing those past threads, you or any other editor is free to ask and I will do what I can to point you at the right thread and you can draw your own conclusions. But I'm simply not going to put together the dozens upon dozens of diffs necessary to cover those numerous discussions spread out across multiple forums and archives. I just don't remotely have the time for that--this issue has been going on for three years, or near enough, and none of us can be expected to a do a full audit of their perspective on the matter each time we cast an !vote in this never-ending affair. I do suggest you read some of those threads though; I did provide links to the archive discussions which involve these editors and their IBANs, which is a place to start.Snowlet's rap06:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This statement of yours is incorrect: "Sturmgewehr88's is hardly uninvolved here, and yet I agree with his assessment that Hijiri retreats quite quickly into paranoid accusations whenever his behaviour is called out-". If you believe that it is correct, please provide a diff where Sturmgewehr88 said anything like that. Also this statement: "Worse still, [Hijiri] actively games his IBANs in another way; if another user on this noticeboard asks him to restrain his conduct with regard to another editor and points out that he has a history of needlessly personalizing content disputes, he has been known to accuse that user of 'trying to get me to violate my IBAN so he can get me banned', even if the IBAN was never mentioned by anyone, and the editor in question is uninvolved in the dispute and has no history of personal conflict with him." seems to clearly refer to your recent interaction with Hijiri on ANI:[133] (consequent to this[134]). I would like to see some repeated evidence of your claim that does not involve you. It is not true that "IBans never work"; as I mentioned, they have worked with Hijiri and in each case the other party has been proved wrong or the wrongdoer and has been further sanctioned. I would also like you to explain why you think that Only in death's clear explanation of why this IBAN (which has been requested by both parties) would work and is the best solution[135][136], is invalid or incorrect, and why you think the incredibly extreme solution of site-banning two longterm productive editors is a better option.Softlavender (talk)07:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. Regarding "Sturmgewehr88's" comment, that was supposed to have been changed to John Carter, who was the party that made that assertion. That was a copy edit error I thought I had corrected once, but I guess I failed to correct it the second time after the edit conflict that delayed the corrective post. I thank you for bringing the fact that the error persists to my attention and I will fix it again (properly and with a strike) forthwith. Regarding Hijiri's charges that someone is trying to get him to violate his topic ban, those incidents occurred in past enforcement discussions of the IBANs (in the early ones associated with Catflap. I will try to track down the specific diffs, but please be patient as there are a number of threads between AN and ANI.
As to why I think the IBAN is ill-advised, I'd refer you back to my posts above; I can't imagine that I can make my case any more explictly than I have there--those posts are, if anything, too long because I tried to make my thinking and my past experience of the conflict as clear as possible. In essence, my argument distills down to the very same one described by Rob13's above; persistent violations of our behavioural standards should be met with community action, not a perpetual kicking of the can down the road. I've given that same argument in a couple of the previous IBAN discussions surrounding these editors, though by no means all of them.
As to the alternatives, note that I resisted BMK's urging to make a formal and concrete recommendation. I instead outlined what I thought an acceptable range of community responses would be, and the one you cited is just at one extreme end of those options: I was clear to state that I could see myself supporting options ranging from temporary blocks all the way up to sitebans. As to my reasoning, there once I again I will direct you back to my previous posts. In essence it comes down to the fact that I've never seen a single editor in this whole years-long affair ever face an actual administrative action. There have been community sanctions (IBANS and TBANS) but none of the parties has ever had to face a single hour of suspended editorial rights for any of the disruption that has spilled on to this page time and again, not even when the IBANS were clearly not being followed because the parties were still in active conflict. After about three years, countless AN/ANI threads, and an ArbCom case, all of which still has not quelled these accusations and flare-ups of disruption, I'm willing to consider bringing down the block hammer to get the attention of these parties. Maybe the question you should be asking is why aren't you? I'm not looking for anybody's head here--neither are the otheroppose !votes from what I can see. I'm eager to consider the minimum effective option. But I can fairly well promise you that an IBAN is not going to be a longterm solution here.
But look, statistically your perspective is carrying the !vote so far. In all likelihood, the IBAN will be employed. And I won't say or even do anything to imply "I told you so" when the first thread that one of these editors brings about the other's purported violation of the IBAN shows up in five to eight weeks!Addendum: I've said as much as I think is prudent for one editor to say in any given discussion, so aside from getting you those diffs, this will be the end to my commentary here. I've responded to BMK's request and now yours and given Hijiri my perspective, for what it is worth--we've come as close to seeing eye-to-eye on this as can be expected. Anything further would be non-productive in my opinion, and I meant to be clear of this discussion after my initial comments four posts back.Snowlet's rap08:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
nothing I've said can't be found in the record SR, Ireally, really don't want to address your string of false claims one by one. I thought disproving the biggest one (that I have been "subjected" to "IBAns", plural, for my own "disruptive behaviour" when in fact two of the three current ones, plus this one, were at my request to protect me from hounding, and either were or would probably be repealed immediately upon my request) would be enough to realize either(a) that you were mistaken in your core assumptions, or(b) that you can't get away with lying here.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@SR: Sorry forthis. In my experience posting super-indented responses to individual paragraphs of others' comments is quite common, especially when said comments are very long, and when one hasn't read all of the comment and wants to respond to one particular portion. In fact, you did essentially the same thing a few hours ago.[137] If you don't like it, I will refrain from doing it with your posts in the future.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I really don't need "tldr" thrown in my face here. I made one !vote many hours ago and since then, BMK, you, and Softlavender have all requested clarification in your own ways. In circumstances like this, it takesmuch more time to respond to an inquiry than it does to make the inquiry. As to the substance of your argument, IBANS are never one-way--though many probably should be. Still, the fact that you requested them does not mean that the community endorses the notion that you were the victim in the scenario and the other party the aggressor. Your perspective here is that you have beenWP:hounded to varying degrees in each of these cases. I'm sure the other party would disagree in each case. The truth may lay somewhere in the middle for each, but I still think you need to consider why you get into these relationships with other editors so readily. Have you historically just told yourself that you've been unlucky enough to get entangled with editors who end up hounding you? Or do you consider it a possibility that you are contributing something to these persistent feuds? the vast majority of other editors, despite strong differences of opinion, do not end upthe subject of involved in so many IBANs, self-requested or not. But I don't think we should go in circles on this any further. You know my opinion on those matters already, and my perspective on the proposal is more than sufficiently entered into the record. You can take or reject of both as you will.Snowlet's rap09:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I really don't need "tldr" thrown in my face here. I made one !vote many hours ago and since then, BMK, you, and Softlavender have all requested clarification in your own ways. Please understand that when we say TLDR we are referring to your initial !voteas well as many of your subsequent comments. I have not asked you for clarification of anything, as I know that what you said about me (and those are the only bits I responded to) was false; what I am requesting is that, in light of whatI clarifiedfor you above (the geneses of my other IBANs), you re-read your own comments, and strike out any claims for which you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence. I am not able to go through all of your claims myself, as that would make this thread even more TLDR, and last time I took my response to your very long and mostly-off-topic ANI comments about IBANs to your talk page,I was blocked. I'm now extremely careful never to talk about IBANs unless I'm 100% that BANEX applies and that even the most gullible admin couldn't be tricked into blocking me.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That is probably a wise policy. But my memory ofthat discussion is that no one tricked you into continuing to comment about Catflap, nor tricked Drmies into blocking you. In fact, when you came to my user talk to expound upon your grievance with Catflap, I tried my best to get you to drop the subject before it got you blocked. ("I think you really, really need to take Drmies' comments in closing that thread to heart...", "I don't think Drmies was being dramatic for effect when he [sic] said she very nearly blocked the both of you just to be done with this drama.". I never connected the dots before to realize that the block you received for talking about Catflap on my UTP (which said block I had forgotten about until this discussion) was why you are so paranoid about discussing your IBAN. But what I still don't understand is why it put the notion in your head that I was responsible for the block or that I am out to get you. I didn't report you to Drmies and if you go back to review that discussion, you will see that I tried my best to help you avoid that outcome. As it happens, that was around the point where I started to wear of seeing the dispute. Up until that point I held out hope that you and Catflap could be made to see reason with regard to avoiding one-another, and I supported your assertion that the IBAN was problematic at that point. After that point, I lost track of the whole conflict and was glad that it didn't cross my attention, until I saw the signpost arbitration report "Hijiri88 and Catflap08 case ended" months later and thought "Yup, that sounds about right."Snowlet's rap10:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
no one tricked you into continuing to comment about ... I was under the impression that the ANI thread would be closed and the IBAN dissolved, in accordance with the consensus among contributors there. I wasn't "tricked", nor have I claimed that I was "tricked", but it was a very slippery string of events that led to the block, and so I don't like having to justify it every time you come across a discussion I'm involved in (or even one I'm not involved in but left a drive-by comment in).nor tricked Drmies into blocking you You must understand that when I talk about him being tricked into blocking me, I'm talking about the previous fabricated incident where hewas tricked into blocking me (not because he's especially gullible, mind you - the trickster in question was very careful). He evenall-but apologized for having blocked me based on the fabricated incident in question. Don't you think it's bizarre that three years and fifty-one weeks later Istill have to talk about an incident where an admin was tricked into blocking me?Hijiri 88 (聖やや)11:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well you understand my confusion, right? Because you were talking about the ban you got for talking about Catflap on my page before you referenced another editor tricking an admin into blocking you, so naturally those seem to be one unified thought. Anyway, I've never once raised the issue of that block with you, so you've never had to justify it to me (nor should you have felt the need to respond, even if I had). I had completely forgotten that you had even been blocked in that incident until I was reviewing your block log while contemplating my position here. In any event, I am not in any way responsible for that block. I didn't request that Drmies block you and I didn't inform him that you were taking about Catflap on my user talk. I can ping Drmies to confirm that if you like? In fact, I made two friendly attempts to stop you from talking further there, because I figured a block would be the result. Please, if you haven't yet, go back and review that thread. Perhaps it will remind you that I wasn't always as critical of you as I have been in this thread. Maybe that will help to convince you that my only interest here is stopping this dispute from cycling ad infinitum, and that there is nothing personal in the fact that I have come to the conclusion that we need solutions with some bite to them.Snowlet's rap12:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"IBANS are never one-way"; that is false, and I'm very surprised you do not realize that, especially when I've mentioned the one-way IBANs that have been placed on other editors in regards to Hijiri in at least two of my responses to you. And these one-way IBans support the fact that other editors hound him, and it's quite clear to nearly every editor posting on this entire thread that John Carter has been wikistalking and hounding Hijiri over a long period of time.Softlavender (talk)09:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"As to the alternatives, note that I resisted BMK's urging to make a formal and concrete recommendation. I instead outlined what I thought an acceptable range of community responses would be, and the one you cited is just at one extreme end of those options: I was clear to state that I could see myself supporting options ranging from temporary blocks all the way up to sitebans." No, I've re-checked your responses and the only thing you've specifically suggested (and you specifically stated that you would support either of these) is site ban or indefinite block. If you believe you did otherwise, please provide the diff and exact quotation.Softlavender (talk)10:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"[N]one of the parties has ever had to face a single hour of suspended editorial rights for any of the disruption that has spilled on to this page time and again, not even when the IBANS were clearly not being followed because the parties were still in active conflict." There has never been an IBAN enacted here, although one was proposed, was agreed upon by both parties, and gained consensus from other editors (6 support, 1 oppose) in the last ANI:[138]. We don't block longterm good-faith productive editors simply because they have had disagreements or are mentioned at ANI. Perhaps you should review theWP:BLOCK policy. "After about three years, countless AN/ANI threads, and an ArbCom case, all of which still has not quelled these accusations and flare-ups of disruption, I'm willing to consider bringing down the block hammer to get the attention of these parties.". There has never been an ArbCom filed over this issue. If you believe there should be, then file one or propose one here. The last ANI came up with the mutually endorsed and widely agreed-upon solution of the IBAN, but the closing admin chose to ignore the consensus (6 support, 1 oppose)[139]. There's absolutely no reason to block, much less indef or site-ban, either of these longterm editors;to do so at present would bestrictly punitive. --Softlavender (talk)10:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No...once again, I clearly listed conventional blocks as an option when I responded to BMK's request--in which he pressed for my own proposal, because I am so strongly opposed the IBAN. And even if I hadn't, I've made my position clear to you in direct statements--I support the minimum effective approach. I just don't think an IBAN cuts it at this point. Please don't be so quick to mis-characterize me (however unintentionally) as willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. My position is not that there is no way but to excise these editors completely. And yes, there has been an ArbCom case that touches upon the conflict between these editors--both Hijiri and John Carter were named parties to the Hijiri88 and Catflap08 case, though John Carter was not sanctioned in that case. I appreciate that the dispute here continued beyond well beyond that point, but the origin of Hijiri and John Carter's dispute is in Hijiri's conflict with Catflap08--who, by the way, was sitebanned earlier today for not dropping the stick, and even in that case I held out as a long as I could until Sturm presented evidence I couldn't ignore reinforcing his (Catflap's)WP:NOTHERE attitude. I was the only party to try to apply the brakes there and held out on !supporting the ban proposal--specifically because I recognize that indefs/sitebans are the solution of last resort, quite in conflict with the cavalier attitude towards banning that you accuse me of having. I don't make my policy recommendations on hasty or superficial conclusions. I've had years of watching this matter to come to a conclusion about what is necessary to forestall further disruption, after a good long while of trying tokeep the parties from getting blocked... (see the link to the archived discussion on my talk page above). And frankly I am running out of ways to tell you that I do not consider sanctions lightly.Snowlet's rap10:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No, Snow Rise, you didn't, and the fact that you can't provide a diff and a direct quote proves that. And my personal read of your hesitance to support a siteban for Catflap -- a clearly trolling user in no way constructive or productive -- despite overwhelming evidence is that you are for whatever reason (the recent ANI thread I linked above?) currently on a roll against Hijiri, and thus inclined to support users who have opposed him, which is why you have called for him to be site-banned (in your !vote[140]: "I'd even support sitebans at this point, as I believe at least one ... of these editors have engaged in such consistently problematic conduct that they have demonstrated themselves to be net-negatives to the project (and part of one of the largest recurring headaches of ANI in particular).")Softlavender (talk)11:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
SL, I am just completely done engaging with you here, especially if you are going to speculate into existence the most sinister possible explanation for every call I make. You keep trying to make it look like I am out for someone's blood here when in reality I just view the sanction you endorse as foolhardy, for pragmatic reasons. I !voted to siteban Catflap because I thought it was necessary given the evidence ofWP:NOTHERE (as I stated at the time). Similarly, I think this situation is long overdue for some sanctions that represent genuine consequence for these editors. You accused me earlier of trying to "stir things up", but at the point you entered into the conversation, Hijiri and I had both said our peace and more or less settled on agreeing to disagree. Your railing against my perspectives, including repeatedly referencing positions I have not stated and do not endorse, has accomplished nothing but to waste time and set us all further at odds. I think you need to think twice about the benefit you are bringing to this discussion by trying to browbeat me into abandoning or striking my opinion. I've made it clear I stand by my interpretation of the best way forward here and will not support the IBAN. Move on and let others comment, please. The closest we are going to get to agreement here is that we deeply disagree about the substantive issues.Snowlet's rap11:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Every fact I have stated about your position has been accompanied by diffs and quotes. In terms of Catflap, in your own words "I held out as a long as I could ... and held out on !supporting the ban proposal--specifically because I recognize that indefs/sitebans are the solution of last resort" and you initially resisted the unanimous and obviously needed call for a siteban[141], but you are unwilling to give this mutually agreed-upon IBan a chance? In terms of my responses to you, when someone !votes "Absolute strongest possible oppose", with a 4,500+ byte rationale without any direct evidence, they should expect to be responded to in depth and in detail.Softlavender (talk)13:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The above interactions with Snowrise have long since become unproductive and largely off-topic to the current concern, could an un-involved admin hat them please. (I suggest directly after Snowrise's !vote, alternatively close it off completely).Only in death does duty end (talk)10:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
They actually aren't off-topic; the off-topic comments are Snow Rise's. I requested above that Snow Rise strike his !vote (as a wall-of-text diatribe instead of a !vote) or hat his !vote and all of the ensuing comments, but he declined. At the very least, his wall-of-text diatribe deserved a rebuttal, and in my opinion we should not simply make the rebuttals disappear if the wall-of-text diatribe stands.Softlavender (talk)10:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
@Softlavender: Neither of us has written a proper rebuttal. Normally, a full rebuttal of any comment would belonger, not shorter, than the original comment itself; very few professional commentaries on theGospel of Mark or theTales of Ise are less than ten times longer than the works themselves. I'mstill hoping SR will voluntarily retract his/her numerous baseless claims because of my having successfully rebutted one or two, but even if my hope is in vain I have no intention of writing a full rebuttal.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)10:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for you, but all of my (and BMK's) replies to Snow Rise have been rebuttals, and in my opinion your post above is off-topic and adding to the clutter.Softlavender (talk)10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
They are at best partial rebuttals. But you're basically right. My excuse for my other continuing partial rebuttals is that I don't like letting non-truths about myself stand. But I'll go distract myself somewhere else now. I give you leave to blank my comment and your response, and this response. I'd do it myself to my own, but you already replied, so that would be bad.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)11:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: I have no objection to hatting the discussion after my initial !vote--if for no other reason, then the convenience of others who need to use this thread to comment. Hell, I wish I hadn't even responded to BMK's request for more detail on my position--I suspected the above would be the result. But hatting my !vote itself would be a violation ofWP:TPG. My opinion is as much a valid part of the community consensus here as any other editor who has weighed in, no matter how much it clashes with your, Softlavender's or Hijiri's vision of the best way forward. Nor is the position I advocate unique. Others oppose the IBAN for similar reasons. Softlavender wishes me to strike my !vote, but that's not going to happen. I think the IBAN is an incredibly ill-conceived solution to this particular conflict with these particular editors and that the past iterations of the dispute demonstrate that for anyone who wants to look at how the conflict between the two has played out.Snowlet's rap11:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per BURob13. This mess belongs at ArbCom. The argumentative battleground mentality displayed by both individuals in this very discussion is not likely to magically go away if an iBan is imposed.Lepricavark (talk)04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Have you actually looked at any of the evidence presented? Or even read BURob13's !vote that you claim to be seconding? Because "kick it to ArbCom" is theopposite of what he said; it seems more likely you just saw a very long thread on ANI and decided to say "kick it to ArbCom" based on that fact alone, and "claim" whichever admin had already opposed it. If you seriously think I have a "battleground mentality" you should provide evidence. Not to do is apersonal attack, and you may face sanctions for it if you do not retract it. Snow Rise was challenged to do so numerous times above and was unable to do so (as was John Carter).Hijiri 88 (聖やや)05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you feel the need to argue with me in such an aggressive manner proves my point for me. Seriously, you need to back off and stop arguing so many points throughout this thread. My comments do not even come close to constituting a personal attack, and your attempt to create a chilling effect with a reference to possible sanctions is not going to work. Furthermore, you failed to assume good faith regarding my participation in this thread (which is aboutyour behavior, not mine). I'm now even more convinced that this should, and ultimately will, end up at ArbCom, which is not theopposite of what Rob said. I was expressing agreement in principle with Rob's post, but that doesn't mean I can't add my own suggested outcome.Lepricavark (talk)05:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you find my manner aggressive, but you must understand that while, to paraphrase Raul Julia, for you this is just a !vote, for me it is a question of whether (1) I put up with more hounding/PAs indefinitely, (2) I get the IBAN that will allow me to continue going about building an encyclopedia without worrying about the hounding/PAs, or (3) I spend an ungodly amount of time and effort trying to get ArbCom to to do (2). I apologize if you felt I was trying to create a chilling effect, but your comment did constitute a personal attack, and you should either strike it or provide some evidence for it. Nothing I said above was meant to be taken as a legal threat (I am relatively strict about our NLT policy, if you've seen my other activities on this noticeboard), and the sanctions I alluded to would be strictly for violating Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I appreciate that it bothered you, so I have stricken it, and I offer you my apology for the slip-up. I would appreciate it if you too would strike out your claim that I have a battleground mentality. I'm going to leave it toUser:BURob13 himself to correct you on whether he thinks this should go to ArbCom.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. BURob13 doesn't exist.User:BU Rob13, could you please clarify your opinion on this matter? Your name has been invoked by all three subsequent "oppose" !votes, one saying nothing else, and the other two both apparently interpreting your comment as saying "send it to ArbCom".Hijiri 88 (聖やや)05:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
By mentioning a chilling effect, I didn't mean you were making legal threats. I don't think one has to make a legal threat in order for that outcome to occur. However, given your good faith act of striking the comment and the further discussion below, I am striking my comment and walking away from this thread.Lepricavark (talk)13:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, nope, nope. This doesn't need to go to ArbCom. In fact, if the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan. I don't think it will do anything to correct the underlying issue, which is that John Carter has repeatedly personally attacked and possibly harassed editors, but at least it will correctthis issue. ~Rob13Talk05:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm of a similar mind to Rob (in that I broadly oppose the IBAN in favour of other sanctions, but I consider a deferral of the issue on the hope that ArbCom will address it to be a worse option still). Mind you, if I thought ArbComwould take it, they would be the ideal forum. But here's the problem: AE is not an option because, although these two have been party to the same ArbCom case in the past, none of the findings of that case involved restrictions on either editor with regard to eachother (in fact, John Carter was not sanctioned at all in that ruling). And I think ArbCom is unlikely to take a new case on these two when there is some chance we might resolve the matter here.
However, on a side-note, though, Hijiri, I don't know why you found it necessary to invoke my name when denying Lepricavark's claim that you have a "battleground mentality", because that is not a charge I've explicitly made above. But I would stop pretending as if it is unreasonable for any editor to draw the conclusion, because ArbCom specifically found thatyou have previously engaged in personal attacks and threatening behaviour, and several of the diffs they cite in reaching that conclusion are comments you made to John Carter... So if you really want to pull me into an evaluation of your mentality and press for diffs for some reason, I'll oblige, but I really don't think its helpful to what you want out of this or what I think is a useful resolution.Snowlet's rap07:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps before I explain what I said, you could explain how you squareAbsolute strongest possible oppose per BU_Rob13,I'm of a similar mind to Rob and your repeated references to ArbCom with BU Rob13'sif the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan. Surely if you have the "absolute strongest possible opposition" you don't actually mean "an IBAN is not the best possible solution here, but it is acceptable"? And if you are "even more absolutely strongest possible opposed" against doing nothing and forwarding this to ArbCom, why did you say you don't have another solution in a comment that made multiple references to ArbCom? Were you just beingdeliberately verbose in bringing up ArbCom as much as you did? This amount of flip-flopping and TLDR is not going to help the closer evaluate your argument. It is clear that both you and Lepricavark opposed for your own reasons, which run very much contrary to BU Rob13's reason (it will do anything to correct the underlying issue, which is that John Carter has repeatedly personally attacked and possibly harassed editors, but at least it will correct this issue), and put BU Rob13's name on your !votes because you thought pretending to agree with him would give your own (baseless) claims legitimacy. Furthermore, both you and Lepricavark made a number of personal accusations against me, without providing any evidence, and whenasked either to provide evidence or to strike said remarks, repeatedly refused. Actually, technically, Lepricavark has thusfar only refused once; you refused repeatedly, and even when I explicitly disproved one of your false accusations youignored me and have still now failed to strike it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)08:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I used very specific wording to delineate where my perspective overlaps with Rob's; you can find it justone post up from your last comment. And I'm not going to go around in circles with you anymore on why I think it would be problematic to grant an IBAN based on your and John Carter's previous histories in regard to them. I've laid out that argument with respect to the two of you as many ways as I can. You don't see the issue the same way. Well fair enough. But you're the one who invoked my name in this sub-topic, specifically in regards to an accusation I supposedly made (I didn't--I never made reference to your "battleground mentality"). But if I'm supposed to have implied that you have a battleground mentality and you are now demanding I substantiate that claim with a diff, well I just provided you with a diff toArbCom issuing a formal finding that you have "engaged in personal attacks and threatening behaviour" (i.e. textbookWP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour), and the first couple of diffs they offer as references to that fact are comments you directed at John Carter. Incidentally, ArbCom also found that you had violated the terms of your previous IBAN, which bears rather directly on whether you will respect this one that you are asking us to employ, such that the community must deal with any further disruption from violations of said ban--and it's especially hard to make that leap of trust in light of the fact that youjust violated your previous contact restriction with regard to John Carter that the community employed!
Now, are there are any other problem behaviours I am meant to have alleged about you that you want me to diff? This is really not how I want to spend my time on this project, but if you keep bringing me back here with allegations about the "baselessness" of my perspectives, I guess I'll keep obliging your requests for a time. Or you could just let this rest, since, statistically, your desired outcome is still way ahead in this strawpoll and you are probably going to get the outcome you want if you just stop attacking every contributor who favours a different approach to this problem.Snowlet's rap09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom evidence from 2015 can't be used to propose new community sanctions in 2017. ArbCom already put its remedies in force 13 months ago, and the community can't overrule them. If you want to propose new sanctions, you need to present new evidence. You have not provided a single shred of evidence in support of your claims. I'm not even going to respond to your bogus claims anymore. If you continue to make accusations without providing evidence, amd refuse to strike accusations that have already been proven false, you are clearly acting in bad faith. And if you are not even going to address the points I mentioned above (such as the clear contradiction between "absolutely strongest possible oppose" and "it's better than nothing"), then it seems pointless to continue discussing with you. Since I want the closer to see what you've written here, I will not invokeWP:RPA and blank your bogus accusationsin this thread, but if I see you doing this again to another user I will (if you do it again to me, I will request someone else do it). Even if your claims had merit, you would still be required to providesome form of evidence.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)10:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Support IBAN As both parties requested or supported (weakly) one in the previous ANI session, and with the strenght of evidence provided by Mr rnddude, Blackmane, and John Carter's own statements, this should be a forgone conclusion. AlsoSupport Warning or Block of John Carter re:personal attacks, I seriously did not expect to find the same accusations of"transparent paranoia" from John Carter in an ANI thread from 2015.DsareArde (talk)02:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I might have expected you to make a review of the previous ArbCom as well, which I have to assume you didn't, before making the apparently poorly reviewed judgment regarding the statements of others. Had you made such a review, you would find that it was specifically addressing the rather boringly regular accusations from Hijiri88 that comments critical of him seem to have in his mind all come from the same person, his "stalker," and that in many cases the evidence to support that is and has been nonexistent. What would you call such unfounded assumptions that all criticism of someone seems to in the mind of that person derive from a single person "out to get him" in the colloquialism? And I also note that if the ArbCom had found the phrae objectionable, they probably would have sanctioned me for it in the ArbCom which was presented to them later, and they as per that case refused to do so.John Carter (talk)20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
John, when you admit to receiving off-wiki contact from someone who makes the effort to going around emailing people about me, and within a year or so of your saying that I had seen direct, on-wiki evidence that said stalker was doing that, I am justified in believing that they are the same person. But I have not made such assertions fr like two years, so you really should just get over it already; it seems to do you no good to constantly bring it up, except to remind me of something of which you have every reason to thinkinappropriate to remind me. And even still, even if the person who emailed you was not my SBANned stalker, it was someone behaving incredibly inappropriately and stalkerish-ly regardless.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative
Extended content
The discussion above seems to have got rather bogged down. However, one thing is crystal clear. The closer of the previous ANI, nine months ago, concluded,Both John Carter and Hijiri88 are hereby banned from each other's talk pages on pain of a minmum one month ban. Such restriction applies if either editor is logged out. The only exception is that either may post on the other any required notication, such as an issue being raised at WP:ANI concerning them[142]. Hijiri88 unequivocally broke that banhere. Isn't John Carter entitled to be a little upset, and to request the one-month ban promised?GoldenRing (talk)11:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Please demonstrate the "bad behaviour' you speak of, unless you consider opening a thread to address violations of explicitly placed sanctions "bad behaviour". Also, I think it is rather clearly obvious from the OP of this subthread, the answer would be "no, as perhaps a possible deterrent to the bad behaviour which caused this thread to be opened," although, admittedly, I guess I can understand how one of the people who has been counted by others as Hijiri88's most reliable defenders might attempt to obfuscate that.John Carter (talk)16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Whose bad behaviour? Neither of them's been particularly brilliant, AFAICT. But Carter's original 'crime' was to reply to comments made by Hijiri88. Not reply disruptively, or insultingly, or in any way that would have drawn an objection from any other editor; the only thing that was wrong was that he was responding to Hijiri88. This was enough to draw a complaint from Hijiri88 in direct contravention of an absolutely explicit community sanction. What's the point of enacting such sanctions if, when they are violated, our response is, "Oh, well, let's ban the other guy because he complained about the breach in uncivil terms."?GoldenRing (talk)12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I see zero consensus for that ban in the community discussion. Admins may not unilaterally apply bans so it's unenforceable as far as I'm concerned. We should formally lift it. ~Rob13Talk16:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Per Rob13's observation and WP:CBAN, ISupport lifting the talk page ban as having been without consensus within the proposed sanctions (and if they'd enacted the requested mutual IBAN back then, well, I suspect this mess would be either not happening, or easier to clean up, so I'll support that up page.)DsareArde (talk)01:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Simply noting for the record that, as I have said above, I have no reservations about taking this matter to ArbCom, or having someone else do so, although, based on what I know regarding some matters of prior history of instances of this type, they may not take a case until such threads as this one are closed. I myself will probably, as is my recent habit, not be active here after today until Monday, as I have basically limited my time here to Mondays and Wednesdays recently, but, if someone were to close this thread in my absence and start a request for a case at ArbCom, I would have no reservations about that. I will probably do so myself if this thread is closed and there is no move to so take the matter to ArbCom on its closing. In fact, I think the record will show that my own support was more or less predicated upon a full review of the matters, and I don't necessarily see that such a full review has yet been made, which, perhaps, might indicate that the terms of my own support had not been met, which could reasonably be seen as an indicator that I do not in fact support the imposition of such an i-banuntil such review is made.
Also noting that many of the previous !votes were made before I had presented the full nature of the earlier contacts, and that should be taken into account as well.John Carter (talk)16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative II: close thread, go to ArbCom
Extended content
More or less as per my last comment above. Adding this as a separate section to call more attention to it and get more input more clearly.John Carter (talk)17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As per my last comment in the section above, I know ArbCom isn't likely to take this matter until the discussion here is closed, but, if the discussion were to be closed for the purposes of taking it to ArbCom, that might be a separate matter entirely.John Carter (talk)23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral. If ArbCom would have it, they would be the ideal forum for this situation, imo. However, the fact of the matter is that the IBAN proposal has broad support at this time (by a factor of nearly five-to-one in favour). I still strongly oppose it, personally, but the oppose arguments have not shifted consensus at all that I can see, so contemplating this option seems superfluous and a dead end. You two will likely get your IBAN, so at this point those of us who are skeptical of it will just have to trust you both to use it to effect. ArbCom may very well be the next stop if it fails.Snowlet's rap00:06, 26 January 2017 (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.
"Closed" means "Closed"
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
@Beeblebrox: With all due respect, the "very real possibility of an ArbCom case" is, in fact, something that I indicated more than once I was intending to seek out. Does this restriction eliminate that possibility, and, I suppose, it would be curious to know how strong the "interaction" is. Would any edit made by one party to a page or discussion that had already involved the other party in any way qualify as a violation? If so, then I think that for this matter to have any real enforcability there may well need to be some sort of restrictions of one sort or another on the common areas of activity, including religion/Christianity, noticeboards, etc.John Carter (talk)00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Question: All known recent IPs used by the TFD vandal have been in the 49.197.*.* range. Is there any indication that a rangeblock would cause collateral damage? Thank you. --Finngalltalk22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Here are the range calculations. I haven't done any digging, just inputted the information into the range calculator. A few check users or administrators that are familiar with range blocks might want to take a look. I'll do a bit of analysis myself when I get the chance. --Cameron11598(Talk)23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I can see it would require a /16, which would do a little bit of collateral damage. It might be block able for a short period (if absolutely necessary) but I would advocate against a long term block of the range. PingKrakatoaKatie,Bbb23 or any other CU for a second opinion.--Cameron11598(Talk)03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, if it's really a very disruptive LTA editor, we could see if the WMF would be willing to contact their ISP about abuse coming from their network. ~Rob13Talk04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The most recent TFD IP is 49.181, not 49.197, so I'd say the question of rangeblocking is moot for now, but I'd still like to see an answer on whether we can contact the ISP. --Finngalltalk22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Canvassing Opinion
An editor selectively notified editors of an AfD discussion (that was later removed by a different editor as it was incomplete) that was taking place atTalk:Isaaq_Genocide. Although the notice was neutral enough, all members the editor solicited, since they were cherry-picked by the editor, ended up supporting their view. This seems likeWP:VOTESTACK to me but I would like the opinion of an admin (or other experienced editors). The soliciting posts for editor no.1 [here, and editor no.2 [here]. There were in total 3 votes supporting them, the aforementioned two solicited votes, and a third editor who, though not directly solicited as far as I can see, has self-identified as an acquaintance of the initiator of the request, you can word search this sentence in the talk page linked above: "whilst Acidsnow in particular is nothing more than an acquaintance to me." Needless to say all three editors have interacted and discussed many topics in the past and it seems to me that they would have a reasonable expectation of stances on different topics thus it appearsWP:CANVAS. Many thanks.Kzl55 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)The user has been informed of this discussion.Kzl55 (talk)02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there's a clear distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. As Awale-Abdi points out, me and Soupforone have had numerous disagreements in the past (see this articles talk page as an example:here). In fact, Soupforone and I have disagreed on the vast majority of our discussions, so theirs no indication that we would agree on this matter either. In addition, I've never spoke to AlaskaLava prior to this discussion. Awale-Abdi found the article on his own and we've disagreed in the past too (see here:[143]), so stating that he is an acquaintance doesn't prove much. All three users are all well established editors and have all shown considerable knowledge one the Somali people and the wider region. One the other hand, Kzl55 sought the thoughts of individuals whom had all joined recently (most likely a coincidence), made very few edits, and had all desired to prop up the regions independence movement on Wikipedia, see:here,here, andhere. This further supports why I and other users citeWP:PROPAGANDA for theIsaaq Genocide article and the rest of Kzl55 edits. I suggest that they familiarize themselves withWP:BOOMERANG.
This report is nothing more than part of a series of personal attacks that this user has made against me. These include: accusations of vandalism (see here:[144],[145], and[146]), raising the possibility of metapuppetry (see here:[147]), soliciting views (see here:[148]), and so forth. He has also made comments such as:
I and several other users have already stated that it would be in their best interest for them to stop (see here:[149],[150], and[151]). But as we can see from here, nothing has changed. If there's an anything an admin can do about this, then let it be so. If a separate discussion is required, then I am also willing to make oneAcidSnow (talk)07:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)AfD discussions don't take place on article talk pages.(See below.)Notifying users you suspect will !vote a certain way is canvassing, but notifying a small number of experienced and ethical users who are familar with the topic and have not demonstrated a strong bias is normally acceptable. I do not know if this is what happened there, but the number of users notified was definitely small. Additionally, if someone actually does open a properly formatted AFD and you do what you apparently did there, postingmassive walls of text with the effect, if not necessarily the intent, of filibustering the discussion, you will be more likely to face sanctions than the "canvassing" party. Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor and if the "AfD discussion" has already ended nothing will come of it, and your own wall of text was arguably much worse than notifying two users. (Although, again, I don't know why those users were selected. You say that the notifier had previous interactions with them, but again the only way to know if someone is experienced, ethical and familiar with the topic is to have had previous interactions with them.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや)07:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Kzl55 has been making numerous attacks against me as pointed out by myself and other users. I am interested in seeing if anything can be done about it.AcidSnow (talk)07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Noted. But a significant portion of the "discussion" apparently took place after your move of the discussion to the talk page, so my point about the absurdity of it still stands (especially given the OP'san AfD discussion [...] that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide), as does everything else about walls of text and what is considered disruptive canvassing. Thisassumes that, since the OP didn't present any evidence of collusion or tendentious editing, the small number of canvassed editors were selected for a valid reason. My assumption could well be wrong, but the burden is still on the OP to prove it.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. You need to start a new AfD from scratch,AcidSnow, and hopefully this one, as well as following process, will attract concise comments rather than walls of text.Cordless Larry (talk)08:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that walls of text, if posted with an apparent attempt to filibuster civil discussion and preserve the status quo by default, are severe violations. It is not clear that Kzl55intended to filibuster that "discussion", but now that they have been warned about it here, if they do it again on a new, properly formatted AFD, you should come back here and report them. AGF isnot a suicide pact: if someone persists in "good faith" disruptive behaviour after being told it is disruptive, you can report them for their disruptive behaviour. But you need to be brief as well. Very long comments tend to discourage outside input and preserve the status quo by default, so if you are seeking sanctions against someone you need to keep it as short as possible. I noticed you post some walls of text on the talk page yourself. You should know that if you want the page to be deleted, this shooting yourself in the foot, as walls of text almost always have the effect of preserving the status quo, and you were trying to argue against the status quo.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 Thank you for your reply, the point is that not only did AcidSnow committed multiple cases of vandalism (blanking via redirection)here andhere, but they disruptively started an AfD despite the page being very will sourced, notable and neutral. They then solicited the opinion of other editors that they had a reasonable assumption (based on previous interactions) that they would support them, and they did end up supporting them. Having solicited only a small number, in this case two editors, is still significant as the number of editors interested in Somali topics is extremely small, so two editors constitute a large portion of regular editors interested in Somali subjects.
I am glad you agree this was a case of canvassing (albeit with your 'minor' qualifier). With regards to administrative actions I am seeking, I am not entirely sure of what actions Ican seek, could you elaborate on what the procedure is with cases of vandalism and canvassing? Or point me to where I can read on it? I just want them to cease their activities, this is a very important subject as such their behaviour should not be tolerated.
About the walls of text, I was unaware this was frowned upon, I apologies. In my defence, the main claim against the article, and I quote editor AcidSnow, was that " very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide" and that the Somali State may have also victimisedother groups thusIsaaq genocide was not a subject worthy of an article. Me citing the very respected and established sources, like the UN, Human Rights Watch, World Bank and various scholars on the subject of genocide likeIsrael Charny in addition to international media was to answer those claims. I honestly would not know how else to answer them, would responding with links to pages of the books that discuss the issue made a better response (but then whoever is reading will end reading even more texts from the links)? How would you have countered those claims without resorting to quoting from neutral sources? I am new here so very open to learning how these mattered are resolved.Kzl55 (talk)15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
One last thing to point out, and a very important point to highlight. This may explain the energy and 'walls of text' involved in this discussion. I do not know the background of the aforementioned editor, or indeed if they are Somali or not, their particular interest however suggests they may be. The civil war has done a lot of damage to Somali social fabric along clan lines, there are deep-seated issues and distrust based on clan. Depending on your background you could be either from a group that fell victim to acts of genocide or someone whose clan perpetrated said acts using state assets. In doing so the issue, despite the clarity with which an outsider can deal with it, and abundance of resources documenting it, becomes very polarising for Somalis. This situation becomes like asking someone from a Hutu background to accept the Tutsi claim of genocide that their people may have committed, something they were unaware of due to upbringing, environment and such. I say this because the possibility that the editor's opposition to a well sourced article that does not deviate from scholarly consensus may stem from belonging to different groups than theIsaaq in question, which if accepted, may indirectly cast their own clan as part of the 'other group', i.e. the victimiser. This is one of the reasons why despite the wealth of scholarly consensus on the specific targeting of Isaaq and the well documented cases of mass murder with intention of extermination, all of the evidence from UN reports to world media coverage, many Somalis belonging to other clansstill choose to refuse to accept thatIsaaq genocide happened. I hope that makes sense.Kzl55 (talk)16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kzl55: You have to understand that when I say I am not going to read AcidSnow's wall-of-text above, that's not a statement of partiality towards you. I will also not read walls of text posted by you. While other editors likely scrolled through this thread, rolled their eyes at the above, and simply moved on, I'm in too deep not to clarify this for you directly, especially given that you pinged me (most of the pinging I've been receiving recently was abusive, and logging in and seeing those notifications is not as pleasant as it perhaps should be, so I would appreciate it if you don't do so any more). You and AcidSnow have a content dispute. Both of you have apparently stepped somewhat over the line of civility. AcidSnow did something that you and perhaps others consider to be canvassing, but you did something that would have made notifying a small number of knowledgeable users justified (as it was literally the only way to get outside input after you made the discussion unreadable). Nothing is going to come of this thread until a new, properly formatted, AFD is opened.This thread should be closed pending that action. If you postWP:TLDR commentary in the next AFD, it could be seen as deliberate filibustering, and you may be reported here for disruptive behaviour, so I urge you to be careful going forward.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, I did not say that your statement of not reading AcidSnow's wall of text implied partiality to me, I was referring to your answering of the main point I was raising here on the act of canvassing, to which you said: "Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor ...". That is all I was referring to. Sorry about the pinging too, I am new here so thought this is how you properly include someone's name in the conversation when addressing them. I contest your line with regards to stepping over the line of civility on my part. Unless you mean the long replies, which I totally see your point, but I am having difficulty thinking of a better way to respond. Out of interest, how would you go about responding if the main point of contention that AcidSnow raised was "very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide, let alone the Isaaq clan solely"? My train of thought was that the most appropriate way to answer these claims, given that they put the volume of scholarly discussion in doubt, was to bring multiple reputable sources. Would summarising all the points into much shorter quotes work better? (like this?), genuine question. Many thanks.Kzl55 (talk)14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I was attempting to respond to all of Kzl55's statements, but I understand know. Though, Kzl55 is still makingPERSONALATTACKS once again, see:[152] and even in his latest replies! The former occurred on a different discussion that they made. So I would like to ask again, if there's anything an administrator can do, then let it be so.
In addition, please refrain from misrepresenting my statements Kzl55. We can continue this discussion in the coming days. Nor did Hijiri88 agree that I was canvassing, even in a small case (see here:[153].AcidSnow (talk)16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: He may well have posted personal attacks against you in the above massive wall of text, but I have no intention of reading it. I recommend you just forget about it for now, open the new AFD, and if there is any further disruptionthen you can come back here and open a new thread.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think it was apersonal attack? I was discussing why I think the issue is very polarising for Somalis, and why people of a certain Somali background may be inclined to ignore or outright dismiss a very well documented subject. You are being very unreasonable. Please cease the disruptions.Kzl55 (talk)17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to that specifically, but to claim that ones edits may be motivated by their origins is nothing more than another attack. It wasn't solely a general statement and it cast doubts on the rest of their edits. So I ask again, please stop.AcidSnow (talk)17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry (talk) it was you who has suggested to open aWP:AN/I canvassing against the userAcidSnowtalk) after i showed you what he did[154] so why bash the userKzl55talk about using walls of text when you have said that before on the talk page and knowing that he was against three other persons at the same time and one was called by theAcidSnowtalk like i have showed you ,and to theHijiri 88聖やや i say to you just read my wall and you will find that i was blocked then unblocked because of him because he accused me twice not once on the same matter and he is good at playing the victim by saying words like (series of personal attacks) so i say to him please cut it out. and i don't see the need of opening anew AfD discussion about this matter because if their argument is the use ofWP:PROPAGANDA and other similar Wikipedia symbols without backing it with sources and links then rather using words like i think and i imagine and i.... and i.... and repeat the same answers given by the userKzl55talk it will be a waste of time this is my opinion.Bysomalilander (talk)18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Technically, I was just saying that this was the correct place for accusations of canvassing, not suggesting that you do so. I do agree that AcidSnow should be careful, though. While they may have disagreed with Soupforone in the past, this seems to me something that they would clearly agree on. Anyway, I was offering friendly advice to Kzl55,Bysomalilander. Concise comments are much more likely to get read than walls of text.Cordless Larry (talk)18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
May I ask why you think that this is something that we would agree CordlessLarry? Anyways, I never accused Bysomalilander of being a sock or a puppet master (what he was incorrectly blocked for:[155]), rather that they were restoring the same things as one, see here:[156]. They also made unnecessary statements against me in response:[157]. In addition, if you look up above you would clearly see that I provided diffs for my statements rather than my Imagination.AcidSnow (talk)18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Just my intuition from my knowledge of your and Sourforone's contributions,AcidSnow. I also wonder what made you choose the three particular editors, out of all those who edit articles about this region of the world?Cordless Larry (talk)18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense to me, but it is your intuition CordlessLarry. Please read the first paragraph of my initial reply. In addition, it is two individuals, not three.AcidSnow (talk)19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I note that Soupforone hadalready told you that they though the article was "propaganda". That might actually mean that it wasn't canvassing for you to inform Soupforone about the deletion discussion, since they were already involved. Others might be able to offer a more informed view on that, though.Cordless Larry (talk)19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. If you read my first paragraph of my initial reply, then you should also understand the situation with AlaskaLava.AcidSnow (talk)19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Read it again, especially my comment on all three users (including Awale-Abdi) and the distinction between those of Kzl55.AcidSnow (talk)19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, well I think my point stands that there are other editors who are also knowledgeable about the region and who might well have offered a different opinion, but I think the lesson here is that it might just be better in future (i.e if you restart the AfD) to post a central notification atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia instead.Cordless Larry (talk)19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I notified those who were also active since many are not. Your comment is helpful nonetheless. But note the distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. I suggest that they once again familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA.AcidSnow (talk)20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry I note that AcidSnow was the one to inform Soupforone of the discussion to begin with, it could have well been a stealth canvassing tactic. Inform those who would support you of the discussion to get them involved and then there would be no need to inform them of the AfD as they are already part of the discussion. We will never know. One fact remains, AcidSnow informed two editors that ended up supporting them. That can not be ignored. There were three votes in total (I wonder how many active editors have shown interest in Somali subjects?), your hunch is absolutely right, if you have a Somali background or a history of editing Somali pages, it is not hard at all to know from previous interactions what someone's stance on a particular subject might be. It is a clear case of canvassing for votes. Two votes that were solicited directly and one that self identified as an acquaintance of AcidSnow. I am quite disturbed by this behaviour as this article is about a very important subject, yet AcidSnow is continually opposing it through vandalism by twice blanking the page (via redirections), then starting an AfD, and then canvassing support for its deletion. They seem to be taking this quite personally.Kzl55 (talk)22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Based off your own reasoning KZl55 you were will aware of the possible statements of the users that you had informed (see my initial reply in which I discuses this in greater detail:[158]). In addition, you informed three compared to my two. Please see the two Wiki policies that I have already highlighted for you and cease your attacks.AcidSnow (talk)02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong again. I saw the canvassing that you did, and then sent my messages thinking it is normal practice on Wikipedia seeing as you (an editor since 2013 if you have not had previous membership) did so. Upon reading the rules on the subject, in under an hour, I had removed my posts and left a message on the editors talk page that "Sorry I did not know you one could not solicit view here. Apologies." As such, no users I have messaged joined the discussion or had any effect on it, whereas your solicitation provided your position support. Do not confuse the issue, you knew exactly what you were doing.Kzl55 (talk)15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Propose one-month editing restriction on both parties
Could some uninvolved user close thread? I've posted too many times (even editing the article once) to be considered uninvolved. At present, it doesn't seem likely that this will be viewed as anything other than a content dispute. A new AFD should be opened, and if there is any more disruption then it can be discussed here. Isuspect that at least one of the parties has been behaving disruptively on the article talk page with the goal of filibustering the discussion, and has been trying tospin this as the other party behaving disruptively, but this can't be confirmed unless this thread is closed and a new AFD is opened.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
On second thought: proposingone-month two-waycanvassingnotification ban on both AcidSnow and Kzl55."Canvassing""Notification" here describesany message, neutral or not, individually addressed to any single Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians. Assuming the revised AFD is opened within a month, this would prevent any possible question that canvassing has taken place. I do not think there has been bad faith canvassing on the part of either party (although I do think Kzl55 has been behaving disruptively), but this temporary, limited sanction would help to make that clearer. I also suggest that any further talk comment by either party of 500 words or more be collapse usingthis template, and any attempt to revert this collapsing be reported to admin to block the reverter.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn Okay. It hadn't occurred to me (mostly because I wasadhering to thepact myself) that this proposal would immediately be overrun by users on both sides supporting the restriction on the user on the other side but defending "their man". I'm done here, as no one seems to be willing to compromise.@AcidSnow: You can take my advice on the AFD, but if you don't do it properly this time this will just wind up back here again and you're all gonna waste even more time and effort.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for including a precise definition of what you mean by "canvassing"; I started to speedy-close it with a rationale of of "canvassing is already prohibited of everyone", but then I re-read and realised my mistake. I would, however, suggest that you replace "canvassing" with a different term that you define in the same way, lest others make the same mistake as I did.Nyttend (talk)03:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support (for Kzl55) The user has been continuously been making attacks against me despite being told to stop by multiple users (see here:[159],[160], and[161]). Its is most likely going to continue if admin action is not taken.AcidSnow (talk)03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: You see, the problem is that you haven't "clearly" shown anything. If in the next month you reallyneed to notify someone of something, you can ask me to do it and I'll use my judgement as to whether it would be appropriate. I have no intention of contributing the AFD myself anyway, so that would be okay. This is not a punitive sanction for you. This is a chance for you to demonstrate your good faith. Apart from Cordless (who had already made a procedural edit) I'm the only outside party who's had the balls to comment in this thread, and I've already told you that I'm not willin to read the above wall of text. That indicates that you are not going to be able to get the sanctions you want at this time. You and Kzl can take this temporary measure, and then, if what you are saying is true, Kzl will almost certainly slip up and cause disruption again soon.Then you can propose sanctions, but you need to do so in a manner that the community will accept, not in the form of a wall of text.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to block anyone (and even admins, despite what some admins seem to think, don't have the authority to unilaterally impose restrictions except under very specific circumstances), and if you are not going to cooperate with my sincere efforts to resolve this problem, I don't know why you would think that I would do the heavy lifting for you and request sanctions on someone you don't like.
No one else is going to read this, and it will get archived without any result. That much I can guarantee.
I know that you're not an admin@Hijiri88:, you even said that at the beginning of the discussion. I have taken you statements into consideration and reduced the size of my replies (almost all under a 1,000 characters). In addition, I never asked for you to help me block Kzl55, rather for you to consider reading my innocence after I reduce my initial statements. I hope you understand now.AcidSnow (talk)04:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But you're not getting it.Because I'm not an admin, the only thing I could do with a clear and succinct summary of what is going on is propose sanctions, and that's not my job. Ifyou still want to propose sanctions, you can do that, but no one else is reading this thread, so the only people who will !vote are the users who were already active on the talk page.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)05:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'am aware of the powers of a non administrator and that you are not obligated to comment after reading my statements. I was only attempting to clear my name so that you too would be willing to read and understand it. Nonetheless, I thank you for your guidance and your time.AcidSnow (talk)05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to clear your name. Just like no one else is reading this, no one else was reading what the others wrote about you. Trust me.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)07:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support (for AcidSnow) AsKzl55 (talk) has mentioned in numerous occasions, AcidSnow has solicited members to take part in the now deleted AfD discussion to remove theIsaaq Genocide page as shownhere, andhere. In the AfD, the walls of text thatKzl55 (talk) had posted do not suggest that they were attempting to filibuster any civil discussion, but rather suggests the rich source of credible sources that support the merit of theIsaaq Genocide page. I believe Kzl55's actions do not warrant a ban, but AcidSnow's violation ofWP:CANVASS should come with consequences.Koodbuur (talk)03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Buzz off. If you are not going to read the proposal and its rationale, there's no justification for pretending you did and casting a !vote on something that wasn't proposed just because you have a content dispute with one of the users involved here.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
back to the Canvassing
ThisWP:AN/I was opened by the userKzl55 against the userAcidSnow after the userCordless Larry pointed out thankfully that this its place not the talk page and was based on my findings that theAcidSnow called for the help of two other editors like seen here[162] and here[163] which resoled in this one editor only agreeing with him while two other editors stood beside him on the same point which was to cancel the page just look at the date from 15 January 2017 to 18 January 2017 find it here[164] and all of that was done in the the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way([165]) and that was it to be blocked and canceled like shown here :[166] because the editor didn't like the page and was ignoring the numerous sources brought byKzl55 so i hope i Wikipedia:Administrators will take a look at this .Bysomalilander (talk)17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
note to all the other editors who have commented on thisWP:AN/I they have been read so stop repeating yourselfs and no need to change thisWP:AN/Iit from what it was first proposed to answer and i say to them to stop twisting it to something else .Bysomalilander (talk)17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I assume that by "all the other editors" you mean me, as I am the only other editor who has commented. You do realize that no one is watching this thread, right? And that until the AFD is opened no action will come? And that continuing to post here is pointless?Hijiri 88 (聖やや)21:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: See what I mean? No one's posted here for more than 24 hours, despite the "new proposal" made above.. You should just forget about this thread and open the AFD.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing regarding African american terminology
There is nothing whatsoever non-neutral about the term "black". If that somehow offends you, please do not look at any US school article, because that is the term the education statistics compilers use. And we use what the source uses. Now arbitrarily changing African - American to black is quite possibly disruptive, but no more so than arbitrarily changing black to African - American. We don't use the PC term de jour here.John from Idegon (talk)00:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not certain why you consider the term "black" as non-neutral. Blacks/Afro-Americans use both terms, and I think those predisposed to negative concepts likely consider them both pejorative. Now, if you can give examples where it's disruptive, or unless there is a policy I missed, that's another matter.Objective3000 (talk)01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
What is problematic is not so much the term in itself but the systematic change of one term for another one in a manner that seems to be designed to make a point of some kind:[167],[168],[169],[170] (where I also think the sentence loses some of its grammaticality),[171] (ditto - or at least it's unidiomatic),[172], etc. There's many more. The IP has also been asked not to make these changes, but has ignored that and restored their changes with some slow edit warring onClarence Thomas andHidden Figures, where their change was reverted with a reasonable explanation in the edit summary[173] which went unheeded and they changed it back again[174]. It's also worth pointing out that this same IP has been doing the same thing for a while -this is a diff from September last year. They do not appear to have engaged in discussion about their preferred wording, ever. --bonadeacontributionstalk12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I was misunderstood a bit, the point was that I didn't find replacing the term "African American" with "black" contributed anything to the article. I understand that they can be used interchangeably, but it this case replacing the word indiscriminately just doesn't seem very constructive. I was not offended by this, just confused by this user's actions.Meiloorun (talk)🍁20:08, 23 January 2017 (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.
We have here an editor who, as per his edit history, has not made an edit outside of user space, with the exception of commenting at a few RfAs, since May 2016, over a thousand edits ago. All other edits have been in his personal user space. This may well be related to his having been previously topic banned from his sole topic of interest, early Christian history, from which he had earlier been banned for three months after fraudulently misrepresenting a source. I question whether at this point he is in fact here to develop an encyclopedia, or simply to use as a web host for his ideas.John Carter (talk)20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any attempt to simply talk it over with them and advise them their editing may not be productive. I don't immediately see any, and wonder if going right to ANI might not be premature.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason to attempt to reason with someone who has already more or less been told that the material he seeks to add to articles is not suited there, and who then adds it in userspace apparently in what could be seen as an attempt toWP:GAME the system so that his personal theories are available on the net here?John Carter (talk)22:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
MfDing their talk paqe may take care of that specific page, but it doesn't answer the question of whether RetProf is here to contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia or not. We're not a webhost, nor a place to feature your ideas, our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and if RetProf has declined to participate in doing that because he's been banned from his preferred subject, then he's clearly NOTHERE to do that. I would say that a warning from an admin that if he doesn't start to participate in the building of the encyclopedia in some fashion (could be content work, could be categorization, could be many different things that aren't talk pages) in a certain amount of time, then he's facing an indef block.Beyond My Ken (talk)01:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, MfD would be the appropriate avenue. I have considered this from time to time, but never done anything about it.StAnselm (talk)02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
MfD, I'll have a word but it would be good if someone who doesn't know him did also. We aren't a webhost and he needs to understand that he can't stay here only to use us as one.Doug Wellertalk12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
RE EDITS IN MY SANDBOX: Sorry guys! I was simply trying to get some feedback on my proposed edits before resuming normal editing. I will stop immediately! -Ret.Prof (talk)16:42, 22 January 2017 (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.
Can I get a second pair of eyes on this.Rajmaan has done a lot of edits on Islamic terrorism today, he seems quite prolific. I've reverted a few as they were based on blogs e.g.[175],[176] and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks. Then there is a strange series of quotes from islamic terrorists posted seemingly at random[177] in the Spain section ofIrredentism, which I suppose could be tangentially related. I'm concerned this isWP:FRINGE material, not properly sourced and there may be a great deal more that needs to be reverted.WCMemail18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Those sources aren't random blogs. The azelin.wordpress.com is from the Jihadology.net website, which is run by a fellow of theWashington Institute for Near East Policy think tank named Aaron Y. Zelin. Zelin is a counter terrorist analyst and he analyzes terrorist material on Jihadology.net. That source in the Tiananmen Square article is from the Turkistan Islamic Party's official magazine, which was downloaded and hosted by Mr. Zelin on his website.Ṣawt al-Islām presents Issue #14 of Ḥizb al-Islāmī al-Turkistānī’s [Turkistan Islamic Party magazine: “Turkistān al-Islāmīyyah”]Link to the PDF.
memri.orgMEMRI analyzes Middle Eastern and terrorist related media. Not a blog.
Twitter accounts I used are- run by experts and specialists- counter-terrorist analysts, organizations that monitor terrorism, specialists in the Middle East, fellows at think tanks. Some are verified by Twitter (blue check mark) and others are verifiable by other means (such as the affiliation between the jihadology twitter account and Aaron Zelin). And Twitter can be treated as a primary source if the organization or person running the twitter account is commenting on something related to them, seeWikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves.
The quotes are not at random.Al-Andalus (Andalusia) refers to Islamic rule over Spain. The topic is about irridentism, and the Islamists are calling for an irridentist reconquest of Spain.
None of the sources I used are fringe. They are run by counter terrorist analysts or organizations or are primary sources.Rajmaan (talk)18:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I share the concern voiced byWee Curry Monster about Rajmaan's behaviour. The main problem with Rajmaan's edits is not the sources, but that he routinely inserts huge amounts of (mostly referenced but poorly formatted) text into articles with little regard to article structure, relevance of the information, orWP:WEIGHT. Numerous editors have warned him before, includingHzh[178],Lemongirl942[179],Bgwhite[180],CWH[181], and myself[182], with little effect to his behaviour. I've had to repeatedly remove huge blocks of his texts on quite a few articles such asTerrorism in China,Yuan dynasty,Battle of Talas, etc. I believe Rajmaan can make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, but he has got to start heeding the friendly advice from other editors. -Zanhe (talk)19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
These edits on terrorism related articles have nothing to do with relevance or weight. They are relevant to all the recent articles I created or edited. Nothing that I posted on2013 Tiananmen Square attack for example, is off topic or irrelevant, or broke the structure. I posted on Freedom Houses's reaction to the attack, and the Turkistan Islamic Party's claim of responsibility in its own magazine. And also on2016 Southern Aleppo campaign I added relevant information related to the topic and did not break the format. I created new articles likeTariq Abdul Haleem,Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi,Abdullah al-Muhaysini andAbu Dhar Azzam and all the information I posted on there is related to the topic, and also added toHani al-Sibai. This is not mass off topic posting or coatracking. The warning from Lemongirl1942 was over lack of sourcing. Bgwhite's warning was over reference formatting and POV. I formatted all my references, used no more than three or four at most, and changed the dates after I was asked to.Rajmaan (talk)19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The complaints about "blogs" has been beaten to death atWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions andWikipedia:Blogs as sources. A "blog" is a style of formatting for a website, and when a "blog" is hosted by a news organizations or organization likeFreedom House, its an RS. Its not something like a random person owning blogspot.com and then putting out their own opinions. I'm not citing random Joe Smith on blogspot, I'm citing Freedom Houses's own website where they have a "blog" format and commented on the attack, and counter terrorist Analyst andWINEP fellow Aaron Zelin's hosted material where he published the TIP's magazine which commented on the attack. He just happens to rent his website on wordpress. Wee Curry Monster seems to think I'm citing random fringe people like a conspiracy theorist who owns a blog, like Alex Jones or something. He saidand seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks and said I am using FRINGE sources. His complaint has nothing to do with what you are dragging up.Rajmaan (talk)19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: Couldn't agree more that Rajmaan contribution is seriously problematic with hisconflict of interest that always sided with Muslim extremist, scholars and militants biography and some things pros/cons related to China. Aside from this topics, most of the related users I ever encounter that seems related to Rajmaan (or it is actually he himself!!) seems to have an interest onraces related topics, wars and conflicts and prostitution articles. Instead I havefiled a case before to see whether Rajmaan is related to another user namedGass gess which I found has a very identical edit pattern with him, but the discussion goes to no where. In late December 2016, I have encounter another user namedPolyenetian and most of this user contribution also seems to have some close edit pattern behaviour with Rajmaan.Rumilo Santiago (talk)04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Danrolo came to my attention for a contentious moved ofSyrian Republic (1930–58) without discussion. His user page, was moved once for maintenance reasons to@Danrolo~enwiki:. Now@Danrolo~enwiki:, was indeffed by@Bbb23: in 2013 for persistent sock puppetry/disruptive editing. Looking at the contrib history ofbothusers, they seem to edit in the same area (i.e. mostly political parties), and in the same manner (i.e. contentious edits, no discussion). I want to raise anWP:SPI but I am not sure I understand what's going on. Did the user recreate the old user name? is it a glitch?Yazan (talk)23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that would probably be my fault. Forgot to add "ping" before user names -> transcoded all user pages. Apologies.Yazan (talk)23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Infuture it might be a good idea to add "{{u|" before the name - That way you don't mass-ping everyone one, Easy mistake to make mind. –Davey2010Talk23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the same user already held the global account, beforeWP:SUL renaming of the not-properly-linked enwiki account. Bbb23 should be able to clarify the status of the block. --zzuuzz(talk) 12:31 am, Today (UTC+1)
To answer your question, yes they are the same. These accounts were created before SUL was really a thing, and as such were not connected to each other globally. During SUL finalization, the enwiki account was renamed. The home account for the original is eswiki, so while he was logged in over there he visited this wiki and the account was automatically recreated.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not much to clarify. The block log gives my reasons for the block. It doesn't appear to have been triggered by an SPI, and I was not a CheckUser at the time.--Bbb23 (talk)23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23:. But if it's the same user (with the same behaviour pattern), then shouldn't he be blocked again? is there a reason why he is able to edit at the moment, other than the technical glitch?Yazan (talk)23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You're correct that if it were not for the automatic renaming, they couldn't edit without requesting an unblock and having it accepted. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable automatically blocking them so long after the initial block. If you think they deserve to be blocked, I suggest you take it to SPI.--Bbb23 (talk)23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand that. Taking this to SPI would be just vindictive (as the editor arguably might not even know he's socking). But the fact that he has never communicated with anyone (never replied to an objection, or discussed things on talk page, or here, or even added the odd edit summary), is very very frustrating.Yazan (talk)07:28, 24 January 2017 (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:IreneTandry came by my talk on 24 January[183] to express disagreement about a page move, which may have be controversial, but done underWP:BB. She is rather incomprehensible, this has been noted before even by ESL Wikipedians.[184] However, this doesn't seem to affect her generally useful edits to film and film accolades articles.
The problem is that she seems to have extreme difficulty with adapting to Wikipedia's culture. She attempted to unilaterally ban me from the article[185] because she wanted to remove a technical defaultsort item, citing a nonsense concern that that is for the main articles for the films,[186] apparently without realizing the accolades lists are separate pages intheir own cat. She then went on a spree of edits with semi-uncivil edit summaries calling me "selfish" for editing "her" article,[187][188][189][190][191] more amusing than anything else, and repeated her unilateral TBAN[192] , also making inexplicable, out-of-left-field comments[193]
Although one can't see this on her user talk, where she always removes warnings and criticism, this actually represents a pattern of abuse for her. Her last, similar conflict was withUser:URunICon, who she also called "selfish"[194][195][196] for editingList of accolades received by La La Land (film), and gave "the middle finger"[197]
She's been blockedtwice before, one week and two weeks, for gems like this[198], and concerningly, despite the block lengths,this has not got her attention.
I don't know what to suggest here. She's useful and productive enough in her areas that aWP:SITEBAN orWP:TBAN would not seem beneficial. Perhaps aWP:1RR or a personal attack parole. If we could impose restrictions on her from removing messages from her user talk, that could be something.Ribbet32 (talk)00:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Right on cue. Just so you know, this is exactly the reaction anyone gets when suggesting that profanity in and of itself is block or ban worthy, so unless you want to hear a lot worse I wouldn't suggest pursuing that argument.
Getting back to the matter at hand, it has long been held that any user may remove almost anything they want from their own talk page, so that's pretty much a non-starter as well and doesn't address the real problem anyway. The real problem being petty, even infantile personal attacks.Beeblebrox (talk)04:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
After reviewing this matter I have gone ahead and issued an indefinite block. While none of the diffs presented are in and of themselves block worthy, taken as a whole hey are indicative of a user who has a serious attitude problem that hampers collaboration. This use has ignored past blocks and just sat them out so that doesn't seem to be an effective detterent. They are going to have to actually discuss their problematic behavior to get out of this one.Beeblebrox (talk)04:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I see this user's name popping up on my watchlist all the time, adding good sourced content to film articles regarding awards, etc. I'm not defending anyone's action who doesn't want to talk (or per diff 249, above), but hopefully they'll speak up on their talkpage and learn from this. I know this has been closed (America having fun again while the UK sleeps!), but just wanted to put this on the record.LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids09:07, 26 January 2017 (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.
Undiscussed 'merger' of two Wikipedia pages into one without consensus
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.
During the week-end I started reading a book on ethics and decided to look up some key terms on Wikipedia for comparison's sake when I discovered that there is no Wikipedia page for "Evil" nor is there one for "Good" as key terms in ethics and philosophy. When I looked closer, I found that another editor last June here[199], had apparently decided to delete both of those pages in his or her preference for a single merged page called "Good and evil". The "merger" was apparently done after a tiny Talk page announcement which no-one seems to have taken seriously, but that editor decided that a no-response to his Talk page proposal could be interpreted by him or her as non-opposition and therefor endorsement to do the merger, which was done last June with no-one noticing it. This merger makes no sense from the standpoint of the study of ethics and philosophy. Philosophy pages should not be merged together because they represent polar opposites of meaning. The two pages should be returned to their original state from last June and the current "Good and evil" page can just be left there as its own limited discussion of this polarity in philosophy. The single topic pages deserve to remain as single topic pages for "Good" and "Evil" separately and without merger. I do not think that the editor that did this had any ill intentions, only that the background of that editor appears to be in economics and mathematics and not in philosophy or ethics. I have notified their page anyway for fair notice practices at Wikipedia. Can somewhat restore the single purpose pages to their state last June before they were apparently inappropriately merged.ManKnowsInfinity (talk)15:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you think the pages should be separated into 'Good' and 'Evil' your arguments should be raised at theGood and Evil talkpage. In short - if you propose something on a talkpage, and no one has objected after a week, then you can certainly go ahead and do whatever it is. If someone then objects (because they didnt notice the request and only noticed the change) it will generally be reverted quickly. If people dont object for 6 months, then start a discussion on the talk-page to alter the new status quo.Only in death does duty end (talk)16:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It is simple to re-post this on the Talk page there and I'll go ahead. Its not a very high page count Talk page and I'm not sure that it will receive any attention. I'm not sure I fully expressed the general concern though... do we now go ahead and merge the "War" and "Peace" articles into a single article called "War and peace" just because someone makes a announcement on an infrequently visited Talk page? Same question for the articles on "Love" and "Hate" being now potentially merged into a single article on "Love and hate". Doing either of these would miss the point I think. I am happy to post the above on the Talk page though it seems to invite the question of where to find adequate discussion for a merger. Possibly the Talk pages for the special interest group in Philosophy to obtain consensus would have made more sensebefore the merger took place. Either way, I'll re-post to the Talk page there to see what happens.ManKnowsInfinity (talk)16:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
ManKnowsInfinity, "do we now go ahead and merge the x and y articles into a single article called "x and y" just because someone makes a announcement on an infrequently visited Talk page?" Well, yes, as the merger was proposed in good faith and there were no objections to it (at the time). There are 5.3+ million articles here, most of them lightly watched, and editors are encouraged to make bold changes they think will improve the encyclopedia. If you disagree then you can opt for discussion (and there are various methods - RFCs, project noticeboards - to attract more attention) or be bold yourself and undo the merger and see what the response is. Whatever the case, this isn't a matter for admins. --NeilNtalk to me18:24, 26 January 2017 (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.
User JamesBWatson displays an abrupt manner and bullying behaviours.
The user's lack of manners, and habit for deleting and blocking genuine content provided by genuine users - without reasonable consultation, disrupts genuine content creation and creates an inhospitable atmosphere. The behaviour of the user appears to cause further "trolling" by others, who over time have apparently become offended and probably frustrated by User JamesBWatson's lack of consideration. Overall, the behaviour and apparent agenda of JamesBWatson deviates from the original intent of Wikipedia and gives Wikipedia a poor reputation. Is he here to work with others, or here to undermine the community and turn genuine content contributors away?
Please do something to restore Wikipedia integrity by stopping such subtle, and less than subtle, forms of bullying as practised by JamesBWatson.
Please note it is impossible to talk with JamesBWatson about these issues, because he has (at time of posting) prevented anybody from contributing to his talk page.
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.
Again. I don't want to waste time so I'll just leave links so people who are familiar with this guy can react, or not.
You've done exactly the opposite: you're wasting the time of everyone who has to figure out what you're talking about. So either do so, or I'm going to hat this until you do. --Calton |Talk16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said that I'm leaving this to those who are already familiar with this group editors who push POV. I really didn't read this discussion, but I'm sure that it's pretty similar to other ones that this group has started. Everyone is a sock, a lot of personal attacks and so on... There's a history to this group and i've put this here so those familiar with them can react.141.136.212.112 (talk)14:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a little intro to you. This group of editors go around and they are putting Serbian nationality to a lot of people, and when someone questions that, they use personal attacks to get rid of him. They did it to me on Nikola Tesla page. They tried to do it on Novak Djokovic page, but I managed to put out the sources and win that one...and so on. I see that they are trying to do it on this page. Tell me, what's wrong with presenting all sources here[203] ? It seems that presenting all sources on the matter is cherry picking to one of them, and they managed to block that discussion. Now they are trying to do the same on this article. On Novak Djokovic's page they did this[204].
I see that other editors are dealing with them on this article, so I won't join for now. But if it comes to edit warring I'm joining in because they work in group and 1 editor can't "win" against several of them in edit warring.141.136.212.112 (talk)14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear IP: You named one editor. If you have a reasonable case against someone, you need to back it up with a sufficient background and a sufficent number ofWP:DIFFs that show a longterm problematical pattern of behavior (or link[s] to previous noticeboard reports). You also need to link the name of the user you are reporting, and preferably also link the articles that are involved. And you also need to inform that editor of this thread, by notifying them on their user talkpage. If you don't have sufficient information or evidence to provide, this thread will simply be ignored and will be archived by a bot.Softlavender (talk)14:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all of this. I was speaking to those familiar with this group of editors. It's difficult to prove POV pushing. However here are some of personal attacks. See comments on this reverts[205] ,[206]. Also see this[207]. This is their usual mo, I know because I was the victim of the same attacks on Nikola Tesla and Serbs of Croatia pages. Other editors are also familiar with their history.[208]. Maybe you should read what FkpCascais did on Serbs of Croatia page... I linked the report by Lyl. It's hard to talk to you guys since you are not familiar with their continuous behavior.141.136.212.112 (talk)15:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless someone starts explaining themselvesin terms the community as a whole can understand, naming and linking usernames, and notifying the editor accused in the OP, this ANI thread is still going nowhere.Softlavender (talk)10:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I gave links to personal accusations against 2 users. Don't know what else to give. I think those people are obsessed with Asdisis, since every time I come across them, they are accusing other editors of being socks.89.164.75.58 (talk)21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a thing around here we call "the Duck Test": if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck. And I look at your contribution history and and IP number, and then I look at the LONG list of sockpuppetsin this archive from the same range, and I think: quack quack quack quack. Especially when you essentially confirm that you're a block-dodging sockpuppet with "I know because I was the victim of the same attacks on Nikola Tesla and Serbs of Croatia pages". Shouldn't an admin block this guy and put us out of our misery?
Don't know what else to give I don't know, maybe something more than links and content-free shouts of "LOOK LOOK LOOK"? Maybe an ACTUAL EXPLANATION? Using WORDS? --Calton |Talk07:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If you aren't familiar with their history, it's too much for me to explain here. I can summarize, but I don't think you can grasp the situation with me explaining. It's hard to grasp it even when you read aside. Only when you deal with them you can see how pointless is to discuss with them. When you ask a simple question and they ignore it and keep pushing their view, and so on. Personal attacks go with every discussion. Every ip or a new editor is a sock...and so on. All I can do now is to point to personal attacks they made in this topic. I did that. I also liked the opinion of another editor who has said "I am surprised you're still not banned though...". You know. They made so much personal attacks against this ip range that anyone can be banned as a sock of Asdisis. I'm unable to post simple sources to Nikola Tesla page without it being protected. Tell me, what's the difference betweenthis topic I started and the one the user I reported has started? Apart from him reporting and banning me from posting sources while he does the same thing on this page. Take a look at other editors who are present in both those discussions. I opened a discussion which would be a collection of ALL sources on Tesla's ethnicity and Zoupan has accused me of cherrypicking and called an admin to protect the page. I see him present here, as well as 23 editor and so on...If you are willing to objectively discuss I'm here, otherwise I'm happy that other experienced editors have stopped their rampage on this article. I can tell you how hard that is when you edit as an IP. All those IP's in Asdisis sock archive come from Serbs of Croatia discussion where FkpCascais has attacked me so much that it was generally accepted that I'm Asdisis. Luckily , I managed to call in other editors and "win" the RfC. But that was very hard because he made personal attacks against everyone, not just me. Againt LjL, the editor that closed the discussion and so on. It's all there to read. A bit much , but all there. Ok, as I said, it's hard to notice POV pushing, but tell me one thing. If I want to collect all sources and someone accuses me ofthis. Who's POV pushing there? FkpCascais also manipulates with sources. On Novak Djokovic's page he directly lied about the contents of a source. He and 23 editor also tried to push POV on that topic. They have also accused 2 editors of being socks and managed to ban one of them. The other one wasn't prepared to deal with them and if I didn't step in they would manage to push their POV. I can't always watch over them and spend months on discussions like on Serbs of Croatia. That lasted for months. FkpCascais was warned against such behavior and he still does it. For how long?141.136.215.208 (talk)21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Bdw, I just noticed that they have also accused Everett57 of being "Asdisis's sock".[210]. Everywhere I go I see them accusing people of being "Asdisis's sock". You know, not a lot of those people get reported so you can't see that in the archive you looked. I've also seen some people getting banned as "Asdisis's socks" without any report[211]. Ok, not to get into which one's are truly Asdisis's socks or whether am I the sock. As far I've seen in this discussion they have accused Everett57, Desciplation, Crito10 to be socks of Asdisis. Do you really think that those 3 users and I are the same person?141.136.215.208 (talk)21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. After writing so much, I can say that I'm satisfied that the discussion has settled down, so if you agree we can close this thread. Knowing them, I'm still afraid that this is not over, but for now they didn't manage to push their POV. This time not thanks to me (like on Serbs of Croatia, Novak Djokovic and Yugoslavia articles). I'm glad that other editors are keeping an opened eye. Last time Shokatz has left me to fight alone on Serbs of Croatia. :). That was truly a hard one. I just went there and if you don't believe me, look at how long i was dealing with FkpCascais; from 23 August 2015 to about 11 January 2016. ;)141.136.215.208 (talk)21:51, 25 January 2017 (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.
@Calton: I did put links to personal attacks against 3 users and a link to the report where FkpCascais was warned against such behavior to show that this is a continuous issue. I'm not sure that is nothing.141.136.215.208 (talk)18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Leprof 7272, disruptive editing while logged out
Was originally going to report this toWP:AN3, but the page has been protected, and there's something deeper here that needs to be discussed. I noticeda frantic IP onJennifer Hale(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs). After I reverted it,Leprof 7272(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)restores its edits. Up until Leprof (as Leprof 7272, the account) made thatfourth revert, it really looked like they were attempting to bypassWP:3RR by using both an IP and registered account on the same article, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Leprof is purposefully editing while logged out, on the same pages. The user takes ownership of the IP's editshere. From what I can tell, on every article the user edits as a user, they also edit as an IP as well. Why is this allowed? When confronted, they will admit to being the owner of the IP. So that somehow makes it okay? Does this not failWP:SOCK#LEGIT? It would be one thing if Leprof would edit the same page using legitimate alternate accountUser:Leprof 7272 (alt), for example, as well as the main account. But instead, Leprof edits as the same page as Leprof 7272 and as an IP who I can't tell is also them at a quick glance. This is inappropriate, because it splits Leprof's editing history,making it harder to detect patterns in the user's contributions. It's unclear why Leprof does this, but it's very disruptive behavior. They have been warned about their editing while logged out no lessthanthreetimes, yet they refuse to change habits.Sro23 (talk)10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
While it's true that Leprof 7272 often edits while logged out, most of these logged out edits are also tagged (example). I've run into Leprof quite a few times over the years, and I honestly believe this is someone who edits in good faith – though not always as transparently as a strict reading of policy would demand.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)11:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
On a somewhat cynical note, it's hard not to equate the IP to Leprof, given the similarity in tag-bombing and shouting in edit summaries. However, I completely agree (having been one of original the warning-leavers) that editing while logged out makes it very hard to track the edits where theydon't end up logging in later on. They may be somewhat of a net positive to the project, but it literally takes ten seconds to log in; plus, none of theexcuses they'vegiven have been adequate, especially given that theyknow they should be logging in.Primefac (talk)12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm having an issue at an edit in theFulvestrant page. Some editors are making summary deletion of my revisions with poor arguments. It is my impression that the Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline, but even if some edit does not fulfill the currently accepted aesthetic, it would be wiser to encourage a better review instead of deleting the page. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia because of this very irritating behavior. There is just no censorship to what some veteran editors do. Kindly find one newbie that knows how to defend itself against this senseless deleting! Not to mention that it is an enormous to figure out how this thing works. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBiasuz (talk •contribs)15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not "should" but "must". It's a giant red note in the instructions for using this page. I'll not comment further here because I had commented at the article talkpage on the underlying content issue.DMacks (talk)16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I stand by that edit. There was no reason to delete the whole thing. I did not introduce any inaccuracies to the article. Had he made a note to refine my sources or helped me to improve what I wrote, I would not have been so irritated.Biasuz (talk)21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of this wrong with this new users edits. 1) They are using med doses which we do not perWP:MEDMOS they are using primary source which we also do not. If they cannot adjust to how Wikipedia works regarding civility they many not be suitable to continue editing here.
Again with the "we do not utlize primary sources." I've read the article, primary sources are not forbiddenWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.
Lots of new editors can figure out what a review article is and how to properly summarize them in their own words. And many will ask if they do not understand how something works.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I know that but the OP implied that the issues raised about their edits were only MOS related, and that they only related to aesthetics. Neither of these were the case as MEDRS issues were raised. This doesn't mean the MOS issues didn't matter, but rather when your basic complaint is so serious flawed because you're claiming something which even a quick look at the edit history shows is incorrect, it's hard for people to take it seriously.Nil Einne (talk)12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Biasuz there is indeed a lot to learn in order edit Wikipedia, and especially with regard to content about health. Rather than demanding that your edits stick, and getting angry when they are reverted, you would do better to slow down and try to learn how to edit and behave in accordance with the policies and guidelines, in spirit and letter. What you are doing demonstrates no openness to learning. Folks who behave that way leave here angry or get blocked - outcomes that are entirely driven by their own approach to Wikipedia and the editing community.Jytdog (talk)17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Considering they have responded with yet another profanity laced demandingWP:BATTLEGROUND post at the article's talk page since the last posting here, I'd say a block would be in order to allow the OP's temper to settle.John from Idegon (talk)20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me try a different approach then. Is my edit factualy wrong? I've read all said guidelines. None of say you absolutely cannot utilize a primary source. The reason is quite obvious... There are a lot of publications in science and the level of evidence varies. A phase II should not carry an interpretation of efficacy because they are quite often incorrect or unpowered to do so, but this is not the case. We are talking about a phase 3 trial with quite a respectable N. At the end of the day this is a robust finding on a peer reviewed journal.Biasuz (talk)21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Biasuz, MEDRS states in bold, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content..." This means you need to present a very, very good case on the article's talk page to use one and see what other editors say. And telling editors to "piss off and undo your revert" while presenting highly dubious secondary sources isn't going to help your case. I see thatJytdog has actually done the work and says that he's found a Cochrane review as a secondary source. Hopefully this will resolve this particular issue but you need to realize that using primary sources willalways be heavily discouraged here. --NeilNtalk to me21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editor, refusal to accept RfC outcome, unjustified meatpuppet accusations.
Hi, Sorry to be here but this has to stop. See this discussionWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_close_review_at_Talk:Silicon_Alley.23RfC:_Should_this_article_discuss_the_biotech_industry. The editor involved Castncoot will not accept the result of the RfC, nor the result of an independent review of the closure. They have participated in edit warring following the result of the RfC as they didn't want material removed (going against the RfC consensus). They are now taking to personal attacks and are accusing me and another editor of off-wiki collusion. Which is entirely baseless. Can you get this user to stop. They've been asked many many times todrop the stick but they are continuing their disruption. Hopefully everything you need to know you can read on the AN thread I linked above or onTalk:Silicon Alley but if you need any other info let me know. CheersPolyamorph (talk)18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Going from one Administrators' noticeboard to another? That is really strange. A diversionary tactic from your own action.Castncoot (talk)18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Polyamorph is correct to do this. AN is the correct place for a request to review the RfC, ANI is the correct place to report disruptive behaviour.Black Kite (talk)18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The RFC close was endorsed by three uninvolved editors (two admins).Castncoot has had their say and has gotten no support to overturn/re-open the RFC so I expect that discussion to wind down. Further insinuations of meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing without solid evidence will result in a block as will any other personal attacks. The RFC was closed with "There is consensus that biotechnology should be excised completely from the article." Adding such mentions to the article without consensus and edit warring to keep them there will also result in a block. --NeilNtalk to me21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
One such example of insinuation of baseless off-wiki "collusion"here. The first baseless accusation of meatpuppetryhere. If it continues then I request a warning at the very least. ThanksPolyamorph (talk)21:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record,NeilN, that's not correct. The RfC closure wasamended again after the three uninvolved editors you are referring to made statements. I wish somebody would understand and acknowledge that point. Wouldn't you agree that this process has been highly irregular? Wouldn't you also agree that it's bad faith for someone to agree to a compromise, close the RfC,[212] and then pull the tablecloth from under the table and say, "Just kidding!"? I also believe that editors should not discuss anything pertaining to an active RfC off-wiki. The reason is that it invariably takes away from the pristine nature of the RfC by adding some level of personal and confidential familiarity, even if inadvertently. Do you really believe this is appropriate while an RfC is still active?[213]?Castncoot (talk)00:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, what I initially stated is completely correct. The last RFC close, donehere was reviewed and endorsed.WP:STEALTH says, "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged..." There was no notification done here. A RFC is just another discussion (nothing "pristine" about it) where a formal close is expected. There is usually nothing wrong sending emails to other involved editors which pertain to their behavior (e.g., quietly asking them to tone it down, take a break, etc.) --NeilNtalk to me00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed to keep bringing this up over and over again,NeilN, please bear with me here - but what you have quoted was not the last close but rather the intermediate close that the three uninvolved editors saw.This was the final (and original) close. In other words, Tazerdadog had amended his closure but apparently did not re-sign his closures to update the date and time; if you notice, the language approved by the three uninvolved editors reads, "and should be excised completely from the body and the lede of the article" rather than "excised completely from the article", as the final (third) closure reads, same as the original. This may seem like a small detail, but it is actually significant. The reason it came about was that I clarified with Tazerdadog whether his closure applied to the See also section, and he clarified that it did not ([214]) and left it to editorial discretion (and amended his closure for the first time). I therefore then added the linkBiotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area to the see also section ofSilicon Alley, and people jumped on me and accused me of violating the RfC closure because they didn't realize that the closure had been amended to allow this onto the see also section. This became a back and forth and so I needed to start an RfC just for the See also section matter, believe it or not. Meanwhile, the three uninvolved editors approved this intermediate closure exempting the See also section on the Admin noticeboard page for RfC issues. Subsequent to this, Tazerdadog had another change of heart and reverted his closure back to the original format not exempting the See also section. These three uninvolved editors never commented on this and were like not aware that this second amendment had taken place. I believe that such an extreme degree of irregularity warrants close examination of the situation. I hope I was able to convey this convoluted series of events clearly.
Meanwhile, when you say above that there was no notification that an off-wiki correspondence was being filed, isn't that the whole point here? I had forgotten to add the formal RfC tag, and the off-wiki correspondence was done in a stealth fashion which probably exuded undertones, whether or not consciously, not to bring up the fact that formalization of the RfC asking whether biotech should be removed from the See also section had not been done; in other words, to let "sleeping dogs lie" and let the RfC stay informally filed. (Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area be removed from the see also section?:[215],[216],[217])
Finally, doesn't it constitute a brazen breach of good faith that an intermediate compromise had been reached including biotech in the article, with the RfC closed as such, and then breached soon afterward against the agreement? None of the three uninvolved editors commented on this, and I suspect they may not be aware that this occurred, as I suspect Tazerdadog may also not have been aware, as he never mentioned it in his closure commentary. I do believe this is highly significant because it demonstrates that at least a quorum of the most involved editors had indeed come to an agreement allowing biotech in the article, before the agreement was breached shortly thereafter without warning. I know you're a senior admin, and I find it a privilege to be able to work through all of this one on one with you. You may be able to understand why I'm having such a difficult time accepting the torrid way this whole process has unfolded.Castncoot (talk)02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If an RfC doesn't go your way, it is disruptive to begin a new one. Another user sent me a message to say I shouldn't have pointed out to you that you hadn't added the RfC tag. An email I didn't initially read, hence my message on their talk page which is actually none of your business (users are free to communicate with one another in a friendly manner). It's got nothing to do withWP:STEALTH, you don't seem to understand that's totally irrelevant. But they were right. I shouldn't have pointed out your mistake as there was no consensus for a second RfC. Hence why your addition of a new RfC tag was reverted.Polyamorph (talk)04:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, your attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill are the root of the problem here. You quite vocally brought up the tweaking of the close statement on AN and no admin saw fit to comment. Contrary to what you may think, admins do check for followups to their posts. You have also repeatedly referred to the compromise close without mentioning the fact that this close lasted all of two minutes withJytdog self-reverting his close without any posts being made in the interim. Editors may very well substantially edit/remove their posts within a short period of time if there has been no response to them. Statements characterizing this as "a brazen breach of good faith" as well as other statements like "a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Wikipedia to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity" show you have lost perspective on the matter. You also misunderstood my point aboutWP:STEALTH. Off-wiki communication wasnot done to notify editors about this discussion. My advice to you is wait a few months, find other sources that show a link between the two topics, and calmly open a new discussion, refraining from hyperbole. --NeilNtalk to me14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot was brought to ANI before (archived section) for mixing accusations of "corruption" with a content dispute, and they did the same with regard to me in this one. They hintedhere that I might have a COI and when I filed at ORN they wrotethis:He hasn't denied a conflict of interest with regards to a company he suggested listing in theTalk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area and then edited that entry extensively on that article page. I had indeed mentioned Flatiron Health at that Talk pagehere andhere, andhere is the putative "extensive edit" to the list article. The accusation had no merit and i never replied but i have no COI with Flatiron. This is a continuation of the behavior they were warned about in the earlier case.
But their other behaviors have been more disruptive. More generally this content dispute with Castncoot has been a strange journey and a great exercise for me in ~trying~ to stay calm and work the DR process in the face of a really obstinate, bludgeoning, and incompetent editing and behavior by Castncoot on an article with few other watchers. I laid out the the relevant parts of the history of the content dispute in the RfC statementhere, but it actually started a bit earlier, atRegeneron when Castncoot tried to add a "See also" link toTech companies in the New York metropolitan area to that article. So efforts to resolve the dispute started atTalk:Regeneron, then went toTalk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, then went to Silicon Alley, where they came to a head.
In any case, if you have a look at theTalk page statistics for Talk:Silicon Alley you will see that Castncoot made 233 edits and contributed 92883 bytes; I am second with 135 edits and 48926 bytes. So the BLUDGEONing is clear. And you can pick any oftheir contribs to the talk page at random and you will see the bad sources they brought and the strange arguments they made, over and over.
This content dispute has been both unpleasant and protracted, and I don't have any sense that Castncoot is going to drop the stick on this article, nor that they will stop conflating the the tech industry and the biotech industry in other articles. This has the potential to disrupt other articles -- see for instance their strange argumenthere, repeatedhere and many other times, which was their key argument here.
So behaviorally the key issues here are BLUDGEON, STICK, and repeated violations ofWP:OR in the face of what reliable sources say, repeated misunderstanding of BURDEN (seehere and laterhere andhere - the correct application of BURDEN was explained by Boghoghere. Boghog noted Castncoot's consistent misrepresentation of policies and guidelineshere.
Castncoot also consistently misrepresented other editors over the course of the dispute. Me, consistently, but alsoⱮ eg. seethis diff protesting that and also Polyamorph protested being misrepresentedhere.
Not sure what kind of community action could address all that. The continued pattern of accusations of corruption are problematic, but the other issues have been more disruptive.Jytdog (talk)23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
For a start I would like them to withdraw (and apologise?) for their baseless accusations. And be warned by an admin that any further contravention ofWP:STICK and further personal attacks / accusations will result in a block. Especially since the a stern warning was recommended at their previous AN/Ihere, even though it wasn't given.Polyamorph (talk)10:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Violations of several guidelines exhibited by a user
User:Johanprof has edited theVladimir Putin article several times, and an outstanding edit of his, due to its summary line, is this one:[218]
He claims that "the entry has been written by an anti-Putinist which is disgusting". Now since every anti-Putinist should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, so long as their edit respects the respective guidelines and is constructive, this, in my view, violatesWikipedia:Civility and the third of thefive pillars of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the edits of said user have been described as "tendentious" by other users; seeUser_talk:Johanprof. This would mean that said user disregardedWikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Softlavender, this seems like a premature filing. The user stopped editing altogether after discretionary sanctions notices were given (and two days prior to this thread being opened). If disruption starts up again then we can look at blocks/page bans. --NeilNtalk to me14:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal Attacks by Niteshift36
Niteshift36(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), an editor on theBetsy DeVos talk page, can't seems to resist directing malicious lewd/homophobic personal attacks at me. Despite being warned twice to knock it off, the attacks have continued and the editor in question has dug in their heels and persists in defending such attacks, despite their being prohibited by policy.
The first attack was as follows:
“It's obvious you like Dick and spend a lot of time thinking about Dick, explain why your interest in Dick belongs in the article.”[219]
I cautioned the editor to stop making these types of comments.[220]
Instead of heeding the warning and backing off, the editor in question doubled down on the attack with the following reply:
“It's not my fault and if it hurts your feelings that I pointed out how much time you spend thinking about Dick or how much Dick you should see, there's nothing I can do about that.”[221]
Just yesterday, the same editor decided to re-launch the same attack:
“Apparently, you've given up your obsession with Dick”[222]
I responded by pointing out that comments of this nature constitute a personal attack. I asked the editor again to stop making such attacks and advised him/her to strike the comment from the Talk page.[223] As per policy, I also provided aWP:NPA warning template on the editors’s talk page.[224]
Instead of striking the comment and/or apologizing, or even acknowledging that such comments are problematic, the editor smugly defended the attack[225] and is showing no sign of modifying their behavior or recognizing that it constitutes a user conduct issue.
This has gone beyond merely being disruptive. It has created a hostile editing environment and necessitates admin intervention to put a stop to it, as I fear this out of control behavior will only get worse. A block would be warranted at this point to send out a clear signal to the editor that such behavior is not tolerated at WP.
Incidentally, concurrent with the issue I am having with this editor, another editor on the same talk page is also now complaining that they are being personally attacked by Niteshift36.[226]Rhode Island Red (talk)17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look into this and suggestingWP:AE as a remedy. That will be next step. The editor's reply below to this notice shows that there is no remorse or even the slightest bit of awareness as to why this kind of behavior is problematic and wholly unacceptable.Rhode Island Red (talk)18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As for Red's allegation, the comments may be sarcastic, but they're not a personal attack. Rhode Island Red has done more than his share of commenting on the contributor instead of content, so for him to suddenly play the victim is really dishonest. Much of this isn't Red and his allegedly hurt feelings, it's about the fact that I opposed editing by him and his ilk and then, as others came in for RfC's etc, his positions were shown to be against consensus. Truthfully, I see this as more an attempt to "eliminate the resistance" than to improve the encyclopedia. As for the comment that I did strike through, it was, in face, a completely false statement being made, but I softened my words. If one lies, one should not be surprised when the lies are called false. Again, I don't believe this complaint is because Red actually felt attacked or is worried about the good of the project, but that's just my opinion.Niteshift36 (talk)18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Whether a personal attack or not, they are clearly juvenile and inappropriate. Please grow up and try to act like an adult.Paul August☎18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw the notice about this posting on Niteshift36's talk page, which happened to be on my watchlist because I'd complained to him about his personal comments and attacks on a different page. He dismissed the complaint and deleted the post.[227] His comments onTalk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 have tended towards personal remarks and stonewalling in place of providing sources or stating policies. All of that makes engaging in discussion both uncomfortable and fruitless. So I endorse Rhode Island Red's concerns about this editor's behaviour.Felsic2 (talk)18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course you do Felsic. Just like Red, you obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. You've resorted to making claims that are easily proven to be false, refused to heed consensus.... and now you try this.Niteshift36 (talk)18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that if Arbcom starts looking at the DS for that article, it will also look at your violations of it as well, don't you? The boomerang is always around.Niteshift36 (talk)18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to intimidate me and throwing gas on the fire. You could have saved yourself by recognizing that your indefensible behavior is wildly inappropriate; apologizing; and promising to stop. I have no qualms whatsoever about taking this toWP:AE as it seems to be the only way to curtail further attacks. You have sealed your own fate.Rhode Island Red (talk)18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
See, this is part of the problem. You see things that aren't there. I didn't try to intimidate you. I can't threaten you. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I can do to you. What I did actually do was point out that sometimes these things boomerang. Many times, I've seen people come here, thinking that if they're first to complain, their own conduct will be ignored and seen it boomerang. Since you've violated the DS and engaged in some less than civil conduct of your own, I merely pointed out that you aren't excused merely because you were first to complain. Any threat or intimidation is solely of your own making. I clearly stated that my remarks were "sarcastic" and "snarky". Having been around Wikipedia for many years, I've seen "wildly inappropriate behavior" and a pun based on the name of a person in the discussion isn't even close to that. You've proven yourself to be unwilling to listen to the points of others. Case in point: The RfC about the Academi/Blackwater description. You were all "overwhelming keep", having rejected my position as uninformed. In the end, somewhere around 9 more editors (most uninvolved) opined it was you that was in the wrong. Still, you treated me like I had no idea what I was doing. Ditto with adding the net worth of the subjects father in law. You told me countless times how wrong I was and how I didn't get the applicable policies. How many others came in and told you that you were wrong? You want an admission? Fine, I admit that your obstructionism may have led me to be sarcastic and less civil than I should have been. Perhaps if you became more open to discussion instead of attempting to demagogue, you'd find people being more pleasant.Niteshift36 (talk)02:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit[228] is troubling. The edit summary implies that Niteshift36 thinks that it is OK to be rude if he believes that someone is telling a lie. --Guy Macon (talk)18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're partially correct Guy, I did link my "rudeness" to the poster's lie. I do wonder though if you took the time to see what the alleged "rudeness" was. In one case, it was saying "don't do that again" when he refactored my talk page entry. In the other case, I struck through calling his falsification "b.s." and instead called it a fabrication.Niteshift36 (talk)02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seenNiteshift36's edits, and am not commenting on them, but I suggest everyone here take a close look atFelsic2's editing behaviour, a totally unacceptable very tendentious and disruptive behaviour that can make anyone who disagrees with themvery frustrated. Such as onTalk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 whereFelsic2 totally refuses to accept that other editors don't agree with them, and starts section after section to discuss the same thing, his repeated attempts to get material about a shooting into the article, in order to wear their opponents out, and drive them away from the article. Evenlying about having support from other editors, when no such support exists on the page, in a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors. I also suggest you read previous discussions aboutFelsic2 here on WP:ANI:#1 and#2. Discussions about the same kind of behaviour they're now showing onTalk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Other editors, including yourself, have made misstatements on that page. The issue is whether a single misstatement is justification for Niteshift36 to repeatedly call me a sorry liar. Based on this posting it appears to be a common practice of his. These personal attacks did nothing to help us arrive at a consensus and merely made the talk page a more hostile place.Felsic2 (talk)19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You were asked repeatedly by both of us to back up your claim. You have had every opportunity to admit it was incorrect. You never have. You've tried diverting, making counter claims and even tried some sarcasm of your own, but never just said "I was in error".Niteshift36 (talk)02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
What misstatements have I made? Your behaviour doesn't excuseNiteshift36's behaviour, but it was a deliberate lie, since there'sno way you could have so totally misread the consensus on the page, where not a single other editor posted in support of your edit (an edit you tried tosneak in anyway, hoping noone would notice, just like you have done on other articles before...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Anyone who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor they're complaining about, so there's no reason not to discussyour behaviour too. Especially since it'syour tendentious and disruptive behaviour that caused the frustrationNiteshift36 vented in their comments... - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Above, you wrote, "Your behaviour doesn't excuseNiteshift36's behaviour." Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Anyway, if you want to make a case against me go ahead, but just casting aspersions and making threats is unhelpful.Felsic2 (talk)20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There you go again. Whatthreats have I made?Felsic2 has started a parallell discussion on my talk page too, if anyone is interested. - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems like this just died, without anyone looking at thecore problem:Felsic2's tendentious and disruptive editing... - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh? This entire thread is a report about Niteshifts behaviour, and most of the above discussion about Felsic is an off-topic derail: Felsic isn't even the one who made the report. If you have problems with their editing, feel free to report that issue in a new thread. With diffs. Can we get back to the actual topic of this thread now?Fyddlestix (talk)17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who cares to comment on this thread can be scrutinized for their editing. If Felsic's history is a more pressing matter, I would rather deal with it now than worry about a few sarcastic comments by Niteshift.TheGracefulSlick (talk)18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, we can examine anyone's conduct - but weneed diffs to do that. I see some accusations and griping about Felsic above, but only 2 diffs (neither of which appears to show anything remotely untoward). Meanwhile, there are a number of diffs that seem to show troubling comments/behavior by Niteshift linked upthread. So no, I really don't think that Felsic's behavior is "core problem" here - those of you who think it is should postevidence of that if you don't want to be called out for derailing the discussion.Fyddlestix (talk)20:19, 24 January 2017 (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.
Remove editing restriction on Kmweber
RESTRICTION REMOVED
Going somewhat against theexact wording of the restriction, I have removed the listing atWP:RESTRICT. I've done this for a couple of reasons:
Consensus, which was used to apply the restriction, weighs entirely to the removal of Kmweber's editing restriction
Kmweber, in edits to their user page a year ago, shows significant understanding and remorse for the actions which led to the restriction
Kmweber has not edited in over a year, so the liklihood of them requesting the lifting of this is slim. It would be nice, if they returned, for them to have a "clean slate"
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.
Kmweber is not allowed to edit the Wikipedia namespace or Wikipedia talk space. Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indefinite block, with the following exception: if an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion, and is not subject to block for doing so. Kurt is encouraged to edit the article space, and help contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. He is also reminded that the only way to lift this ban is to formally request it be reviewed, or go to ArbCom.
Original discussion that imposed the restriction:[229]
Rationale for removal Kurt was restricted in 2009 basically for being a pain in the ass in project space. He has editied sporadically in the intervening years and has stayed out of trouble since 2010. A quick look at his userpage shows he is aware he acted badly in the past and regrets it. There therefore does not seem to be any benefit to the project in continuing this restriction.Beeblebrox (talk)21:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as Kurt hasn't edited anywhere on this project for over a year, is this really necessary? We tend to jump all over well-meaning new editors for appealing blocks or bans for others without their knowledge...ansh66621:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is different than a block or ban though. It's permanently displayed on the wall of shame atWP:RESTRICT and can only be undone by consensus. Kurt has indicated he may want to return to editing at some point, why not make him feel welcome to do so?Beeblebrox (talk)22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, that is true. (Though really why do we even have that? Didn't they get rid of the list of banned users?) In that case,conditional support per Eggishorn below, who has made the point better than I ever could.ansh66600:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Conditional support for the removal of restrictions. The current user page indicates remorse and acceptance of responsibility of wrongdoing. The restrictions themselves are quite old, and there is a likelihood that maturity in the intervening time has increased. It is appropriate to remove these restrictions but it was specifically stated at the time thatKmweber himself had to ask for the restriction to be removed. I'm not entirely sure if that is something he can or would want to do but assuming he does, then the request should be allowed.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)00:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Support removal Kurt was one of my only two opposes in my RfA (ten years ago now - blimey) purely because I'd self-nominated. I'm pretty sure that sort of silliness has gone away now, and if it hasn't, we can always reinstate the restriction. I don't see any downside to this.Black Kite (talk)00:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
AGF - Support removal Can always be reimposed if he abuses again. As for "he has to ask for removal", the community giveth restriction, it can taketh it away on its own initiative as well. We can't bindingly order our future selves not to do something (policy changes could restrict us, but this was just a normal community restriction). I would prefer to have him here to briefly discuss it but I can assume good faith enough to go with another chance anyways.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Support removal - There's no real downside to giving this user another chance here, as others have noted. If the previous issues return, the restriction can be reimposed.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)06:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Support The worst case is if he started up again, the restrictions could be brought down quickly. I too would like to see if KMWeber wants to have these lifted as well, it's possible he may say no.RickinBaltimore (talk)13:30, 26 January 2017 (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 above IP editor is only adding trivia from the TV show Frasier. He is editing two pages:Caviar andFishwife. SeeSpecial:Contributions/2601:48:C501:69BF:10E6:F4C1:AA66:5186. I have twice reverted the edits with a summary explaining why, but they have been reinstated. I asked the user to go to the talk page, but with this type of account they often don't know about such things; for that reason I have not wasted time posting talk page warnings. It is not strictly vandalism, there is content albeit trivial and irrelevant. If I revert again I'll be in breach of 3RR so can someone else look at the case and take action if appropriate. Thanks,Martin of Sheffield (talk)14:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's pretty clear disruptive editing, as the trivia has nothing to do with the topics at hand. While they weren't given a warning (as they should), I did give them a 31 hour block for disruption, as it's clear that's all they were doing. In the future, please report something like this over to AIV.RickinBaltimore (talk)15:10, 27 January 2017 (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.
Lift Wtshymanski's restriction
By community consensus, the restriction placed onWtshymanski regarding IP reversion is hereby lifted. In it's place, Wtshymanski is to give an explanation of the reason for reverting via edit summary, or if too complex to explain in the edit summary, in the talk page of affected space. Failure to do so may result in the reinstatement of the original restriction.78.26(spin me /revolutions)20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm broadly familiar with the underlying issue and the origin of the restrictions. However, as this thread proves, it seems to be unworkable and only exposesWtshymanski to harassment. Editing restrictions are meant toreduce the amount of disruption, not to be a Damocles' sword over long-term editors' necks, and can only work if reporting is done in good faith and with concern to benefit of the encyclopedia. Both reverts provided here as evidence fall in the category of "revertable on the merits", and Wtshymanski provided a reasonable edit summary; had they been made by a registered user, they certainly wouldn't fall into the category of "blind reverting". Therefore, Ipropose that the Wtshymanski's editing restriction of reverting IPs be formallyrescinded, and replaced with a formal warning that Wtshymansky may only revert IPs on the merits, and provide an edit summary, and that his return to the old ways will result in blocks or other sanctions.No such user (talk)16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support (but would be open to maintaining some lighter form of restriction, such as one against using rollback or reverts without informative edit summaries). The restriction was apparently passed because Wtshymanski once had a habit of being too quick in reverting IP editors irrespective of the merits of their edits. If the intention was to stop this behaviour, it has stopped, judging by the review of his recent editing. Going beyond this and trying to stop him from doing perfectly normal, reasonably-argued, occasional reverts in the context of legitimate editorial disagreements, which would be perfectly okay if he was facing fellow registered editors also, simply makes no sense, and I can't blame him for having occasionally disregarded a restriction that is so plainly nonsensical.Fut.Perf.☼17:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Strong support: Nothing in Wtshymanski's history even hints at him returning to the behavior that resulted in the restriction. I have my disagreements with Wtshymanski, but I have always found him to be honest, to keep any promises he makes, and to consistently and in good faith do what he thinks best for the encyclopedia. He also has also always responded very well to even the shortest block, so why impose a long-term restriction when a 24-hour block would have had the exact same result? --Guy Macon (talk)19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, but with a requirement to use informative edit summaries, and a warning about not returning to his old behavior.Paul August☎18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support & Comment If this is any indication of what they are dealing with, it makes sense to rescind the restriction with stipulations so to speak. I'd like to point out an IP tried to play with him here and even changed thisthreadChris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me02:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Weak support. I can certainly see why this particular sanction would be problematic. That said, no editor's contributions shouldever be reverted on anythingbut the merits, IP contributions most assuredly included. The fact that the community found the need to forestall this kind of behaviour suggests that it must have been pretty explicitly obvious that Wtshymanski was targeting edits because of who made them, rather than whether they were beneficial, and its hard to imagine a worse kind of editor mentality. But all of that said, editors have indicated here that Wtshymanski's attitude has reformed on the matter, and the sanction as it stands is certainly highly amenable to gaming by anyone in conflict with Wtshymanski who might wish to troll him. On the balance, I support the repeal of the restriction, but hope Wtshymanski will henceforth show as much respect to those of our editorial community who do not (and sometimes cannot) register as autoconfirmed users. I would certainly hasten to support an even broader restriction if they fall back into old habits.Snowlet's rap06:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have yet to see any example of Wtshymanski "falling back into old habits". Wtshymanski issmart. He constantly and deliberately tries new and innovative ways of doing what he wants to do against the desires of the Wikipedia community, and as soon as any particular method results in even a short block he abandons the method that isn't working and moves on to another. Compounding the problem is the fact that Wtshymanski has picked up many, many enemies (this tends to happen when most of your comments drip with disdain and sarcasm) who behave far worse than he does and will use any restriction as a "gotcha". That being said, when he isn't acting up his edits tend to be really, really good. I can come up with dozens of examples where he improved the encyclopedia in ways that most editors lack the technical expertise to do. And a few where he got it wrong and dug in his heels as dozens of experienced engineers refuted him with multiple reliable sources. :( --Guy Macon (talk)16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean, one could NAC it, given the complete support and amount of time passed. But given the fact that the decision is an overturn of a community sanction, I think there's no harm in leaving it to an admin. A tiny bit extra time isn't going to hurt. But then I know these messages also serve to bump the thread to prevent it getting archived without a proper close. Bump.Snowlet's rap06:48, 27 January 2017 (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.
Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar
A group of users did a copy/paste move fromSikri toSikri, Sant Kabir Nagar. I reversed it for now to restore the attribution history - but cannot investigate further at the moment (working from my phone right now). Can someone else investigate to see if a history move is appropriate here? ---Barek(talk •contribs) -04:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Can someone also notify the editor(s) of this ANI for me? I can't seem to get templates to post, the autocorrect on my phone keeps mucking it up for me. Thanks. ---Barek(talk •contribs) -05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor whom I and another editor (User:Mattlore) suspect of having aWP:COI has moved a page with no consensus at all to a frankly silly title and I think it needs reverting back ASAP. Also, the user in questionUser:Stateoforigin is possibly in violation of the Wikipedia username policy.
As Mattlore is mentioned I changed the name of the title on the page State of Origin series to read, Rugby League NRL State of Origin series, the page is all about the NRL Rugby League series so why doesn't the heading reflect that. I would like to ask other people there thoughts and changing the heading to represent the story and contents. COI, we have not conflict of interest excpe the fact that the story heading must be accurate. Mr Mattlore suggest that we may have a relation ship with the Story, its not true.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStateoforigin (talk •contribs)00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
My thought is that the only reason you are here is to try drum up page views to flog your merchandise.
I think this thread should probably be atWP:ANI actually, my bad. Since the user in question has replied here, I doubt I can copy & paste it over. So I'll just have to ask you admins to forgive my newbieism. I hope this issue can still be looked at though. Many thanks againBwfcwarrior (talk)00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Stateoforigin: you do not have consensus to perform the move. Regardless of what you think is the right title, you should have proposed the move and gained consensus with sources and evidence.This diff suggests some sort of commercial COI. I'll be dropping a post onWP:UAA in a moment.Blackmane (talk)01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Did some poking around. The website they posted on their talk page is a business that sells State of Origin merchandise. While their editing is not yet in violation of the TOU, their username definitely is as it represents a business.Blackmane (talk)01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Blackmane, regardless of what you think the heading still needs to change to read accurate, the Story is all all about the Rugby League State of Origin series, don't you agree? We have posted it for discussion to get a consensus, as this is what was suggested by 331dot.— Precedingunsigned comment added by149.135.56.138 (talk)02:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. you did not have consensus to make the page move. This is not about a "story", this is about what is reported in reliable sources. If anything, the article should be moved back to its original title and a consensus sought. If you do not have consensus to make a move then per Wikipedia policy you may not make the move. Also, please sign into your account to post a response and also sign your posts using four tildes, ~~~~Blackmane (talk)03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I skimmed the talk page.This seems to be the only prior discussion on renaming the page. I may have missed where its been discussed and there was an issue raised and please point out if I have. There's nothing specifically that leads me to see this as a controversial move. Seems like nothing more than a bold move which is allowed with out a prior consensus. They seem to have reasonably followedWP:MOVE.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The only two situations in which moving a page without consensus is unacceptable are where (1) a previous RM established the current title by a clear community consensus (not a "no one !voted so move by default" situation) and (2) there is an ongoing RM and the move was made to circumvent it. Otherwise, the standard operating procedure is outlined inWP:BRD. There is no user conduct issue here, as far as I can tell, except possibly Bwfcwarrior being trigger-happy and forum-shopping a content dispute to AN for no reason.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)07:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
If you have read all the comments here, at the article talk page and that users talk page, looked at his/her/their contributions and then mine, and come to the conclusion thatI AM the problem editor here, then wow! Just wow! Thank goodness you're not an administrator here. (BTW, before you play the uncivil card, take another good look at my talk page contributions since I decided to take the plunge and sign up here! Civil, yes. Civil doesn't mean being taken for a mug though!) Good dayBwfcwarrior (talk)12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't have to read a bunch of comments you didn't mention in your OP comment here; your OP comment itself clearly sets the thread up as not being something that needed to be taken to ANI. If you think moving an article without prior consensus is by itself worth reporting on ANI, then yes, you are behaving problematically. And you really need to drop the confrontational tone. I suggest this thread be closed and atrout offered to the OP. He/she would be wise to take it with the good humour with which it is meant, rather than the above overly defensiveSHOUTING and exclamation marks.WOW!Hijiri 88 (聖やや)13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Way to totally miss the point. If you continue shouting with block capitals and bolding, and exclaming sarcastically "wow! Just wow!", even if you don't technically bold the word "wow", you will likely be blocked soon, and not just for a username violation.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: It appearsUser:Stateoforigin has been blocked. Since I'm NOT "forum shopping" mr. assume bad faithHijiri 88, I'm happy for the issues regarding the page move to revert back to the article talk page since I was obviously mistaken about it being a candidate for a quick (WP:BOLD) move back to it's original title. (So basically, if anyone wants to close this thread, feel free as I have no objections) Thanks againBwfcwarrior (talk)13:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, engage in civil discussion andstop shouting or leave. It is not a good idea to ping someone who is currently unable to respond, and implying that someone got blocked for disruptive behaviour (It appearsUser:Stateoforigin has been blocked ... So basically, if anyone wants to close this thread, feel free as I have no objections) when it was a username block is extremely disturbing. I've seen quite enough of that kind of comment in the past few days, and it's incredibly ironic coming from someone who would dub me "mr. assume bad faith". You forum-shopped a content dispute to ANI, which you shouldn't have done, and then you were extremely aggressive in defending that decision. This needs to change.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Just looked at your talk page Hijiri, clearly you're an uncivil editor here and frankly you show some worrying troll traits. I also noticed you're no stranger to Wikipedia's block policy either. Attempting to talk down to me is just laughable frankly. I appreciate it when good, experienced editors offer me help and advice. You though, well if you didn't talk to me again on here unless it's absolutely necessary to the betterment of the project, it would be a good idea. Finally, I do believe stateoforigin to be a disruptive user, but I didn't imply that is why he/she/they are now blocked. In fact, all I did and will ever do is state the facts,see here for example.Bwfcwarrior (talk)13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't need this drama at the moment, which is the only thing stopping me from proposing a BOOMERANG at this point. You really, really need to change your tone if you are going to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Checking the block logs and reading user talk page archives from years ago in order to "zing" people who give you this kind of advice is ... really inappropriate.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)09:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Final comment on matter: Just a quick final FYI to everyone here. Since there is nothing more constructive to come from commenting to Hijiri, I will be ignoring them here from now on (unless as above, I need to talk to them for the betterment of this project). I stand by my earlier comment that the issue from an ANI point of view regarding user:stateoforigin is effectively over and move discussions can be better continued on the article talk page. I would close this, but not sure how or if that's proper as the starter. I'll leave that up to someone else. Thank you againBwfcwarrior (talk)13:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
NPOV tag abuse
(non-admin closure) This discussion has only been open for a few days, so anyone feel free to reverse the close, insofar as I am concerned, but this looks like aWP:SNOW issue that is best closed for the better of all involved. This is essentially a content issue and at this point should be resolved at the article talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield alleged abuse in the tagging process, but no other editor who has commented here (whether previously involved in the dispute or not) has shown support for that interpretation. AWP:BOOMERANG was requested by other parties under the rationale that Tiptoe's behaviour on the same topic had become problematic and disruptive, but I see no consensus for that result either. Tiptoe has turned his approach towards advocating for change to the root policies, rather than digging in further regarding the local consensus atBattle of Aleppo (2012–16), and it seems that all parties have backed away from treating this as a behavioural issue and are now talking mostly in content terms. However, as previously stated, that discussion should be bounced back to the talk page as the appropriate forum.Snowlet's rap01:03, 28 January 2017 (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.
Volunteer Marek, with Jr8825 and Irina Harpy, have been repeatedly taggingBattle of Aleppo (2012–16) with a npov tag without creating the required talk page discussion section and without giving the required reasoning for the tag being there. The incident concerns only Volunteer Marek and Irina Harpy since they were both advised (here[230] and here[231]) that the tag needed a talk page section and reasoning - but both of them went on to reinsert the bare tag.
23 December - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag[232]. He does not give an edit summary, he did not create a npov section on the talk page as required in the tag's guidance notes here[233] and he did not explain which part of the article he thinks does not have a NPOV and why. He did not even make a mention on the talk page about the tag being inserted.
23rd December - Jr8825 tags the article with a npov tag[234]
3rd Jan - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag[235]
20th January - Iryna Harpy tags the article with a npov tag[236]
22nd January - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag[237]
To make a pov tag justifiable, the tag inserter always needs to indicate clearly to other editors what specific content within the article they are alleging is problematic. Unless this is done, other editors cannot assess what is needed to fix the article and get the pov tag removed. In this case, I have no idea what content the tag's inserters consider problematic, and there is no talk page indication of anything big enough to justify the tagging. The only big recent issue was a RfC about whether uninvestigated unverified claims by unstated persons should be placed in the lede. The overwhelming consensus was that they should not.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)00:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, Cameron11598 - that discussion about the tag is about the lack of a reason for the tag being there! It is not a npov discussion. In what possible way does that discussion fill the pov tag usage requirement of "Place POV at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page. To specify the section of the talk page, use POV|talk=talk page section name."?[238] Moreover, that discussion started on 14th January, the tag was first inserted on 23rd December, then re-inserted two further times before that date.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)03:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, would some bigwig administrator make a policy statement that there is not a usage requirement when tagging an article with a npov tag to, at the same time, open a dedicated discussion in the article's talk page and, in it, define what reasons justify the tags insertion and suggest what needs to be done to get the tag removed. If that can be done, I will obviously withdraw this report since I assumed there was such a requirement and so would be here out of an erroneous assumption.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)03:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I also recommend you readWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The small fact they aren't using the proper template on the talk page, doesn't mean there isn't a discussion. And yes the discussion was started later, so what? Its there now, but consensus of those involved seems to be that the tag remains. You don't agree and you come here toWP:WIKILAWYER a case. (thats how it looks it may not be your intention). --Cameron11598(Talk)03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, you are the one very aggressively filling your replies with wp links (eight of them so far) - that for me is a sign of Wikilawyering. It is common sense that anyone inserting a npov tag should give a reason for doing it, and to do it at the time of insertion. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Even if not a mandatory requirement, a "should do" surely becomes a "must do" if that pov tag subsequently becomes repeatedly removed because of the lack of a justification section, and when two editors have asked that such a justification section be created? The how to section of the tag documentation says do this, then do this - place the tag, then explain your reasons. That is common sense, because to do otherwise risks the permanent tagging of an article - how can a npov tag be removed if it is unclear what the reasons for it being there are?Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
They are discussing it now, so what is the issue? And what is specifically is the "abuse". They were in line with policy. Speaking as someone who read the article I can see the NPOV issues. This seems to be acontent dispute more so than a behavioral one. Which is outside of the scope of ANI. As a uninvolved editor I'd suggest you take this toWP:DRN your claim is there is no NPOV issue, they claim there is. Discussion is occurring on the talk page now. Why bring it here now while the discussion is on going? --Cameron11598(Talk)04:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess my standards about what constitutes a "discussion" are far higher than yours. There is still no proper justification for the tag, there is only obscuration, unspecific referring to previous talk discussions, and VM's wonderfully open "Probably a few other things" assertion. Will those unmentioned "other things" be gradually brought up over the coming months when they become needed to drag out the pov tag's retention. Really, your bad faith comments know no end. WHERE have I said there are no npov issue? All I have asked for is that the npov issues that justify a pov tag should be detailed so that they can be addressed and the tag removed.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to give Tiptoe another chance to back away from this first, but I'm joining my voice to the apparent consensus here that he has lost the plot a little. Tiptoe, I was initially about to support your position based on your presentation of the facts, but on closer review, I have to agree that your approach here is needlessly pedantic and non-pragmatic. If there were a steadfast refusal on that page to anywhere address the reason for the tag, then there would be something to your argument, but that's not the case. There is in fact a thread, so what is the resolution which you are hoping for from this filing? Iryna and Marek are not very likely to be sanctioned over the introduction of a tag that isat least arguably appropriate. Although,Iryna Harpy, I will say that some of your comments there ("Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?","you alpha males") are straying a little too closeWP:PA territory, and your response to R2D21015's initial post is also pretty curt, considering it was a friendly, good-faith inquiry. But as to the edit war, Tiptoe, I'd say you're as close as anyone (if not the closest) to receiving a block, considering the discretionary sanctions context and the fact that there does seem to be some consensus on that page as to the presence of POV issues. I really would let this one lay, given the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG.Snowlet's rap06:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Yes, I certainly apologise toR2D2015 for being short, and I admit that my responses were sharpish. As regards the two talk quotes you've pulled, however, Tiptoe (and the other editors currently still lurking there) know that they are specifically in reference to an AE opened by an editor over this article on 28 December 2016. The comment was directed at Tiptoe due to the shmozzle it was (in a long series of AE and other disputes between the self same editors working on various controversial articles using the same disruptive techniques over and over... including him and other editors biding their time in the wings waiting for the latest round of cautions and serious reprimands to hopefully disappear into the ether). I called it equivalent of chest thumping at that AE because these same editors know perfectly well that they monopolise articles by frightening the heck out of any editors outside of the travelling circus that moves from politically charged article to politically charged article. For the record, because I have had a reasonably good editing relationship with Tiptoe, it was a gruff, butAGF, plea with him when he'd removed the tag without proper discussion yet again. The full context of the comment was,"You're edit warring a POV tag on a 1RR article and serving up your personal interpretation of what constitutes a 'dedicated section' here? Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?" (i.e., is itreally worth your risking overstepping 1RR over an POV tag placed when the edit warring was at its peak, and everyone commenting at the AE came out looking bad). I was kinda hopin' Tiptoe would drop it instead of going battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk)00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Certainly if you two have a good working relationship, and he takes the comments in stride, what appears to snappishness may be fairplay. But with regard to the gender stereotypes I think we need to be more careful, because the person who is the target of those comments is generally not the only one to whom offense is likely to be given. I think you or I might (reasonably) have responded in strong terms if, in the exact same circumstances, Tiptoe had made a comment about "thin-skinned, nagging women". I think avoiding the association of a supposed fault with a particular gender should be avoided altogether here.Snowlet's rap03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, agreed. Getting snarky about gender isn't in the best of taste, and editing abilities don't have anything to do with gender. Worse yet, editors new to such articles might not realise how thin-skinned and demure I actually am. --Iryna Harpy (talk)03:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It is becoming clear here that my concept of thepurpose of the pov template tag and my understanding of itsproper application differs from all the editors replying here. I find this disheartening. I am also disgusted at the descent into bad faith assumptions by Cameron11598 who falsely claimed that I am saying that there are no pov issues in the article and that I want the tag removed for that reason. Based on the various guidance notes and advice pages, and on best usage practices I have seen on other articles, I believe that an article should not be top-of-the-article pov tagged because of minor pov issues - its usage should mean it is alleged that aserious bias exists throughout the article. And that serious bias allegation needs to bespecified and justified on the talk pageat the time the tag is inserted so that the issues can be fixed and the tag removed. I will not be changing that opinion, regardless of any threats of sanctions. The guidance notes for the tag back up my opinion on the intended purpose and application of the tag. The hair splitting by Cameron11598 that the guidance notes' "should" does not mean "must" indicates to me that this aspect of the guidance notes need to be looked at with a view to their rewriting. That, for me, is the result of this ANI. The proper place to pursue this further now appears to be the template's talk page[240], unless another better location is suggested.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)16:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield I apologize if you think I'm assuming bad faith, as I stated thats how it looks but may not have necessarily been the case. Perhaps my phrasing was a bit blunt and for that I'll apologize. However you did edit war, I think the most this case needs is atrouting of everyone involved (myself included anyone feel free to trout me seriously). This again reminds me why I stay away from topics under sanction, things get heated quickly. Again my apologies if I came off as a grumpy old man, I do that from time to time. --Cameron11598(Talk)04:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I accept your apology, but youwere assuming bad faith - you said I had brought this case here because I was claiming "there is no NPOV issue". I think your contributions here, and their bluntness, derived from that incorrect opinion. At no point did I either say or imply that there were no pov issues. All I wanted were for the specific pov issues that justified the tag to be clearly set out on the article's talk page by the inserters of that tag so that the issues could be fixed. That was based on my reading of the intended purpose and correct usage of the tag. Based on the responses here so far, that reading does not appear to match the current accepted standards of its usage. VM and Iryna Harpy thus appear to have followed current accepted standards, so should not be subjected to any sanctions. However, these accepted standards, I believe, leave the tag's usage open to both drive-by-tagging abuse and, more importantly, the unproductive long-term tagging of articles - so I think they need to change.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield As regards any discussion of the use of the POV tag, I believe it to be another exercise in futility. There are POV templates for the lead, and for sections. Until it is established that there are only a couple of outstanding issues where these templates would suffice, the coverall POV tag is less of a badge of shame than tag bombing the article. In my experience, article coverage POV tags are rarely used outside of current affairs topics, and there's nothing astounding about that simply due to the amount of traffic, edit-warring, and the subject bordering onWP:NOTNEWS andWP:RECENTISM. It takes time for some form of order and hefty clean-ups to establish a balanced article. Yes, as with all policies, guidelines, and best practice essays, templates are prone to misuse, or can be confounding. In the end,WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that the most problematic areas be addressed on the talk page, and best judgement be used as to when it's time to drop it down to a section (if that applies). Incidentally, thanks for reworking the 'hell cannons' content. --Iryna Harpy (talk)21:52, 26 January 2017 (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 editor has made a total of five such edits after thelastfirst time the issue was raised on their talk page, and the last of those was over a week ago. I don't see any evidence they have edit-warred over their removal of this formatting template. I'm not sure what urgent, ongoing problem is being raised.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Sorry, fixed mis-statement of timing.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Help with a new (maybe) editor, disruption, etc.
I don't do this very often, but I'm out of ideas for what to do in this situation.
On Jan 19th,Wikiinfomation (talk·contribs) taggedHickok45 for speedy deletion, asserting spam/promotion only[241]. The tag languished for three days during which a couple of people contested it on the talk page, and I eventually removed it on the 22nd when I came across it. I commented on the editor's talk page explaining why I removed the tag and noted that he/she should take time to become more familiar with guidelines before resuming tagging[242]. In the meantime, he responded, then blanked his talk page[243], and placed a Notability tag on the Hickok45 article[244]. I deleted this, as the article contains significant RS coverage, and I have more that I'm going to add tonight.
A subsequent talk page discussion devolved into circular logic, with the editor seemingly playing anWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, either knowingly or unknowingly[245]. Wikiinformation insists that the article is pure advertisement and provides rationales that show a profound misunderstanding of guidelines.
Finally, they submitted it to AfD (fine by me), then proceeded to vote twice (in addition to their submission)[246]. I changed this to a comment and added a response, which Wikiinformation blanked and replaced with another double vote[247].
The account itself seems fishy to me. Their very first edit was to create a brand new article about a minor WWII ship[248], and they subsequently uploaded images from this ship, dated 1943, as their own work[249]. Assuming the editor was at least 18 years old in 1943, that would make him around 90 years old today. That's not outside the realm of possibility, but the idea of a 90 year old writing new articles on Wikipedia and using Twinkle and other tools immediately seems unlikely at best. I'll also add that the new article they createdSS Lawton B. Evans, has had two other brand new accounts edit it (with the only edits to that article) making me wonder if there's a sockfarm[250],[251].
They finally removed their double vote after someone else brought it to their attention, claiming "mistake", despite the fact I told them that very same thing previously (which was ignored)[252]. I'm fine with the AfD being allowed to run its course, but can someone please have a look at this editor to determine if they're really just a new (and very stubborn) editor or something else entirely?The Master---)Vote Saxon(---23:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't help that Wikiinfomation has repeatedly rewritten their comments on the AfD, once removing another editor's response to his comment (I suppose either because they thought the rewritten version of the own comment rendered response redundant, or because they simply didn't like the response). I've warned Wikiinfomation to stop the tampering. --Hoary (talk)01:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's allowable for them to remove content from their talk page, but for them to claim in the edit summary that you work for the NYT Co. or their shareholders is just a little bit ridiculous. And groundless. I also noticed that while they've been here since 2006, they only have 300+ edits and most of those seem to be talk comments or minor in nature.White Arabian FillyNeigh23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I left a note on their talkpage warning them that they are edging into violating the terms of their unblock, and that the speculation they keep inserting is disproven with a trivial search.Acroterion(talk)01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies David. The articles I had been reading refered frequently to Carlos Slim as owner, so it appeared you were editing out of concern for Sulzberger Jr. This not being the case, I am ready to move on to better things.Ferociouslettuce (talk)02:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This editor has wasted enough of everyone else's time, so I have blocked them indefinitely until they commit to communicating properly with everyone else. They're perfectly capable of doing so but choose not to, which is a textbook definition ofWP:DISRUPT -"Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively."Black Kite (talk)19:53, 28 January 2017 (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.
For some reason,the previous discussion on this topic was just archived before any resolution was managed - despite a seeming consensus among the respondents.
I would urge anyone new to the topic to read thethe archived discussion but, to recap, this issue resolves around Lx's conduct on the article's talk page, throwing around unsubstantiated accusations about systematic distortion in the article. When invited to provide sources to support his/her view, Lx has been repeatedly abusive towards me, comparing me to a Holocaust denier and colonial apologist.
In my reading of the original discussion, there seems to have been general agreement that some form of measure needs to be taken. Since the discussion was archived, Lx has been active again on the same article page and has gloated that the discussion here has "staled-out" and has mockedWP:AGF by stating: "how exactly do you "neutrally" describe a problem with a user who creates nnpov content, & then absolutely refuses to allow any further changes to redress this?" I fear that this is yet another example of Lx's refuses to modify his/her attitude (or even style of communication) in response to disciplinary sanctions.
By the way,User:Brigade Piron, I didn't get your ping. I only saw this because I'm watching ANI very closely (in fact having to devote virtually all of my on-wiki time to it) these days while waiting for someone to close the second most obvious SNOW case in recent memory. Did you insert the ping after signing your initial post? Because that doesn't work.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)22:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been receiving the pings. At any rate, I'm kind of confused as to the "legality" of this use of this discussion board (I've heard conflicting reports on if it's proper policy procedure to bring the complaint against Lx 121 here), but I affirm Brigade Piron's statement that I was one who "supported some form some form of sanction against Lx up to and including a ban". I'm not really interested in seeing any editor lampooned, but Lx 121's behavior has not been collaborative or cooperative and been most uncivil towards Piron. -Indy beetle (talk)22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I come here in response to a request fromUser:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron).
It seems to me that there are two issues here: the substance of the complaints byLx 121, and the conduct of Lx 121.
On the substance, it seems to me that Lx 121's complaint is well-founded. The article relies overwhelmingly on European and North American sources, with scanty use of Congolese (or other African) sources. Without casting any aspersions on the skill or integrity of the many scholarly authors cited, this is a fundamental imbalance on a highly sensitive topic. From a Congolese perspective, it must feel rather like how an American would feel if an article on the Pearl Harbour attacks drew overwhelmingly on Japanese scholarly sources.
I say that without any criticism of Piron and the other editors who appear to have worked in good faith to produce an article which reflects the sources available to them. I have myself written articles with a limited set of sources which I know give an imbalanced picture, and the resulting article has reflected that imbalance. I do not know what African scholarly works have been published on this subject, but I do know that the nature of academic publishing is such they are unlikely to be readily accessible to European and North American writers other than though academic institutions. This is asystemic bias issue which we should at least seek to overcome.
Nonetheless, I think that it was foolish of Piron to proceed to a GA review without including more African and Congolose perspectives, and I think that the reviewerMidnightblueowl was mistaken to overlook those deficiencies when passing it for promotion to GA status.
However, Piron is right about one crucial point: that if an editor is dissatisfied with the sources used, it is up to them to offer other sources. And AFAICS, Lx 121 has failed to offer any new sources.
I note too that LX 121 alleges that Piron did not make good use of the available sources, and that Midnightblueowl has wisely urged a deeper review of the souces used, as well as supporting the use of more African sources.[253].
But ... Lx121'a participation in the discussions has been very poorly conducted. Some of it does appear to be an angry response to Piron's dismissal of concerns for the imbalance of source; but whatever the perceived provocation, Lx121's tone has been uncollegially hostile and accusatory. Even worse, Lx121's screeds of ill-formatted semi-coherent posting have made the talk page almost unreadable.
The sectionRFC about NPOV and Undue of article, opened by Lx121, has none of the characteristics of a proper RFC. It is badly formatted, lacks a coherent argument, and tries to compensate for that with expressions of anger and frustration.
So I see no need at this point for admin intervention.
However, I would admonish both main protagonists:
LX121 to ensure that their contributions are concise, properly formatted, and free from personal abuse or expressions of anger; nad to prose changes based on sources rather than on rhetoric.
Brigade Piron to take greater care to avoid impressions ofWP:OWNERSHIP, and not dismiss LX121's concerns so detreminedly; and to heed the advice of other editors on how to use sources.
As others have noted, this is a content dispute. It would be wrong for ANI to give one side the upper hand in that dispute unless conduct issues become severe and one-sided. That is not yet the case. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this seems to be going nowhere fast, I'd like to put forward a motion that'll hopefully be the end of this: mentoring for LX121.
Honestly, I personally don't believe that a productive editor can be made out of someone as combative as him, but it's happened before and it's better than a block.74.70.146.1 (talk)12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Weak Support - I side on "User:Lx 121 side that the Congo atrocities article is problematic, but I would count myself on the side of support@Brigade Piron: request for "some sort of sanction" against Lx 121. I thinkUser:Lx 121 is a productive and reasonable user to a certain extent. I want to note that "The term "mentor" is a euphemism." - this is a kindof "disciplinarian", "interventor" that I'm supporting, not a "friendly mentor". However I note that WP:Mentoring notes that "Involuntary mentorship has a very poor track record and is not recommended." :/--User:Dwarf Kirlston -talk16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
COMMENT
WE ALREADY DID THIS
user brigade piron filed this complaint, on theexact same matter, on 15 january.
it wasdiscussed
& no action was taken.
contrary to the claims made by this user above, who hasAGAIN misrespresented the facts in this dispute, therewas no consensus for action.
theonly major participation was bythe exact same people involved in the talkpage dispute.
the user's ANI complaint went "stale" & was archived.
you do not get"unlimited do-overs" on filing theexact same ANI complaint.
i'm not sure if that activity formally meets the definition ofwp:forumshopping or not,
but itcertainly falls somewhere in the general category.
NOW this user has not only refiled the same,failed ANI complaint,
but
also appears to have engaged inwp:canvassing to gain "support"
for example:
"I come here in response to a request from User:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron)." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
as well as "pinging" a selected group of editors, who this user feels "supported" their views, in the previousfailed ANI.
& now we haveTWO "anon-ip" commentors; who have miraculously turned upjust to comment in the forum here. BOTH OF WHOM see to be very well-versed in the rules & procedures of wikipedia.
i would like to formally request an investigation into the identity of these anonymous "supporters", on grounds of suspected sockpuppetry.
ADDITIONALLY, this user also happens to know, from my comment in the talkpage dispute, that i do not have "unlimited free time" for wikipedia, during the work week.
which makes me think that their choice of date forre-filing their complaint was not purely happenstance.
IF we do allow "unlimited repeats" on thesame user filing the exact same ANI,until that user gets the outcome that they want, this place is going to get aWHOLE LOT more fun! ^__^
request immediate close as an unwarranted "do-over" attempt.
In all honesty though, either this user does not understand how to type using sentences and paragraphs, in which case they probablylack the competence required to edit Wikipedia, or they do understand, and are communicating in this way in order to be intentionally disruptive.TimothyJosephWood18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
with all due respect, this isn't the "article-space"; we are far away having a conversation in "editor land". this isephemera, & i don't care about "polished prose" here. i care aboutcommunicating. you write your comments in the style that you prefer, & i shall write mine in the style that i prefer.
if you can find fault with my prosein the article space, let me know. but don't expect it from me "here".
i'm "here" to discussthe merits of the case, not to make "clean copy". i would go to a writers forum for that.
& if you honestly think that "i don't like the formatting-STYLE another user writes their comments in" is avalid case for "disruptive editing".
& if you can get that made intopolicy.
then yes, it is time for me to leave; fare thee well, so long, & thanks for all the fish.
this comment was shorter & friendlier, before an edit conflict showed me your very nice "follow-up" section.
read your link;do not see anything relevant about a talkpage "manual of style" that i am violating?
except maybe that it is a hugepain-in-the-ass to manually countexactly how many colons you need to add, to keep up with the indentation, IF you arenot using a media-wiki customised browser with a lot of javascript-y "power tools" added; which i can't waste resources running on here, nor would i want to.Lx 121 (talk)20:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
...you...you've been here for 10 years...and you haven't thought to copy/paste the colons from the previous comment and add one? ...I don't think there's a particular precedent specifically for blocking for communicating as you do, but I would personallysupport giving broad lee-way for any and all users to simply summarily ignore such mangled talk page comments, andoppose any sanction that LX121 would seek against them as a result.TimothyJosephWood20:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
2 points in reply: i)cutting & pasting doesn't make it much more convenient (especially if i already have something else clipped to inset), & it certainly doesn't make the whole formatting style of the indents any lesscumbersome. there are better ways to code for this.
2) if you are going to judge other people's statements on the basis of theirstyle of formatting, rather than thecontent of their words, t, that is your misfortune.
Just because 'we already did this' doesn't mean it can't happen again. If you continue the disruptive behavior, it's much more likely that this won't end with 'no action taken'. You are digging a hole you won't like to live in. --Tarage (talk)19:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
*comment -- so thatin your view it IS alegitimate practice for a user to fileTHE SAME ANI again, & again, & again, until they get the outcome that they want? because, i'm pretty sure that's against the rules.Lx 121 (talk)19:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase here. Lx 121, you said "i don't care about "polished prose" here. i care about communicating". Yet you continue to communicate in a ridiculous semi-literate manner that makes it difficult for other editors to read. You're perfectly capable of writing properly, so please do it on talk pages as well. You're simply wasting everyone else's time here, so please cut it out.Black Kite (talk)19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
yes, "let's cut to the chase here"; how would you define my style of commenting as "semi-literate" exactly? just because youdon't like how i write my comments, or because it does not followyour expectations does not make it "semi-literate".
as for the matter of legibility: i am not clear what peculiar, "specialised" device or browser you are using? but i am on plain-vanilla 100% html-compliant firefox, & when i look at the screen, i have no trouble reading the text. & i am seeing what thevast majority of desktop/laptop wikipedia users would see.
personally, i find s p a c i n g & the effective,selective use of CAPITALS,bold, &italics isFAR MORE effective @ communicating intent, &far more legible, than a huge "block" or "wall" of text.
but you are entirely entitled to your own opinions on such matters; as am i.
and again, are we having a discussion about theactual complaint which birgade piron hasre-filed for the second time in 2 weeks, in hopes of winning on a "do over"?
or are we having alit-crit circle about the writing style i use, forNON-article spaceephemera?
so to be clear -- when you can show me some actualWP that dictates "user comments in discussionMUST be formatted in X-manner. then you have a case, & then i'll consider it.
UNTIL you can come up with that particular WP, whichyou haven't been able to, thus far, i'd suggest that you can simply complaining aboutwp:i don't like this, & thatwp:bebold applies here; as per a user'sright to write their own comments.
if you can fault me on thecontent on my coments, i'm all ears.
but all you have said is "you don't like the STYLE i use in formatting them".
& that's not a matter on which you have a "right" to impose your preferences on other users.
as i have saidrepeatedly before: THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE-SPACE.
& this is not about "disruptive editing", this is about "conformity".
& absent any actualWIKIPEDIA POLICY dictating it, i choose not to "conform".
if that means you "devalue" my comments, because you don't like how they are written, then the fault is yours, & not on me
LX121, despite having been impartially by the person with whom you are in dispute, I reviewed the situation impartially and posted at length above to argue that your substantive case has merit, and that you should not be sanctioned. However, your subsequent conduct is leading me to change my mind. You incoherent, badly-formatted, repetitive comments are highly disruptive to this discussion. Several editors have asked you to stop, and even though their request are clearly in line withWP:TPYES, your response is a defianti shall write mine in the style that i prefer. Since you are clearly not interested in working collaboratively, I conclude that you areWP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia, and should be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
*comment - well, so much for your claims of "impartiality"?
as per: "repetitive"; i am repeating myself, because i am being confronted withTHE SAME comments & opinions,repeated by other participants in the conversation.
about point which havealready been addressed.
as per:wp:types i have read the section. i do not see where or how i am supposed to be in "violation" there? please clarify?
the most relevant point i can find in the cited material ispossibly: "Responding to tone - criticizes the tone of the writing, without responding to the substance".
&that seems to be what you (& the other critics of my style of commenting) are doing to me; NOT the other way around. i've read you & the other's comments; & i have no significant opinion on your tone or writing style.
i think i've done a "fairly decent" job of sticking to the points of the arguement?
if i haven'tplease indicate WHERE?
beyond that, you are saying that "you want me blocked because you don't like how i format my comments in discussions".
& as far as i can tell, there isno WP to support such an action.
i also consider that a verypetty reason to want to blockany user, tbh.
i don't support waving the "ban hammer" around without areally good reason. wikipedia loses FAR too many good,useful contributors as it is. & i'm not even calling for a a block or ban on brigadepiron, & i have come to have aREALLY negative opinion of this editor, & to have pretty much run out of "agf" for this person, for multiple reasons; which i will not "laundry-list" here, unless requested or required to do so.
(when the workweek is over, & i havea little more time to spend on this, i willhowever add some examples from the history of this user'sextremely poor, & nnpov, editing choices on the atrocities article)
final point - you seem to have "dodged" the question of whether user:brigadepironcanvassed you to join this discussion. as your initial comments in this conversationseemed to indicate.
i repeat the quoted text: "I come here in response to a request from User:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron)." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)"
but i'm glad that you seemed to find some merit in my arguements about in theactual points in dispute" int he actualarticle that this whole thing was actuallyabout.
i'm sorry that you "don't like me" otherwise; but as i said: if you can find fault with the merits of my arguements, by all means, cite them.
3 items un-addressed in the general conversation thus far
1. is anybody, among the admins who actuallyrun this board, going to address the "double-jeaprody" question?
user:brigade pironalready posted thisEXACT SAME complaint, about theEXACT SAME MATTER on jan 15.
there wasalready a discussion; it went nowhere &no action was taken.
the conversation went "stale" & was archived after about 1 week.
on jan 25, thesame userrepeated the same complaint; withnothing new added to it. no "new developments", & substantivelyno new material.
are we allowing this now?
do users get tore-filethe same ANI complaintendlessly, UNTIL they get an outcome that they "like"?
because, iREALLY thought that was against the rules, no?
2. is anybody going to check up on the 2 "anon-ip" commentors who turned up "out of nowhere" (& with whom i have had NO previous interactions),just to post in support of brigade piron.
3. re: visibility/legibility: i have now asked more than once, &no one has replied, toproplery explain complaints about thelegibility of my style of formatting comments.
as i said; i am using PLAIN VANILLA FIREFOX here. it is 100% html compliant.
what i am seeing on my screen is what thevast majority or wikipedia users would see on a desktop-/laptop.
and i don't see any "read" problems with the style of formatting i use in "here"?
it isdifferent from most of the other commentors.
it isn't in the "usual style" most of the other commentors use.
but itappears to format up onscreenjust fine.
(& i, personally, find it easier to read or "parse", that the style-layout of most of the other comments; especiallylong coments.
so,ARE THERE anyactual, REAL problem with how this text i s showing uponscreeen?
or is this really just a matter of "preferences if style".
because i wouldreally like some clarification on this.
It takes up far too much whitespace for starters, and whatever is said risks becoming lost in the required scrolling. However, Lx 121 didn't initiate this or ask to be here, so they are entitled to format their comments in whatever way they like, especially if it is a result of the software they are using. It is the content of the comments, not their layout, that matter. At least it is not colored or all in bold or CAPS!Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)16:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing is any behavior thatdisrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. The nonsense above is a prime example of along, rambling messages [that is] difficult to understand. In fact it's so disruptive that it is a significant barrier to actually addressing whether there are other run-of-the-mill behavioral problems, since this thread as well as the talk page is simply swamped in barely legible walls of text.
Looking at the actual talk page while choking back aspirin, I'm seeingthis thread, which was probably rightly ignored, which boils down to a lot ofWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the less than helpful observation thatthe article is wp:bullshit.
Then there is the belowRFC, which may actually be the least neutrally worded RfC I've ever seen, and is basically just a rant about another editor. This is very reasonably followed by a request:Can I also ask eds to format their posts on a readable way. This is promptly ignored by LX as they continue to rant more about the user and say basically nothing about article content.
So as far as I can tell, looking at the talk page, we start with "the article is bullshit", go to accusing others of "quibbling about wp" (sounds familiar), followed by a comment that is 2.5 pages long when copy/pasted into Microsoft Word, followed by a long rambling conversation into an RfC complaining about another user, asking no real question, and only barely commenting on the article at all.
So, in order to edit Wikipedia without risking being blocked, you are claiming it is a requirement to use specific hardware and software when doing it and it is a requirement that editors write in a set house style throughout all parts of Wikipedia, not just in content edits?Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)16:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are trying to suggest that using Firefox somehow compels a user to typelike that, the notion is sufficiently ridiculous so as to not merit a response. If you are trying to suggest that, in order to edit Wikipedia, you need to be able to communicate with others like a normal human being, then yes, that is in fact a requirement, and an inability or (in this case) a deliberate refusal to do so is definitely grounds for sanctions.TimothyJosephWood19:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Just block the fool We used to have jerk who refused to put a space after each comma or period, to "save server space". He got blocked for that. This guy's either a troll orWP:INCOMPETENT, doesn't matter which. And no, it's not his software.EEng07:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
This would seem to be the equivalent of someone who only types in all caps, uses blinking fonts in their signature, uses a font twice the size of everyone else's, writes in all bold or all italic or all underline, etc. ...And then ignores any request to change it. It's blatantly disruptive to discussion and therefore to collaboration. Many people have raised objections, and Lx 121 seems to understand what the objections are and is perfectly able to comply (after all, there are normal talk page posts earlier in his/her history), but simply refuses to, making the responses -- in the same style -- to those requests come off as sprawling belligerence. As overboard as it sounds to block someone for something like this, if he/she continues to treat other Wikipedians' eyes with contempt, I would be inclined to support it. —Rhododendritestalk \\15:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. That's enough wasting of everyone's time. The definition of "disruptive editing" is quite clear. Lx 121 may be unblocked as soon as he commits to communicating properly.Black Kite (talk)19:46, 28 January 2017 (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 easily found a few more examples. I've issued a final warning and will monitor the user's edits. Thank you for reporting. —Diannaa🍁 (talk)22:56, 27 January 2017 (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.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.
I'm sure that can be done, right? Well, since you-know-who is having a knack at taunting other admins with profane rants and so on, and I assume disallowing the use of established usernames by new users might do the trick.Blake Gripling (talk)02:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Filtering usernames isn't something an edit filter could do; edit filters don't check against account creations. There's already an anti-impersonation/spoofing filter in place for account creation, but it can't catch everything. ~Rob13Talk06:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP editor rapidly adding poorly-sourced info to BLPs
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone who knows about military stuff look at80.2.63.236(talk·contribs·WHOIS)? He's rapidly adding poorly-sourced material to BLPs. Some of the edits look like theycould be legit, but other directly contradict sourced material. For example, inHarry Belafonte, the IPadded an infobox module that says Belafonte served in the Army, but a dead link in the article says Belafonte served in the Navy. The IP editor's source, confusingly, is an article about Robert Duvall atmilitary.com – this seems to be his source for almost every edit made today. Is military.com even a reliable source?NinjaRobotPirate (talk)14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Also added infobox content in theJames Stewart article saying he was a Private First Class in the U.S. military. For those unfamiliar with Stewart, he was a Brigadier General. The IP seems to be adding the same "Private first class" infobox content to the articles of various celebrities, citing Military.com content about Robert Duvall in them (without providing a precise URL to the content, so no one can check what it says). —BarrelProof (talk)15:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, that's enough for me. I'll block and do a mass-rollback before it's too late. If there's something salvageable in these edits, an informed editor can revert me.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
It's apparently thecause of death vandal, which Thomas.W caught. I reset the block for a month. One thing I noticed about this LTA vandal a while back: there will occasionally be a seemingly constructive edit mixed in with the stream of vandalism. That makes me think Thomas.W is correct in his analysis.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)19:14, 28 January 2017 (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.
Heavy pro-Ukrainian POV editing after multiple warnings. DS alert already given. Examples of POV include adding replacing English spelling by non-English spelling (e.g. Kiev with Kyiv, Odessa with Odessa) and introduction of original research ("Ukrainophobia widely spread in modern terrirory of Russia"), see[260] as an example. Basically the whole contribution of this user is POV, meaning they areWP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk)15:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
This administrator is overusing his admin. rights to attack Wikipedians from Ukrainian cluster. He was the first person to without reasons apply for speedy deletion of my articleTemporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present) (that for Ymblantersems against policy of his country of origin), which has ventually survived several checks by more exp. administrators. He is the first in every article related to Ukraine to revert any changes like Crimea-related articles. Full time job, right?. Keep your subjective opinion to yourself. It is against Wiki policy to harrass other users.
Right now Ymblanter reverts multiple useful cited changes not only of me, but of other users as well. For my update ofUkrainians: Difference between revisionsAdded Crimean Tatar as language of Ukraine (significant change, cited)Adding reference to "TheUkrainian language appeared in the 14th – 16th centuries (with some prototypical features already evident in the 11th century), but at that time, it was mostly known as....Adding citation for Ukrainian diasporas worlwide partAdding citation to " historical national minorities living in Ukraine.Adding citation to Ukrainian language similarity with other European languagesAdding citation on why Volodymyr is used instead of Vladimir.Clarifying some Ukrainian words translationsAdding updated list of famous Ukrainian artistsAddingDecommunization in Ukraine to see also instead of *Ukrainians in Russia because there are 20 Wiki pages related to Ukrainian in Canada, US, Estonia, Poland etc. so we cannot add them.
Ymblanter, you cannot use your administrator rights against users that you may not like or to protect your own interests.— Precedingunsigned comment added byЖовтневе багаття (talk •contribs)
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.
User has had a history of removing (sourced) critical reviews that don't agree with their taste, like[261][262][263][264][265]. In these, and other, edits (see theircontributions), they are also leaving edit summaries that are less thanWP:CIVIL. And when they've been warned on their talk page, they blank it, and replace it with more uncivil comments, even one directed atFerret[266], who gave the user a final warning about removing critical reviews from the various articles[267].MPFitz1968 (talk)21:44, 28 January 2017 (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.
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We've lately been seeing a lot of BS from isp addresses from the blockedAnnalesSchool. Over the last several weeks they have come from the following isp addresses:
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.
Nkansahrexford
With regret, I have to ask that the indef-block ofNkansahrexford be re-instated. This editor was indeffed byWizardman on 31 March 2015 for repeated copyvios, and asubstantial CCI was opened to clear those up. The user wasunblocked byFoxj with an undertaking not to violate copyrights again. I've just removed copyright violations (from at least two sources) fromCreo Concepts, created byNkansahrexford on 27 October 2016 (note: I only became aware of this when I went to check the page off the CCI list, and found it already complete; I may have been too sweeping with my removal of text). I know that we need more editors from Africa; unfortunately, what we absolutely do not need is more editors who violate copyrights – we are already overwhelmed by them (about 76,000 pages waiting to be checked at CCI – please help!).Justlettersandnumbers (talk)11:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm only noticing this because I added a PROD tage toCredo Concepts and got a rather strange message on mytalk page. Here's the thread, as seen on the editor's talk page:
Because I started the article somewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm the author of the article on main wikipedia.Unsigned comment byNkansahrexford (talk·contribs) at 18:07, January 26, 2017
I've looked at the edit history -- no one has ever complained to me FOR notifying them about a deletion request -- and near as I can figure -- and I will admit I'm not up on the subtleties -- Nkansahrexford created this page, but did so in the sandbox of a different user,Iamjunie07 (talk·contribs), who moved it into mainspace[269]. Why would Nkansahrexford do that? --Calton |Talk11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Strange, I see no attempts at communication between you two. There's also the matter of your claim to me not to have written the thing you now claim you did, nor of it being made up of copyright violations. --Calton |Talk13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And while we're at it, why did you add a welcome-user template -- using the name of the company instead of the user -- to the talk page of the sandbox, three minutes after creating it?[270] --Calton |Talk13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
139.192.182.85
After being blocked, the user yet started another mischief. He yet added many false information regarding airline flights in different articles. In this article:[271], He called another userCukimai, and after doing a research, the word means "vagina", according to this website:[272]. I need the admin to help me to confront this issue. Cheers.CWJakarta (talk)07:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You should have alerted the IP to this discussion; you didn't, so I did. I am an admin. Some admin, perhaps me, may be willing to confront the issue. A quick look at the IP's recent edits suggestremoval of information, some of which they explicitly say is untrue. (That no, airline X doesnot serve airport Y. Which is something that cannot easily be "sourced".) Please present diffs. As it is, you've presented a single diff, in which there's no addition ofany information, but whose edit summary they've used "cukimai", which may mean "vagina" (though may be in some other language), and may be about somebody else and may not. Meanwhile, I warmly inviteUser:139.192.182.85 to comment here. --Hoary (talk)08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
(Non-involved comment): this IP has been discussed atANI before, and at least one similar incident (with a different IP, albeit one that also geo-locates to Jakarta) has alsobeen discussed. The common pattern seems to beremoving references (which may, to be fair, be because they're now stale) and occasional vulgar edit summaries inBatak (IIRC, "child prostitute" has been used in the past, so "vagina" does seem to be a slight improvement...)80.229.60.197 (talk)08:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying,User:80.229.60.197. The user's most recent edit was made at 06:43, 27 January 2017. If they continue similarly without bothering to explain, I recommend a block. --Hoary (talk)08:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, the user edited again and communicated in Indonesian in the edit summary, one of the words was "pendeho" which I am guessing is a swear word?lovkal (talk)08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
A different word within the summary ofthat very edit is translated by Google as "cunt". The edit was to the articleHaikou Meilan International Airport. For the most part this article is a pile of unsourced information, or misinformation. Edit summaries aside, how are his edits less credible than those by other editors? (An actual and not merely a rhetorical question.) --Hoary (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Restored after what I'd hope was merely accidental deletion inthis edit. --Hoary (talk)10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)'
True, well I just assumed he was up to no good based on the edit summary, cursing while providing relevant information makes no sense IMO.lovkal (talk)17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Kmoksy continues to vandalize the Pastirma article by removing sourced content and also the Armenian cuisine and Byzantine cuisine categories for no given reason, besides "scientific-fiction".[274][275][276][277] In the last edit I warned him to stop or I will report this, but he ignored me. Please note that this isn't a content dispute because Kmoksy isn't even disputing anything, he's just removing things he doesn't like and edit warring.
The edits cited above are complex. By contrast,this edit is simple. In it, Kmoksy says that no, Sami Zubaida, Richard Tapper and Claudia Roden (in theirA Taste of Thyme. Culinary cultures of the Middle East; Tauris, London and New York 1994, p. 35 & 39) don't say that it's of Armenian origin but instead say that it's of Anatolian origin. I don't have the book; if anyone has it, do please check. --Hoary (talk)03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It does seem possible. However, it's really not useful to speculate about something we will never know for certain unless the user chooses to say as much themselves. It suffices to say that, if it violates consensus and this user continues to edit war, they can be blocked.Snowlet's rap07:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It would largely be ignored yes. If the source does not say 'Armenian' its not Armenian. If it says 'Anatolian' that is what the article should reflect. The two are not the same and saying one while the source says the other would be misrepresenting the source.Only in death does duty end (talk)09:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Except that what was once part of Armenia is now part of Anatolia. One may have informed, cool arguments about nomenclature, as one may about Danzig versus Gdansk. And one may have arm-waving and shouting, as one may about Danzig versus Gdansk. I'd like to know what the book says, and whetherUser:Kmosky actually corrected the article in order that it conformed more closely to the cited source. Let's hope that Kmosky comes here and explains. --Hoary (talk)10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This is about conduct. Don't bring the content dispute into ANI
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
TheTaste of Thyme book (2001 edition) states on p. 35: "Armenians enjoy a reputation throughout the region as distinguished cooks, both in domestic food and in professional catering. They are particularly renowned for their pastry cooking and for finebasturma." This message is repeated on p. 39: "[Armenians] are widely admired as cooks, especially for their pastries and sausages, notably pasturma [sic]."
There is no mention of the ethnic origin of the dish; this is about present-day Armenian cooks. Personally I have little doubt that thename of the dish is of Turkish origin, an earlier form beingbastırma, which makes it plausible that the ethnic origin of the dish is Turkic. A statement that the dish is (specifically) of Armenian origin needs a reliable source; in that respect, givingTaste of Thyme as a source fails verification. --Lambiam21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Possibly dynamic Serbian IPs removing reference from multiple articles
Two Belgrade-based Serbian IPs,178.221.137.49 and178.223.93.49 (both of which are effectivelyWP:SPAs) have been targeting articles that use a book byPhilip J. Cohen, ‘’ Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History’’, deleting it as a reference and citations to it and disparaging it and the author in edit summaries. As can be seen fromTalk:Philip J. Cohen, this book is critical of collaborationist Serbs during World War II, and has been attacked by some Serbian sources ever since it was published. However, I believe it contains material that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, and this material shouldn't be deleted by editors because they don’t agree with it. This all began after I AfD’d an article on a vocal blogger critic of Cohen,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich and also posted a RfC atTalk:Banjica concentration camp to establish the reliability of Cohen for use on that article after another Serbia-based IP had dismissed it on talk. Banjica concentration camp was at least partially run by Serbian collaborators. First 178.221.137.49 deleted Cohen fromTerritory of the Military Commander in Serbiahere, which Ireverted on the basis that while it was BOLD, there was a RfC about Cohen ongoing (which they had already contributed to) and they should wait for the RfC to close before taking such action. I tried to engage them on their talk page,here. However, theydeleted it again. I then issued an ARBMAC warning. The deletion was subsequently reverted by another user.
Next, 178.223.93.49 deleted Cohen from the articles onNikolaj Velimirović,Lazo M. Kostić, andKosta Kumanudi, all figures associated with Serbian collaboration during World War II. I reverted these removals, but 178.223.93.49 reverted them. 178.223.93.49 also deleted Cohen fromList of Serb countries and regions. Obviously I have left them as is for now, but the pattern that is appearing concerns me.
These deletions, almost certainly by the same person, occurring while an RfC about the reliability of Cohen is ongoing, is clearly disruptive anddisrespectful towards our community dispute resolution processes. Obviously I am involved, and any further warnings from me appear unlikely to be heeded, so I am asking if an uninvolved admin will warn the users to stop this deletion of Cohen from articles and tell them to wait for the outcome of the RfC on the reliability of Cohen. There are other IP and registered SPAs (likely meatpuppets) appearing on the RfC and elsewhere around this subject, but these two are the obviously related ones causing the most disruption. I've notified both IPs. Thanks for your time looking at this. Cheers,Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this isVujkovica brdo (talk·contribs), who exhibited similar relentless behavior of removing all content referenced to sources he doesn't like[281][282], seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić mainly in the field of mathematics but also in articles about Serbian and Croatian history. The articleB. Wongar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) provides the obvious link, both 178.223.93.49 and Vujkovica brdo editing the article about an obscure Australian anthropologist. While this does not fall under sockpuppeting category (Vujkovica brdo retired in November), it does show a long-standing pattern of disruption. While he often does have a point on the matters of content (he does have a point about Cohen, IMO), he goes about it in so belligerent manner that it inevitably ends up in conflict and disruption.No such user (talk)16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I encourage you to have your say about Cohen at the RfC. Thanks for the heads-up about Vujkovica brdo. If it is Vujkovica brdo (and the similar editing on B. Wongar – which has only nine pagewatchers – seals the deal for me), he had been warned three times for edit warring andWP:OWN in the week prior to his "retirement" in mid-Novemberhere,here, andhere, so edit warring now using IPs is a clear attempt to evade scrutiny of past behaviours, which is prohibited byWP:Clean start. The editors that warned him were@Joel B. Lewis,David Eppstein, andArthur Rubin:, so they might have a view on this. Would a narrow rangeblock pick up both IPs without too much collateral damage?Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My interest in Vb's edits is connected only to his work on mathematics, not on Serbian history, so I have no informed opinion on the current dispute. But I do have the general impression that Vb knows how to evade rangeblocks. —David Eppstein (talk)23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The two IPs have stopped since being notified of this thread, but a new accountKanteP has just appeared to start edit warring deleting Cohen from articleshere,here andhere on theJudenfrei article, and making wholesale deletions of work I've recently put intoBanjica concentration camphere, claiming I'm putting "too much" background into the article. When I've pointed them to another article with a similar amount of background,Kragujevac massacre (which I've also worked on recently and which is currently undergoing GAN review), they thentagged it as too long as well and made comments on the review page about Cohenhere. I have tried to reason with this "new" editor, but this is obvious trolling by someone with less than 100 edits on all wikis, who has obviously been here before, and is very disruptive when all I am trying to do is improve articles in a difficult area using reliable sources, some of which I need to translate with great pain to my brain. It has been several years since there has been this level of trolling in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, and I would appreciate a hand here. I've notified the new account. Thanks,Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a few points related to thisPeacemaker67's work.
Banjica concentration camp. Two sections Background and Establishment are 2.5 (out of 6) pages long i.e. comprise more than 40% of the whole article. All my warning about this meaningless disproprtionality were in vain. It was told him (her?) that "TheTerritory of the Military Commander in Serbia already covers most of this section and there is no need to repeat the same things here". TheTerritory of the Military Commander in Serbia link is visible in the article, If we browse Begovic's two volume book, available online, we'll see that Begovic for the same events (in Background and Establishment) dedicated just 17 out of 750 pages which is less than 2.2% of the whole book
His reading of Begovic's book is incomplete which results into dubious and unclear conclusions inserted in the article. I've expressed and elaborated my concerns on the article talkpage.
This is not a content dispute (they can be resolved on talk pages and through DR like RfCs), this is about behaviour. I was in the process of expandingBanjica concentration camp, and of course, I started with the background... This editor is aware of (and has participated in, at least once) the ongoing RfC about the reliability of Cohen atTalk:Banjica concentration camp, but continues to ignore that community process (which is still running) and continues to delete Cohen from articles, as if he alone is the arbiter of what a reliable source is on WP. He does not compare and contrast sources when they differ, as we do on WP, he deletes sources he doesn't personally agree with. These articles now includeThe Holocaust in Serbiahere, andEdmond Parishere, and now he is also removing respected Holocaust historianChristopher Browning from The Holocaust in Serbiahere because he disagrees with what Browning said at a conference (and then misrepresents what Browning said on thetalk page in defence of his deletion). The edits onJudenfrei andThe Holocaust in Serbia, along with the removal of Cohen (who has a lot to say about Serbian collaborators and their involvement in the Holocaust in Serbia), might give an uninvolved observer reason to be concerned about his motives. There is a current in Serbian historiography about the Holocaust, saying that local collaborators were only doing what they were told, so have no responsibility for what happened etc. This pattern is very concerning, apart from the edit warring, deleting references, trolling me at Kragujevac massacre etc.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is only a content dispute. Browning was blatantly wrong, read in detailsSajmiste concentration camp.Jews from Nis were deported to Sajmiste and died in Belgrade were deported and not killed on spot! This is my last response to your incivilties.--bez potpisa (talk)05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
A look atCatholic Church sexual abuse cases indicates more IP hopping disruption by the same range, including178.221.148.19 and178.222.141.169, again onEdmond Paris, and removing reliable sources using 178.221.134.32 onMilorad Ekmečićhere. It is pretty clear to me thatKanteP is a new account forVujkovica brdo, but that they are also editing a fairly narrow range of articles using IPs regardless of whether they have a registered account. At the RfC mentioned above, it appears that the same editor has !voted three times, twice as different IPs and once as KanteP. This is pretty obviously being done to edit war and disrupt community processes and not get held accountable for their actions.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
And so it goes, still edit warring while logged out atJudenfreihere, andEmanuel Schäfer (the Gestapo officer that had the Jewish women and children of Serbia killed using a gas van), again removing Holocaust historianChristopher Browning and replacing him with the decidely fringey Barry Lituchy,here. This editor just edit wars to remove reliable sources he doesn't like, and edits while logged out in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
EditorCaillou ftw dora ftl does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Around 90% of his 21 edits are to user space, or some kind of disruptive change to the encyclopedia. Very few are constructive. He has taken to making changes to some articles so that is is how HE wants it to be, rather than following consensus of the community.
I’m posting with two requests – first, I don’t want to raise things at ANI if it's not necessary and so, were there intermediate steps that I could have taken? And second, now that the matter is here, would someone please take appropriate action, whatever that may be. Thanks.110.147.183.191 (talk)10:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm counting 7 edits to user space, that's only 33%. They're a bit odd, but they could be the result of a user not understanding they have their own sandbox to work with. The only change against an established consensus that I can find isthis single pair of sequential edits.This was potentially disruptive, but still not out of line for a new user. I think your assessment of the situation is a bit presumptive. Everything else isWP:GNOME-ish redirect creation. And the first and only bit of interaction this user has received was you notifying them that you reported them. While I could imagine that we're looking at some sort of troll user, in the light ofWP:AGF, their edit habits largely depict a new user who is helping with small edits in niche areas that most of us wouldn't've bothered with. (Likewise, I am assuming that you are similarly new and making this report out of concern for the site rather than any sort of malice). I love blocking some NOTHERE users as much as the next admin (or am I the only one who does this while wearing a Judge Dredd helmet?), but I can't actually find a reason to pull the trigger.Ian.thomson (talk)10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Its not only the user space edits that I am reporting. See the contributions section for the editor and check out the two edits toMotion picture content rating system (speedily reverted). He then went on to do the same thing at another user's user page, which I am actually suspecting is a possible sock puppet of the editor I am reporting.110.147.183.191 (talk)10:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I not only saw those, I linked to them in my last post. 11 of their edits were helpful and 3 were attempts atWP:BOLD editing (misguided in application but not theory). Of the 6 that were to other user's pages:
RTL5: There is no User:RTL5 andUser talk:RTL5/sandbox wascreated by an IP editor whoI assume is CFDF based on these edits. Editing while logged out is allowed, as long as it is not done to avoid scrutiny, pretend to be multiple people, or some other dishonest reason. Looks as though CFDF was trying to create an article and didn't know how to.
User:Mileland: While that user does exist,their only edits (over a month ago) were to create an apparently defunct sandboxes. Thiscould be a sockpuppet of CFDF's, but so what? There actually isn't a blanket ban on sockpuppetry (dynamic IPs would make such a ban unfeasible for IP editors), there are just certain types of sockpuppets that are allowed and some that are not. Making a mistake in trying to create an article is not exactly forbidden.
@Ian.thomson: But if they are new users why would they add comparison tables of imaginary countries' motion picture content rating systems to Mileland's sandbox? I don't know what you are seeing, but I am seeing nearly a spitting image of SlitherioFan2016 himself.110.147.183.191 (talk)20:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's deemed needed, I'm sure someone will do so. Unfortunately I don't see the link, outside the two edits earlier mentioned to the motion picture rating page.RickinBaltimore (talk)21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, just leave it be for now. There's a number of eyes on this now, and if anything looks to be out of place, it'll be acted on I'm sure. Just go ahead and edit like you normally would, and if anything appears weird, leave me a message, I'll have a peek.RickinBaltimore (talk)21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
FURTHER INFORMATION: The editor has not responded to the case. I'm pretty sure that this is conclusive that he doesn't care how he edits and just wants the encyclopedia to be the way he wants it to be. But I'm trying to assume good faith here, maybe a bit of decoration to user spaces and trying to help out. I'm not 100% sure this is even a troll, but I think he might be NOTHERE and This needs to be dealt with. Any objections?121.216.39.62 (talk)01:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"Go to one of the enforcers and plunge a knife into its guts"
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 sure where else to put this. Isthis reponse (diff) appropriate advice on dealing with people who disagree on an interpretation of Wikipedia policy? It's a call to declare oneself enlighted and simply "plunge a knife into its guts" of people who enforce policy and guidelines one doesn't like. Since this came from a long-time contibuting editor, I've been trying to interpret it as a metaphor for something else "in the right setting", but I can't come up with what that might be, since it specifically points out using a knife as a better "argument" to use than speech, and is a direct response to someone wanting to follow but change Wikipedia policy. I'm sure any user willing to say things like that is also willing to claim they meant something far more clever and nuanced and on-wiki, and that the rest of the world is politically correct and too stupid to understand and have no right to react; but that only goes so far. Surely there's a line somewhere about average users who may want to get involved in Wikipedia, and what they think they might have to prepare for in their lives instead of speech if they follow existing guidelines, because they can see things like this go unanswered as advice (on Jimbo's user talk page no less). Should I have been asking for a clarification or redaction in case the user was just having a bad day? I was involved in other parts of the discussion, but this wasn't a direct response to me and I have not otherwise engaged this user other than notifying them of this report. --Closeapple (talk)10:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it was a metaphor, but I saw it as a philosophical analysis rather than an actual threat of or call for violence. Something like the saying "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" (attributed to John F. Kennedyhere though I'm skeptical). And of course in the case of revolution against Wikipedia, the correct utensil to plunge into its guts is aWP:FORK, not a knife. It's been tried a few times with some partial successes.50.0.136.56 (talk)11:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Obviously this was not a call for anyone to cut up admins, but reading this I'll do something to make that clearer to anyone in doubt. My point was that every time people come up with an argument against copyright, the response turns to what violence couldhypothetically be done to Wikipedia, making any rational decision making anything but that.Wnt (talk)12:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
As written, it is a wish for extreme violence. If an IP or some just autoconfirmed editor had said this there would be no discussion, they would have a long block or ban. Why should you be treated any different.?Nigel Ish (talk)12:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it is a comment thatyou can go do something like this, not a command to do so. The title of this section is a sentence that I never said! And it is still absurd, I mean, did you also think I truly believe that the choirs of heaven were less beautiful than a stabbing? But I also do think there are some here who are too quick toWP:BITE the new editors (maybe the policy's name is prone to misinterpretation...), and I would oppose similar action against them, obviously.Wnt (talk)12:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Those who see a call to violence in that comment need to read it againcarefully, paying particular attention to the pronouns used. It does not say what you think it says.Beyond My Ken (talk)13:28, 29 January 2017 (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:Yimingbao
User:Yimingbao is continually reverting edits on tennis tournament draw pages, removing the appropriate closing tags, from something like this:
Apparently, some undocumented quirk of MediaWiki causes all tags to be automatically closed in a table row. I agree with the consensus linked above that this is bad practice and should be discouraged. If this undocumented behavior were ever changed, we'd end up with broken code all over the place. It also makes the content much harder to copy-paste somewhere else, as the code will have to be modified if it ever gets pasted outside of a table row. It further gives newer editors the idea that it's OK to leave tags unclosed, which is something I'd rather we didn't do. I have no idea what Visual Editor would do if it saw this... it might choke. This just seems like a really bad idea to me, and I think it's disruptive to strip out the proper formatting.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)10:32, 26 January 2017 (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.
UserBenevolent Dictator has createdMental health of Donald Trump - a clear BLP violation and an attack page. I have nominated this page for speedy deletion underWP:G10 but the author has repeatedly removed the Speedy Deletion tag and unblanked the page, despite all 4 levels of warning. Following my reporting this user to AIV, they have created an incorrectly formatted AfD discussion for this page - they are clearly not a new editor and I'm not sure how farAssuming Good Faith is meant to stretch in this case. Can an Admin please take a look? At the moment, the BLP-violating content is still visible.Exemplo347 (talk)15:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
this guy can't get his story straight. First, I created the aFD before he sent this here. Second, all I did was unblank the page while KEEPING his tag and send it for an AFD discussion. I apologize if I incorrectly formatted the AfD; I am a new editor, young in years.Benevolent Dictator (talk)15:55, 29 January 2017 (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.
I don't know aboutWP:NPA, but certainlyWP:CIVIL. "Go fuck yourself" has been forgiven, I'm sorry to say, but only when the consensus was that the speaker was extremely provoked; that does not appear to be the case here. In my view Spadaro needs a break and doesn't recognize the need. Not indef but perhaps double or triple the previous block. ―Mandruss☎18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Iwas going to block indef here, but only two are the previous blocks are in recent times, so I have followed the increasing route on those. I suspect, however, that any other episode of similar may lead to a indef.Black Kite (talk)18:49, 29 January 2017 (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.
It came to my attention we've had another case of FoCuSandLeArN and his paid advertising, as this current user listed above has unconfessingly started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources; takethis andthis, of which I've PRODed several. Recently, they also exhibited similar advertising behavior by citing similar MO about PR atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factom, despite the current votes now show Delete. Earlier today, they then immediately removed the PROD with the stated "Advertisement article" atthe specific article for Tripfez. Like with FaL, they had been involved with this for several months until boldly "retiring"; in this case, Kavdiamanju has largely changed their activities in the last months, and as the first link I showed above, it shows they have been focusing with starting cookie-cutter company articles for the past few months now. Similar,take a look at this Factom article which is one of their last contributions today, with the summary of "removing puffery and adding sources" but, like FaL, that in fact only emphasized the article's PR format, complete with PR sources, and in the case of Factom, Kavdiamanju even cared to expand the section of its employees, executives and their services. With all of this, it shows a clear COI which is still unconfessed despite the deletion actions against their articles. Because this user has become a longtime contributor and user, this is the only place we, as with FaL, can take action. FWIW, I would've given them a serious warning about WP:PAID at their talk page, but given the massive campaign here and the fact they've still continued it until today, it's unlikely to work.
Also, like FaL involving himself with images, Kavdiamanju has affiliated articles where immediate SPAs added company images, seethis (and this case, different IPs). I have examined their newest company articles so far, but another similarity to FaL, here is the fact they've affiliated themselves with other non-company articles too. Kavdiamanju has never been a largely active user, but the fact they've largely involved themselves with such similarities in such a close timeline to FaL, is probable cause enough. Now, as for articles likeWerner G. Scharff, I can't quite confirm the obvious chances of paid contributions, like the others, but in such a closeness and PR-vulnerable subjects, I wouldn't say no to the likeliness. Even if there's no obvious paid contributions by the company, it's clear there's unconfessed COI here. Also, to note, all involved articles so far:BookRenter ("After working for a few startups, Barceloux saw potential in the idea and teamed up with engineers"),Earny Inc ("It introduced an idea to request a refund on the user’s behalf from e-commerce companies to make sure that the users get the best dea"),GeoOrbital ("The successful kickstarter campaign in May and June 2016 generated $1,261,222 in pledges pre purchasing around 1600 wheels"),Tiptalk ("Every celebrity sets their price for a private response as a text, photo or video for question asked on the application", If the celebrity fails to answer within two days, the money is refunded back to the user"), andTripfez ("Tripfez makes money by collecting commission for the online customers they provide the hotels") all focus with known PR-hubs for advertisers, such as the fact both BookRenter and Earny list similar TechCrunch PR-style articles, and thenTiptalk has it again. NotifySmartse who opened the last ANI for FaL.SwisterTwistertalk01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
SmartSE, I am surprised to see paid advertising remarks for me. I have edited Factom page when I thought it was pulled down to be written as a software page and not as a company page, there were several reliable sources that indicated that the company is clearly notable. As an editor, I believe that page must not be pulled down, due to the creator's mistakes or what he doesn't have an idea how it should be. The most pages created by me that are PRODED have been reviewed by a Page reviewer and not by Autopatrolled rights, which I have received almost a month back. I am noticing that even reliable sources are now considered as PR, whether they are from Forbes or Techcrunch, which are the most active news channels for the technology companies.SwisterTwister, I saw that you have PRODed 4 pages that I have created which I believe is notable because of the significant news coverage they have received from the different reliable sources. I have only UNPRODED tag for Tripfex, as it was notable not only because of the sources but the first company dedicated for the Muslim travelers and halal-tourism, as stated in Forbes and several other sources. I will certainly agree that the pages I have created were seen on Techcrunch, which is truly a notable and reliable reference. I didn't UNPRODED Bookrenter, when it was clearly mentioned by you, that there were issues in the past. I disclose that I amNOT paid by anyone for creating any page, I have added a few lines that seemed promotional toSwisterTwister, while mentioning their Business model or how the company was founded usually referred from news sources, not at all intended to promote a company.
GeoOrbital, was notable due to the sources and I am not linked to the editors who have later edited it. I haven't UNPRODED it
BookRenter, was notable due to the sources and again, not linked to the company and neither paid. I haven't UNPRODED it and will be surprised if it's pulled down, however it deserves a place likeChegg, from where I got to know about this company. Review my advert comment on theChegg's page.
Tiptalk, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
Earny Inc, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
I have created only pages for those music producers, who were highly notable and didn't had a page. I have not intended to promote these technology companies by any means and I am surprised that an editor has made an edit after me. If you review the article, I don't think it was promotional by any-means. Michael Mangini (record producer), a a two time Grammy Award–winner, deserves a place. Adding a Discography section on Jeremy SH Griffith doesn't make it promotional rather my intent was to display why he was notable. If you see a pattern, I have created pages for Sports, technology companies and then music producers, which is not possible in case of paid editing. If I was a paid editor, I would always got a different industry rather than focusing on a particular industry at a time. I have created pages only after reading news or looking at the Wikipedia pages.
I am highly surprised to see allegations of paid edits, which is not at all even .001% true. If someone edit a page that you have created, it doesn't mean that you are paid for it, rather it is a coincidence that has happened with me only twice, for GeoOrbital after 2 months and Michael Mangini, surprisingly after a day. Either someone has been searching for him and edited the page, it really doesn't make me a paid editor. The pages I have created were only meant to describe what the company is notable for or what they have been doing. Looking forward to your comments.Kavdiamanju (talk)17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I was looking at the comment ofSwisterTwister for me "started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources", I realized that I have created 8 company pages,Growing Underground,Earny Inc,Brigade (app),GeoOrbital,TipTalk,Luxe (company) (survived AFD),BookRenter andTripfez. I have never participated for AFD of the pages created by me as I was sure they will survive AFD if they deserve a place, reviewhere. The only vote that wasDelete was ofSwisterTwister, where he has raised the same concerns of including clear interviews and PR attempts, however all others agreed that it deserves a place. Keep votes were from Northamerica1000, TheMagnificentist and Maharayamui, who all are senior editors here. Can you (SwisterTwister) please define me what are notclear interviews and PR attempts in case of technology companies that have significant news from sources including Forbes, Techcrunch, Observer and Washington Post news sources, not written by a freelance journalist. I have always attempted to give a clear scenario, what the company is about, how it was founded and why it is notable. If you feel that a certain line is promotional, instead of alleging me for paid edits here, shouldn't there have been an attempt to talk me with on my talk page or tagged with advert or edited the page. It is certainly frustrating for any editor, when he is questioned for a mass amount of company articles completed, when he has only made 8 pages over a period 8 months, when they all were covered by reliable news sources.SmartSE, your thoughts?Kavdiamanju (talk)05:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We really need to be on the same platform for the news sources when it comes to the technology companies, when one senior editor is sure that the page doesn't deserve a place and others believe it does, is it primarily due to the difference of opinion or there is really a problem? Can we sort it out?I am here only for a reason that makes me happy that I am contributing to the World's largest encyclopedia that people are going to read in the future, how the world was before them. I am not one of those people, who needs to lie to make a few dollars for his livelihood. I am clear with my goals and want to continue my contributions to make this place clean and help the community to grow up its knowledge base. I am surprised when users likeBrianhe, were denied admin rights for no justified reason. Also, I am followingSwisterTwister from a long time, during 2014-2015, I have always felt he is an awesome editor, we had a common view for AFD atCodeFuel,SwordPen Publishers,Sergei N. Bauer,Tasha Wahl and others. We have a difference of opinion atIndiaMART, when it seems that the decision was taken much before counting all the details in. From 2016-now, he appears to be with more of a NO point of view, I really want you to correct me, if I am really wrong. I am followingNorthamerica1000 and others from a long time, trying to learn how the upper level community is working and will be dedicating more time here, once I am free from my commitments. Really don't prefer to comment where I am not 100% sure includinghere, but to be honest, I couldn't resist against wrong allegation of paid editor here.Kavdiamanju (talk)06:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kavdiamanju: just one question: are you fluent in all the languages used for sourcing onImonomy which you createdhere? Or perhaps did someone help by passing you the German, Italian and Hebrew sources and the English text for the article?Brianhe (talk)06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brianhe:, Here is the process I have followed till now. Reading technology news sources, searching for them and their competitors on Wikipedia, searchingGoogle News to look at the sources for the pages I have created and translated using Google and Bing, wherever I feel that they were required. Most of my created pages were referred from the Wikipedia's existing pages, including sports person, tech company or any news. Never intended to promote to a company, even though it appeared to others or it really did. I preferred to be more like a delete editor earlier, but after a certain period, I felt that I should be more of contributor that's gonna help the community and its readers.Kavdiamanju (talk)07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I find this frankly non-credible. How is it possible to do a web search for a valid source in a foreign language that you don't even read? I'm afraid the more likely explanation is some kind of off-wiki collaboration that you haven't described. With all the other evidence presented here and the overall appearance of the articles that have been created, the likelihood is PR editing under direction. Which has now become not justUndisclosed, but actively telling untruths about it. -Brianhe (talk)14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kavdiamanju:Your first article back in 2013 was a pretty classic case of undisclosed paid editing - non-notable, promotional and essentially unsourced. Given your rebuttal, I will explain why I am confident thatJeremy SH Griffith andMichael Mangini (record producer) were paid for. It's because they contain unsourced dates of birth that are not in any of the sources cited and which I'm unable to find anywhere else. How can you explain that unless you got them from the subject? Looking more closely at the EXIF data ofFile:Michael_Mangini_producer.jpg I also see that it was taken with an iphone only hours before you uploaded it from Flickr (taken 09:56, 13 December 2016, uploaded 18:53, 13 December 2016). Then, as you pointed out, an editor who appears to be the subjects childedited the article within 24 hours of creation. Are we supposed to believe that these events are coincidental, or go with the muchsimpler explanation that you were paid to create it?SmartSE (talk)10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse:, Bill Moore was one of the earlier page that I have created and wasn't sure which pages qualify and which doesn't. This is the point where I have started learning. As far the birth dates, I have found them on the references and you can also refer to1,2.Kavdiamanju (talk)16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse:, I have referred images from Flickr and here is the process I have followed to add images. Search flickr by name and the appropriate licenses.
File:Geraldine Laufer Dec 2015.jpg- (taken on 4 dec) Added by me on 18 Dec. There were 3 other images (Taken on April 4, 1995), I have chosen the most recent photograph.
File:Namrata Brar during a debate.jpg- (taken on 20 July 2016) added by me on 13 December 2016. I still couldn't believe how I have been linked to these profiles.
@Kavdiamanju: Read what I wrote again. It shows on Flickr that these images were uploaded therethe very same day you uploaded them to commons. That doesn't happen by coincidence. You must have been in contact with the subjects and told them to upload them there.SmartSE (talk)19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I remember having this user on my radar for a while a couple of years ago - after some digging I found[283],[284] and[285] where Kavdiamanju added spam references in the exact same manner as a certain sock farm (the same spammy domains, too). See alsothis SPI where the CU did not prove anything and the behavioural evidence was seen as weak - still, there's a lot of different pieces of evidence coming together here. I have not been looking at Kavdiamanju's edits more recently, but I wanted to note that this is not a new concern. --bonadeacontributionstalk13:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bonadea:, as I have said earlier when you are new here, no one knows what are reliable links. Did I had ever added any link to any page after that? Earlier being a newbie, I wasn't sure of the reliable references, I had never ever made any non-constructive edit after that and this is how you start on Wikipedia. When you keep editing and know the community policies better, you learn and don't make mistakes. No child, can speak as fluent as an adult. Correct me If I am wrong.Kavdiamanju (talk)16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Propose ban
Per the evidence I've just listed above about the image uploads and their refusal to disclose, I would like to propose a ban.SmartSE (talk)10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support given there's enough showing this has been an unconfessed concern, and one I along with others noticed earlier, and the newest paid articles emphasize its recurrence.SwisterTwistertalk17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the concerns raised appears to when I was a newbie and not sure of the community guidelines. NO link was added afterBonadea's remarks or the first page removed. I will be surprised, if I am banned from the community for the mistakes that I have never made.Kavdiamanju (talk)17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: The issues you have highlighted are Birth dates of Jeremy SH Griffith washere, Michael Mangini was fromhere. All images were taken from Flickr, by first downloading to my laptop and uploaded to commons referencing Flickr. You are looking at a different side of the coin, however, there isn't any perfect theory behind it. I will resolve each and every question raised here. Let me know your next set of questions.I wasn't ready earlier to accept the paid allegations remarks, but atleast ask someone to pay me first, thereafter I am ready to accept paid allegations.Kavdiamanju (talk)01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: Also, I have no right to question on this, but how did you got the birth date forElla Woodward fromhere, also found several images for her on Flickrhere.HCL Infosystems, clearly seems to be paid edit, without any major news reference, this line clearly seems to be promotional (The company started as manufacturing complete range of leading Mini Computers). Birth date forMichael Janisch (musician)?, he was only nominated for (He was nominated for a MOBO Award in 2016 in the category for Best Jazz Act).Point lies here, I have no intention of alleging anyone for paid edit but, this is the same cup of tea, I have received without any valid and justified reason. If I will start looking at any page from a problematic point of view, I will always start finding the problems, whether they exist or not. Ready to answer your next set of questions.@SwisterTwister:Kavdiamanju (talk)01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point. No one really gives a damn how you transferred the images from Flickr to Commons. What we do care about is how you explain the extraordinary coincidence that the images you uploaded to commons for articles on relatively obscure people you just recently created, were themselves just uploaded to Flickr not long before you wanted them. BTW it looks a lot like the Wordpress page was only created in 2017. Can you explain how you added a birthdate in late 2016 from a page created in 2017? Even if I'm mistaken, the page doesn't seem to be indexed by either Google or Bing. Can you describe how you actually found it?Nil Einne (talk)06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
ThanksNil Einne.@Kavdiamanju: if you'd actually looked carefully, you'd see that none of that information was added by me. This discussion is aboutyou and we are still waiting for an explanation about these image uploads.SmartSE (talk)08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:,@Smartse: Did you made an attempt to search for Mangini's website likethis, I can find that in one go. I have earlier clarified that I always search images on Flickr, that anyone can access. Only one photograph I have added was of December (that was a pure co-incidence) and other were atleast 3-4 months old.03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I searched for the URL. If the webpage is indexed, this should find it. It found and still finds nothing. Your search does not find it. If you continue to claim it can be found, give a screenshot sample showing this (but use an external hosting service for the screenshot due to copyvio concerns). And you're mistaken. Both images say they were uploaded to Flickr the same day they were then uploaded to commons. Note that as clearly explained above, we're talking about when the images were uploaded to Flickr not when they were created and neither of them was created in December 2016 anyway (one in December 2015). If you're not sure how to see the upload date, you're welcome to say that, but talking other stuff when it's already been clearly explained that we're talking about the upload date doesn't help your case. And yes, we all read you talking about searching, none of that explains the extraordinary coincidence, and your continually ignoring it and downplaying and instead talking nonsense even after multiple attempts to get the point across to you strongly suggests you're aware that there is a very good reason this extraordinary coincidence happened but you can't admit it rather than a genuine language barrier or confusion or coincidence.Nil Einne (talk)03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and collaboration depends on trust. This editor has betrayed my trust and demonstrated flagrant abuse of our community's goodwill. Enough. -Brianhe (talk)22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brianhe:, none of my contributions have abused of the community's goodwill, I spent countless hours to keep the community clean. You are taking decision on one major co-incidence and no evident proof for any edit. If I am banned from the community, I won't be at the loss rather the community will be at the loss by losing an editor who has helped several new editors, deleted thousands of spam pages and helped the new editors.Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse???' The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support also, as we have done with other recent UPE cases, their contributions and created articles should be reviewed. Any articles they created in violation of Wikipedia's rules against paid editing and not substantially improved by someone else should be deleted. Editors banned/indefed for UPE should have their contributions treatedretroactively as we treat contributions by editors who edit in violation of a block or ban since they have been editing in violation of the Terms of Use.JbhTalk22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Please reveiw my created pages, you will find that all of the pages deserves a place. They have been evidentally reviewed from a single point of view and I have never ever abused my autopatrolled rights.Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse??? The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years.Kavdiamanju (talk)03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
First, I tend to give a lot of weight to the concerns of@Smartse andBrianhe: they both have a lot of experience in identifying UPE. When I looked at your most edited articles I see edits like[286] which looks like PR 'buffing' along with several other edits atWayne Elsey which talk more about his charity than the person which is often indicative of PR management of a biography. I do not doubt that you make good faith contributions as well but there are also many edits which are typical of what we see with paid promotion. Articles likeBookRenter tend to reinforce the impression.JbhTalk15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse:,@Jbhunley:,@Brianhe:, Can you please review my created pages? I have created only 9 company pages since the last 3 years (8 pages in the last 9 months). Did I have ever participated in AFD's of my pages, NO I didn't. What is the point, I have added images that are questioned were searched on flickr. Putting a ban, when there is no solid proof or anything evident that can make sure that I have been paid is really disgraceful and is insulting for me. I have no words to describe how exactly I am feeling now, even when you are not wrong and cannot prove your innocence.Kavdiamanju (talk)03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst you may only have created 9 pages, there has been significant addition of content across a wide range of subjects- e.g. atVarsity Spirit where the page history shows heavy paid editing from SPAs, which you seem to have been a part of.jcc (tea and biscuits)21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support I don't think this is related to Focusandlearn, but I might have misread SwisterTwister's initial post, however it is clear that there is some paid editing here; all the hallmarks have been demonstrated from the evidence presented above by SmartSE, especially with the same day Flickr -> commons -> Wikipedia path we saw with Focusandlearn being repeated here. Whilst it is true that there is not a single piece of totally inrefutable evidence that shows you've been paid to edit some of your articles, the individual pieces of evidence (such as the unsourced dates of birth, readding references that were added by a sockfarm before being removed, being able to use sources in multiple languages that were probably provided by the subject) all add together to create, IMO, a fairly solid case for paid editing.jcc (tea and biscuits)21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support The extraordinary coincidences of images being uploaded to Flickr, the day they wanted them is concerning. Of course if it really was just an extraordinary coindence they would have no explaination except their attempt to downplay what happened and talk other nonsense suggests an editor who's aware what actually happened but knows they can't admit it more than something else like a genuine language barrier or misunderstanding. Then when asked about a birthdate they offer a blog, a blog where core images appear to have been added on 17 January and which doesn't seem to be indexed in Google or even Bing. (I'm aware Google can give different results to different people so I can't completely rule out it appearing for them, but I find it unlikely that it'll not show up at all for me, but will show up for them.) This with the other concerns by Brianhe, SmartSE and bonade are enough for a support.Nil Einne (talk)04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support I do not know for sure if itis paid editing, but it is indistinguishable from paid editing. We should proceed as we do with suspected puppetry--if it is indistinguishable from puppetry, we treat it as such. We can not prove editors have received money in the absence of outside evidence. We can however prove that they edited as if they had done so. Even if conceivably it should be purely voluntary promotionalism , it remains promotionalism , which is incompatible with the purpose of WP. DGG ( talk)22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldsupport this as well, as a non-admin. I've had some more time to look at the user's contributions, and while some are constructive, the pattern shown above is pretty conclusive. DGG makes an excellent point, as well. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Support: His comment"I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years." in reply to Jbhunley above? Someone give this guy a shovel so he doesn't have to use his hands with that grave digging he's doing, huh?MM('"HURRRR?"')(Hmmmmm.)00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment Not much more input seems to be forthcoming. This should be closed before it gets archived with no action.JbhTalk15:22, 28 January 2017 (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'm innocent of this user's accusations. I created an account to edit several pages, not only this one. It's because there is a long discussion with him going on that I don't do other edits on other pages for now. Also, I don't have any other account (he is accusing me of this if I understand well).
There was a long discussion and many edits because I brought some sources that were not reliable at first, without knowing it. He was also warned about the edits. Now, I think I know what is a reliable source and I'm still learning about how to use Wikipedia. I kept discussing in the Talk Page with all the users involved (even in their Talk page). I don't think that I've been hurtful to anyone. As for the POV pushing, I think the current article doesn't represent all significant views on the subject so I want to improve it.
This user forgot to tell you about today's discussion : I brought reliable sources and edited the page as we are told to do by the rules, now I'm sure I'm in my right. He reverted my edits. I asked him if he thought that my sources were reliable or not, and he didn't want to reply to this precisely. And then, now that I brought reliable sources, and because the "unreliable sources" were his main argument against me, I learn that he's complaining about me and accusing me of things.Fulgery (talk)21:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You're still learning about how to use wikipedia!!?(requesting a dispute resolution,Requesting for page protection !!?) this is so suspecious for a two/three/four days account. "Now, I think I know what is a reliable source.." I don't think so. your behaviors Don't emphasize your words. Tens of sources were used against your claims, but what !?You just don't like it. All other editors Do not agree with your edits, but what!!?You're not getting it. "I don't think that I've been hurtful to anyone." who told you that you are hurtful to anyone ?This is what I callVictim playing. "I brought reliable sources and edited the page as we are told to do by the rules, now I'm sure I'm in my right.". What reliable sources you're talking about? To this moment you did not come with a single reliable/specialist source Comparable to (The encyclopedia of islam and The cambridge history of africa...).He reverted my edits. I asked him if he thought that my sources were reliable or not, and he didn't want to reply to this precisely. This was already discussed hundred times, so no need for a baseless Re-discussion of this. As there is a consensus in the talk page (and all user talk pages you notifiedUser_talk:Kansas_Bear#Ibn_tumart,User_talk:HaEr48#Ibn_Tumart....) that your sources are unreliable. --Aṭlas (talk)22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
For the dispute processes, I simply searched for it... The sources that I brought are "reliable/specialist". Do you read Arabic ? But we're progressing, so you confirm that you don't consider the source I used for the Arab descent to be reliable, don't you ? If so, on which basis ? And what has been discussed extensively were other sources, not the reliable ones. The Encyclopedia of Islam and other sources tell one view and I accept these sources ; the reliable sources that I brought tell the other view. They are complementary and both views should be mentioned in the article.Fulgery (talk)22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"They are complementary and both views should be mentioned in the article.". This is why anRFC is taking place. As for the cited source. It's difficult to rely on it, because the bulk of specialist (The encyclopedia of islam, the cambridge history of africa, Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought.......) secondary sources (some of these sources were placed in the discussion) denied this claims. So we shouldn't emphasize the claims by putting "Arab or.." in the lead. --Aṭlas (talk)22:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You already know that this RTC is misleading for me and I will not participate in it, so forget about it. For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this, as you (and me) are not a reliable source. And even if it was the majority view, that doesn't give you the right to delete the mention of the other view if it's reliably sourced.
There are secondary sources that accepted his claims and other secondary sources that related Ibn Khaldun and others' acceptance of it. This Arab descent is an important point to know about Ibn Tumart, and mentioning it in the lead is not "emphasize", but it's going by the rules by citing all the significant views on the subject of his descent, the Arab and the Berber. But, you didn't answer me : do you read Arabic ?Fulgery (talk)23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The RFC is misleading for you, because you have an agenda and you want to apply it in any existed way. So, the overwhelming consensus which oppose your point of view is not going to Satisfy your desires. "so forget about it" Why forgetting about it ? There is six editors who gived their opinions and their statements. "For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this.....". I (and other editors) already gived you the reliable sources, and that your claims will not take place. "This Arab descent is an important point to know about Ibn Tumart...." It's important for you not for this page.Did you read what others have written, or you just skipped it ? The important thing is to mention the sharifian claims and discussing all this mahdist/sharifian claims separatly in the body of the article. Yes I studied arabic and I can read arabic.
This endless, baseless debate will not end or what ? Do you care about what other involved editors have said ? Do you think that your opinion is The Most Important One Of All ? or what ? + I'm not the only one who told you that you're playing anWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game ([295]) --Aṭlas (talk)23:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I discussed with the others and I "care about what they have said" (but not on the RTC that I find misleading). I just want to improve the article. I repeat : "For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this, as you (and me) are not a reliable source." And even, We're not talking about majority here, but relating all the significant views, even if they are minority views. As far as the "Berber" word is mentioned for the identity in the lead, the equivalent word for the other identity is "Arab". One can see no point of adding something to an article, but a question is : does one have the right to prohibit and delete the addition of the reliably sourced significant view by Wikipedia criteria ? "No" is my answer and I stay firm on that.Fulgery (talk)00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"but relating all the significant views, even if they are minority views." Well, perWP:WEIGHT, as we're talking here about an extremely small minority viewpoint (one modern arab author if we considered his work as a reliable source) Compared to the bulk of the modern reliable secondary sources. We shouldn't give the arab origin a place in this article. The sharifian claims should be discussed separatly in the body of the page, as some reliable sources address the sharifian claim and judge it to be false. --Aṭlas (talk)01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
There are other modern reliable sources that validated or accepted the Arab lineage, and there are again, other modern reliable sources that related the acceptance of some medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun and others. Again, the "an extremely small minority viewpoint" opinion should be supported by reliable sources that that say that. There's no undue weight in relating this significant and known opinion.Fulgery (talk)04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
What sources you're talking about ?There are sources!! What sources? "and there are again, other modern reliable sources that related the acceptance of some medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun and others." What sources ? Here we are again with your baseless arguments. Did you provide a reliable source ? No. "Again, the "an extremely small minority viewpoint" opinion should be supported by reliable sources that that say that." You're tuning around the circle again.We don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It's obvious this sources you want to use is an "an extremely small minority viewpoint", because it's opposing the bulk of reliable/specialist secondary reliable sources. "There's no undue weight in relating this significant and known opinion." This your point of view and here you are confirming my concerns about your behaviors (Pov pushing,WP:NOTGETTINGIT) --Aṭlas (talk)04:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"What sources you're talking about ?" I cited them in the talk page in my summary, point 2. And we have to add to this, Ibn Khaldun and other medieval scholars acceptance of it. We are not talking about a scientific theory that had been outdated, the opinion that accepts his Arab lineage existed in the past and exists today and should be reflected in the lead. Again, the undue weight argument should be backed by reliable sources.Fulgery (talk)05:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Editor needs friendly advice
User:Sheila Ki Jawani bears watching and guidance. SKJ is a good editor in many respects, but he or she is making a string of edits which are either marginal or just plain wrong. If you look atthis person's Talk page, you will see some warnings that don't seem to be slowing him or her down. I defer to the other editors and the administrators who watch this board to keep an eye on SKJ and hand out some good advice. Sincerely,BeenAroundAWhile (talk)19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Could another administrator please take a look at the dispute atUser talk:Mz7#Many thanks? The dispute revolves around theBelén Rodríguez article, and it seems to be spiraling a bit out of control. I have to log out for a bit due to a real life commitment, but within that discussion there are behavioral disputes and accusations throughout. There is alsoa relevant report at WP:ANEW. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Thanks,Mz7 (talk)23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, I already apologize to on an edit war. But the IP from Italy 151.67 kept making offensive and disruptive comments starting attacking and harassing me, kept on calling me a "Troll", and the IP from Italy want to block me. Admins, please I am innocent. Could you check the Belen Rodriguez history page there might be mupltiple IPs from Italy using the 151.67. My arguments are stabled and I'm innocent.2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk)00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Totally false, he is not innocent. I'm a variable IP (not multiple) and he always deleted all other people messages in his personal talk page and all other edit in Belen's page and he refuse to acceptIl Giornale, one of the most important newspaper in Italy, as good source; on Spanish ediction he wasblocked for Vandalism and note that he createhere a legal intimidation against me--151.67.43.10 (talk)00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop it, You're comments are disruptive and you are starting to attack me and I am not a destroying the article. Attn Admins: I am waiting for a strong administrator to resolve this incident. 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
In order to resolve this issue, Administrators could you review 151.67.43.10's contributions. There is a lot of disrupted contributions. For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war in the WikiProject a few times. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible blocking. Thanks.2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk)06:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the situation is pretty much clear. 151* tries to add the info that Rodriguez is divorced. First they tried to reference it to a gossip blog which is nota reliable source. Then they brought a reference to Il Giornale, which is likely a reliable source. The problem is that the article only says "everything is most likely finished", it does not say anything about the divorce. Whereas the divorce is likely coming, the sources of quality acceptable for us has not yet been presented, and the info can not be added to the article perWP:BLP. 2001* were reverting this info, but at least they did not try any BLP violations. The article is currently protected; if any of the IPs continue disruption they should be blocked. I do not currently see a need for a block.--Ymblanter (talk)15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I am not talking about Belen's divorce, I am talking about 151.67's disruptive contributions. In order to resolve this issue could you review 151.67.43.10's contributions. For an example For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war in the WikiProject a few times. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible blocking. Thanks.2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk)21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Try being helpful to new editors and don't assume they know all the rules - those warning templates tell them nothing whatsoever about what was wrong with their edits.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)19:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been ignoring the unhelpful and uncommunicative template warnings on his or her talk page which gave no indication about what in fact the problems are. Just templating someone does not constitute an attempt to discuss matters with them. You could have done so on their own talk page or on the article talk page and that should be your first port of call, not here.Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)13:26, 30 January 2017 (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 has only made one edit, which was to create an inappropriate autobiography on his user page, and that was deleted. No admin is going to take any further action based on only that.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The account was only created on the 25th, and I'm not seeing a visible list of contributions, presuming most of them were deleted? Maybe it might be a bit quick to block here.John Carter (talk)19:06, 30 January 2017 (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.
Blocked user using talk page for personal attacks
This is being dealt with and does not require an ANI thread. IreneTandry's comments are not acceptable, but inflaming the situation with repeated interventions when an editor is clearly upset, then dragging them to ANI is beyond unhelpful. This could have been handled much more discreetly by Linguist111.Nick (talk)12:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm unsure here - the edits where IreneTandry explicitly called certain users `dumb` can be considered a personal attack (albeit a rather weak one) howeverthis edit contains no personal attacks.@Linguist111: why did you revert that one - if it had been left in place we wouldn't be seeing an odd edit war going on and it's likely this could be wrapped up with a stern "please don't do that again" --Samtartalk ·contribs12:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as this is closed, I'll make this one last comment - calling the collective Wikipedia community `dumb` is not a personal attack, as it's not really all toopersonal. I agree entirely with Nick's close - please feel free to continue this on my talk page if you wish --Samtartalk ·contribs13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
She's trying to! But *You* won't leave her talk page alone!! I've protected it now, but if I see you continuing to stoke the flames when the protection expires, I will block you for disruption.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
She's "trying" to leave me alone? Certainly not after multiple reverts after I removed her attack against me. Blocked for removing personal attacks? Consider me dumbfounded.Linguisttalk|contribs13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Come on now everyone - talk page access has been revoked and the talk page has been protected. This doesn't need to be discussedhere any further --Samtartalk ·contribs13:23, 30 January 2017 (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.
GoldenGuy23 (talk·contribs) continues to add unsourced content. Has reached fourth-level warning multiple times: October 2015, December 2015 and December 2016. Actions are not vandalism so cannot take editor to AIV, but this repeated unexplained addition of unsourced content, even after being reverted for that specific thing, is a problem.Walter Görlitz (talk)06:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I came across GoldenGuy23 back in November/December. I did inform him that Discogs was a wiki, and therefore is unreliable. But I saw someone else tell him that certain information on Discogs was usable. He never stopped using Discogs, but he did stop posting it as a reference long enough for me to stop trolling his edits.Kellymoat (talk)13:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what GoldenGuy23's impression is, but Discogs would only be usable for its photo scans of album packaging/booklets, nothing else. And yes, GoldenGuy23 seems to disregard the gist of our warnings.Dan56 (talk)19:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user has added anti-semitic dogwhistle terms to a page
Good block, Neil, and useful info, Nat. Also, I'm starting to root for Global Thermonuclear War; I suspect the cockroaches could do a better job than humans apparently can. --Floquenbeam (talk)22:40, 30 January 2017 (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 can't find a User:Molfish registered to look at his or her edits. In any event, if that has happened, anyone can remove the inappropriate terminology from the page, and follow the instructions on top of this page for requesting a more permanent removal, if warranted.Newyorkbrad (talk)22:10, 30 January 2017 (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: Anastan repeated WP:NDP, WP:NPA, WP:Civility violation and use of offensive words
Ąnαșταη has an incredibly long history of WP:NDP, WP:NPA, WP:Civility violation and use of offensive words to other editors.
Anastan reverts other editors because of their ethnicity. They constantely accuse other editors of nationalism and use this as an argument to revert them:
Actually, everything is false. Despite this fake list of diffs, with some of them almost two years old,Ktrimi991 is actually the one who is constantly breaking Wiki guidelines, removing sourced content per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and doing a lot of actions in clear violation ofWP:ARBMAC while he was actuallyALREADY warned about ARBMAC with also quite more warnings from number of editors on his talk page. Just to mention that one of users first edits werecomplicated ref name addition, so it is quite obvious that this user is actually returning user or most probably sock of a banned user.
And so soo many other things. This is just few first pages.@EdJohnston:Already seriously warned him to behave "After narrowly avoiding a block for personal attacks on 4 September, as of 11 September you are busy edit-warring atAlbania. Be aware that you can be banned from editing about Albania or Albanians under the discretionary sanctions if you show no sign of waiting for consensus." This user is WP:NOT HERE to edit wikipedia, but to use it as a propaganda tool, in order to establish his own political agenda. It looks like that its time forWikipedia:BOOMERANG. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ)22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You are trying to distract others' attention from your lack of civility. About "my POV" you can solve article dispute on relevant noticeboard. The removal of sources was already discussed between me and other editors. You just did not accept community consensus which enlarges the list of your disruptions. Stalking? I am free to comment everywhere I want. Nothing is false because everything is proved by diffs.Ktrimi991 (talk)14:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Admin edit-warring
John (talk·contribs) has been edit-warring onMary Marquis over the past week, claiming thatWP:BLPSOURCES entitles him to remove any references sourced toThe Daily Mail. There is currentlyan open RFC atWP:RSN on whetherThe Daily Mail should be banned as a source (which John has contributed to), but no ban is yet in place. His removal of content has been reverted several times by me and another editor,Jheald.I asked him to provide a link showing thatThe Daily Mail was banned as a source on BLPs, but he refused to respond andcontinued edit-warring. John hasthreatened to block me for reverting him, and posteda boilerplate warning on my talkpage rather than discussing, despite previously being asked by me not tonot template the regulars.
This would all be quite bizarre behaviour from any user, but the fact that John is an admin makes it even more unacceptable. Looking through his talk page, it appears he was warned twice for edit-warring last month,once bySomeguy1221 at EWN andonce byMSGJ at ANI. On both occasions (and in the current dispute) he seems to have deliberately circumvented 3RR to avoid an automatic block. MSGJ wrote "I am closing this thread with the result that User:John is admonished for edit warring and incivility. A block at this time is not necessary but he is warned that future occurrences will likely result in a block."¡Bozzio!08:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are you trying to force this through rather than waiting for discussion to take its course? If an editor cites BLP then you cannot force that edit through until consensus supports it. In BLP cases the onus is on the person seeking to add the information not the other way round. Instead of raising complaints you need to stop. If you don't the block will be inevitable.SpartazHumbug!09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Spartaz: I think you're misinterpreting the dispute. John is the one forcing things through without either responding on the talk page or waiting for the RfC to finish.I wrote on the talkpage "If you have a link to the discussion where theDaily Mail was banned from being used as a source on BLPs (as you claim), I'm happy to self-revert" at 06:13, andthis edit summary was his only response at 06:59. I'm not seeking toadd anything, but John is attempting to remove reliably-sourced information that has been in the article since 2009. The onus is on him to gain consensus for removal, crying "BLP violation!" doesn't override an existing consensus.¡Bozzio!10:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverting to the last version that undisputedly is clean and protecting is a routine action for a claimed BLP issue. The correct action now is to discuss the removals, agree what is non-contentious and then find a reliable source for that before reinserting it. The existing consensus is already that DM is not suitable for BLPs so being opposed to its use on the project is hardly disqualifying for any admin taking action around a BLP. I'm afraid that's just the way it is.SpartazHumbug!06:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's the thing-- you're both edit warring. If you want, you can continue to do that and get yourselves blocked, but there are other options here. The RfC isn't done yet, so you both need to find something you're willing to compromise on until the RfC resolves itself. The notion of a reliable source, BLPs or otherwise, isn't just the publication itself, but the claim(s) being made.Bozzio, if the claims being made are controversial or contentious, then a different source would generally be preferred.John, if the claims are not contentious, then you should let this go until the RfC has resolved. If you can't agree on that, it's time to step away from the article and let the RfC run its course.I JethroBTdrop me a line09:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Why? Possibly because this is a crusade for John and he is repeatedly highly disruptive as part of it. To do this when there's an RFC running on the matter is simply to ignore the rest of the community because (as always) John's editing is so much more important than anyone else's.
Just to point out, the RFC on the Daily Mail at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is basically if we now start with the premise its an 'unreliable source' not fit for use *at all* without a strong reason to do so. But there has long been a working consensus on the BLP noticeboard that the Daily Mail is unsuitable and unreliable *for BLP's* except for very basic uncontentious information. At least *some* of the material removed (I think he was a bit heavy handed) above by Tony falls outside that criteria and rightly should have been removed or an alternative source found (the choice here is usually down to how much the editor cares about the article). Secondly BLP removals (where correctly notified as such) are not subject to the usual edit-warring criteria. With consensus *required* on the talkpage of the article or a suitable alternative location (BLPN) to over-ride it. So Spartaz was correct in his protecting to prevent an edit-war - in a BLP edit-war the version protected is almost universally protected without the BLP-contested material present. So while he probably shouldnt have done it himself, had this been requested at RFPP, the end result would have been the same. Incidentally, if there was a previous discussion where the material cited to the Daily Mail was discussed, I didnt find it.Only in death does duty end (talk)11:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
WhatUser:Only in death said. The DM is already covered by WP:BLPSOURCES and cannot be used on articles like this. I have tried to find better sources but that which cannot be sourced in proper sources will have to go. The RfC is about whether we should blacklist the DM fromall articles so is not germane here. Bozzio may need a tap with the cluestick if he continues these shenanigans. --John (talk)13:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I dont agree with all the removals, but her medical history for example requires a source better than the Daily Mail for inclusion. A primary source, a biography, literally anything would be better than having that sort of personal info sourced to the Mail. A paper that has been proven to *make stuff up*.Only in death does duty end (talk)15:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Overblown, and same stuff is in Scotland Now[302]. Google search is generally preferable to ANI drama for dealing with this type of issue. TheWikia article is better than WP's though not RS in its own right. But none of the info seems all that contentious.50.0.136.56 (talk)07:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, the ScotlandNow article was very very likely written from our piece, so relying on it would be an act ofcitogenesis. Also, it's from theDaily Record, which those who would do away with the DM links would also seek to remove it. Even with sources that doesn't apply to, I tend to think that there is a case that where something has been said in an interview, even with theMail, it is not a bad idea to give a link to that original interview, rather that to a "cuttings piece" that repeats the information in another newspaper a few years down the track. As for the Wikia article, it is a verbatim copy of our article as it stood a couple of years ago, before people started removing stuff.Jheald (talk)16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like the removals improved the article in a way many readers would appreciate. I'd keep using the Daily Mail cite for that stuff and add anything better that turns up. If it were something potentially damaging I could see a problem, but if it's been around for that long without anyone contesting the info (I mean saying they think the info is wrong, not just saying they don't like the Daily Mail) I don't think there's a problem keeping it.50.0.136.56 (talk)11:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Spartaz on this. If there is poorly sourced material on a blp, then the onus is on the person adding it back to seek consensus for its inclusion. In this case, there is an RfC open and the material can be added back after the RfC if there is consensus to do so. Contentious or not, we need to be extra careful when it comes to blps.--regentspark(comment)15:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Jordan.williams has uploaded images to Commons (e.g.,this), piping his username to read "DMA Europa".DMA Europa is a common or garden PR company. A cursory search reveals a possible connection. This appears to be a violation of the foundation'sTOU. I tentatively propose an indefinite block, and speedy deletion of the article as G11, unambiguous advertising.
Question for Jordan.williams: if, as you sayhere in answer to a question fromTheroadislong, you are "not being commissioned for the work" on Wallace-Murphy, why do you use the name of a PR agency when you upload a photo of him?Justlettersandnumbers (talk)22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to post it here, but I googled his name and the name of the company and found evidence that he works for them. He's claimed that he's not being commissioned to make the article but it's clear that hedoes work for a PR company and has used their resources to upload images, meaning that the PR company is involved to one extent or another. Even if this is legit something he's doing on his own, he's still using their marketing kit to create the article - meaning that at some point in time Wallace-Murphy or one of his representatives paid the company to promote him. That's a pretty close relationship there, enough to where it's a bit squiffy. It's possible that he just didn't think about it, so if there are any ties he needs to state what they are, even if this was something he did entirely on his own time.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
Support block for undisclosed paid editing, very clear from the contrib history alone, but Tokyogirl's evidence just solidifies my support further. What makes it worse is the denial of paid editing when it's quite clear that there's a connection here.jcc (tea and biscuits)16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And that's an explanation thatgood faith demands that we accept, even if I still don't know why he wanted to use the company's name to upload an image. At this point, I think it'd be quite enough to askJordan.williams for a clear declaration of conflict of interest, and an undertaking not to edit any article with connections to DMA Europa. Could you do that, Jordan, perhaps on your user-page? Thanks,Justlettersandnumbers (talk)18:25, 29 January 2017 (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.
So this is a long story, but most of your drama board audience will see it coming.The ed17 has instructed me that I will be banned if Ican't learn to interact like a normal human being. I'm sure he's trying to do the right thing, but accusing me of not being able to act like a "normal human being" isso offensive, particularly for an admin, that I request some input here. I know he can threaten to block me, and to instigate measures to ban me, but I'm concerned that a so-called admin would be able to talk to another editor in such insulting terms. I am a human being – I passed the Turing Test. It's water off my back, but if this so-called admin used such a tone with other, valued editors, it would be very upsetting for them and rightly so. Happy to accept the boomerang on this one, but it's more about this particular admin's offensive and attacking tone.The Rambling Man (talk)22:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, okay. Was not expecting to be brought here forthis. That was simply a comment on TRM's frequent problematic interactions with various editors. My sincere apologies for my phrasing, TRM, but I think that it's obvious—given the context of my post—that I was not intending to insult TRM in any way, shape, or form.Ed[talk][majestic titan]22:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What, telling me that I wasn't a "normal human being"? And then using this as a forum to claim "TRM's frequent problematic interactions with various editors" is a good excuse for it?The Rambling Man (talk)22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It was extremely ill-chosen phrasing, but it wasn't malicious. I think that'll be obvious to anyone who reads the full comments. If I had been given the chance to redact and rewrite, which you didn't, I would have written "if you can't re-learn how to interact respectfully and civilly with other editors."Ed[talk][majestic titan]22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't (AFAIK) have a history with either one of you, but his comment doesn't come off as offensive to me at all. That's a pretty common figure of speech. He certainly didn't threaten to ban you. He opined that if your interactions with other editors didn't improve, such an outcome was likely. Given your response to his comment, I'm afraid he might well be right.Mackensen(talk)22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, how times change. "can't learn to interact like a normal human being" - really? Perhaps admins are different from the ones I used to know.The Rambling Man (talk)22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You do realize that this is thevery same issue people have been complaining about to you for a very long time? Based simply on all of the complaints I have seen here and elsewhere about your interactions with others I strongly suggest that you reflect on how this comment made you feel and understand thatthis is precisely how you have made many others feel. I hope you will take this epiphany that illconsidered and hasty words can be distressful to those they are directed at.JbhTalk23:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, who are you? I'm confused. I've never told anyone they're sub-human. What are you talking about? Huge and distracting signature, by the way.The Rambling Man (talk)23:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope... no introspection there... oh well... Silly me to think you might consider that while you are a human being who can be offended by what others say, your often crass, unthinking, petty, or just plain loutish remarksoffend the the people you direct them at. Oh well, I'm not here to get in a battle with you. I hoped to offer you some insight into why people so often complain about your behavior; I failed. Good day.JbhTalk23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)×2 Telling you that you weren't behaving like one in a certain context, not that you weren't one. (No opinion on the issue, since I don't know about it.)ΚσυπCyp22:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a poorly chosen remark, to put it mildly, but Ed apologized for it and struck it.Mackensen, of course the comment is offensive; let's not downplay it. To block for it after it was retracted would be punitive, but I'm saddened it was made in the first place. TRM, I can't apologizefor Ed, but I agree, that comment should not have been made and I sympathize with you. Ed, I trust this won't happen again. Sorry for sounding like an old guy. Thank you both,Drmies (talk)22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I was never looking for The ed17 to be blocked, just a recognition that admins can't just talk to others like shit, or humiliating them or making them feel dehumanised.The Rambling Man (talk)23:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I know, TRM--you know as well as I do that CIVIL is difficult to endorse. For the record, I don't understand why someone wouldnot find the remark offensive; if it weren't offensive Ed wouldn't have struck it--I know Ed as a reasonable human being, and it seems to me he realized this was out of line. Thank you,Drmies (talk)23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorryDrmies, but I don't agree and I won't accept that admonishment from you. It'snot an offensive figure of speech where I'm from, and it clearly wasn't intended to be dehumanizing or any such thing. It's regrettable that it was understood that way. I've long argued we should never use figures of speech, metaphors, aphorisms, or any such things on this project because of the likelihood of misunderstandings like this one. Reinforcing that misunderstanding isn't helpful.Mackensen(talk)23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where you're from but I do know where I'm at. You don't have to accept an admonishment fromme--it wasn't even much of an admonishment to begin with.Drmies (talk)23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies andMackensen: it's a pretty common phrase where I'm from as well. That doesn't excuse not choosing words with care, and you will certainly never see me use that phrase again. It can—as we've seen here!—carry a very different meaning when divorced from its socio-cultural context. But I hope it goes some way towards explaining why I'd throw around something that devastating without a second thought.Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
TRM, ed17 didn't tell you that you're not a normal human being; he urged you, for your own good and the project's good, to "interact like a normal human being". It's of a piece with pleas others, I included, have made to you periodically over the last few years, though with decreasing frequency as hope fades that you'll ever stop your relentless lashing out at everything and everyone.EEng23:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)P.S. Passing the Turing Test doesn't mean you're human; it means you're a computer whose behavior resembles that of a human.
EEng, we can do this together. Stop being a dick, and we can work together!P.S. Passing the Turing Test was just a metaphor for letting people know we're not a dog at the end of a keyboard. You know that, so stop being a dick about it!!!The Rambling Man (talk)23:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
TRM, I can't help noticing that your response to the offensive language was: "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." Which you have neither stricken nor apologized for. You follow that with an ANI complaint? ―Mandruss☎23:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And no one has claimed otherwise, as already pointed out.Let it be known to all: The Rambling Man is not a monkey. ―Mandruss☎23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
But importantly, not an admin! So being an admin means you can't do or say the things The ed17 did, because that would make him human. As an editor, you can pretty much say what you like. So, Mandruss, thanks for your philosophical entree, and your attempt at humour, but it's not needed. We're well into the main course now. If you have anything more substantive to offer, please do, but it seems unlikely. The drama hawks who circle this place can fill in for you I'm sure.The Rambling Man (talk)23:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And I want admins who are respectful and honest and open, not sniping and subversive and clandestine. I'm more productive in ten minutes than you are in a week. That's a given. Your behaviour as an admin is under scrutiny, you know that, and you are treading a fine line. We can bring back all the abuses of your position if you like, but we'll leave it for now. Time for you to start stepping up and stop abusing your position. I want a productive and useful "The ed17", not this. I am respectful, to those who warrant it. Go check my "thanks" log. I get appreciation on the side from those who thank me for the work I do here. I'm not standing up and demanding it, I'm just getting on and doing it. You? I'm not sure what you do at all other than pretend to be something more important than you really are. You turned the text purple for Prince but won't turn it orange for Trump. You posted items to the main page with no consensus, with no quality control. I'm sorry to say that respectful editing is one thing, but respect for our readers is paramount, and you fail that time after time after time. I havenever let our readers down and I will never do so.The Rambling Man (talk)23:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|Mackensen}}@Mandruss: TRM's reaction is unfortunate, but we recognise that reactions to insults can be more heated and arch. It would be better if TRM had given a moderated response rather than a more heated reaction, but it does not justify Ed's comment / action – and here is an appropriate place for the discussion because Ed was acting in an admin capacity issuing a warning and acted outside the bounds of acceptable admin behaviour. Let's try not to let TRM's reaction distract from Ed's action.EdChem (talk)23:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Corrected ping, was meant for Mandruss
I am a regular contributor at DYK. I have expressed gratitude on many occasions for TRM's catching of errors and working towards quality content and accuracy on the main page. I have also asked and even implored TRM to moderate his approach, he is more effective and persuasive when his comments don't upset people or allow for diversions from the content issues which he raises. I have also seen editors look for reasons to pick at comments of TRM and we've even had arecent AE post on truly flimsy grounds, so it is entirely justified if he is feeling harried / targeted. After an ArbCom case, these are predictable but unfortunate follow-up events. TRM is well able to take care of himself and (as he has said about EEng) uses forceful language when engaging with others, and doesn't run to ANI for small issues.The ed17 went to TRM's page to speak as an admin, and his "normal human being" comment could only possibly be allowable to an editor with whom he has a long relationship where what is acceptable as banter is known to both people. It would not be ok as a regular editor-to-editor comment. In an admin-with-admin-hat-on-warning-an-editor interaction, it is absolutely unacceptable, a situation not changed at all by the surrounding content. Ed, you have made an apology, which is good. You have tried to justify yourself by saying you weren't allowed time to redact, which just means that (a) you know it should never have been said, and (b) that deliberately saying something you shouldn't is allowable behaviour if you redact or remove shortly afterwards. Neither of these justifications have a reasonable basis, they only serve to detract from your apology. "I'm sorry." is much more powerful than "I'm sorry but ...". Given your apology, there will be no significant sanction, but I want to state, for the record, that your action in this case fell well below acceptable standards for admins, and you should feel ashamed of your comment and your attempts to excuse it. Yes, TRM's language is problematic at times; yes, he risks sanctions and even a ban if he continues... though he is (on average) much improved since the ArbCom case; yes, he is a great contributor and would be a loss to the project, though I would welcome further moderation on his part. But no, that doesn't mean that he can be insulted with impunity, or that your responsibility as an admin towards being moderate in language and to apply policy neutrally to all is in any way diminished. If you can't treat TRM in the respectful way you are asking him to treat others, then don't interact with him with your admin hat on. My advice is to stop trying to justify your action and simply admit it was a mistake for which you apologise, and move on.EdChem (talk)23:39, 29 January 2017 (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 doingnew page recent change patrol and happened to spotthis, which looks concerningly like a legal threat. Believe this would be against policy. User appears to already be blocked other than their own talk page.Home Lander (talk)22:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, Politics555 fundamentally misunderstands the First Amendment but I do not believe this rises to the level of a legal threat. S/he's falsely claiming his block is a violation of the First Amendment, which it manifestly is not, but not claiming s/he's planning on launching legal action (which obviously would be fruitless), which would make it into a legal threat. --Yamla (talk)22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not a legal threat, but it displays a serious failure of understanding who and what we are. Further it suggests someone with a WP:AGENDA who believe he has a right to use Wikipedia as a WP:FORUM or SOAPBOX. Based on their commentary I'd say they are in the express lane heading for a NOTHERE indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk)23:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Post Close Addendum Politics555 is now indeffed. The endless blathering on their talk page made it quite clear that they are NOTHERE and are merely looking for a convenient SOAPBOX to stand on. I have also revoked their talk page editing priveleges. -Ad Orientem (talk)15:50, 31 January 2017 (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.
John Carter blocked for a month. This discussion establishes that John Carter violated a community-imposed interaction ban by making an arbitration enforcement request against the subject of the interaction ban, and that this request was not excepted from the ban as a form of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution concerning John Carter's ban itself (WP:BANEX). The duration is set to be equal to that of John Carter's most recent sanctions violation block. This is an enforcement action in my individual capacity as an administrator, subject to normal review by colleagues, and not an attempt at assessing consensus in this discussion. It does not prevent arbitration officials from unblocking or taking such other measures as may be needed to allow John Carter to participate in arbitration proceedings. Sandstein 12:21, 31 January 2017 (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.
A two-way interaction ban was recently imposed onJohn Carter by the communityhere with the expectaction of a lengthy block if violated. Today John Carter has opened an RFARhere, as well as an Arbitration enforcement requesthere - both in defiance of the interaction ban and neither are covered byWP:BANEX - not being concerned with the interaction ban at all, only in seeking sanctions against Hijiri. WP:BANEX is very clear on what is allowed - reverting vandalism, addressing a concern about the ban itself - clarifying or appealing the ban etc. The arbitration enforcement action is particularly problematic as it shows John Carter is still following Hijiri's edits and exhibiting the stalking behaviour that led in part to the interaction ban in the first place. I am requesting an admin block John Carter in line with the expectations for violating the interaction ban. AtWP:AE uninvolved administrators have indicated it is out of scope for them to enforce community imposed sanctions (which frankly I think is a cop out, even if its not an AE enforcement it doesnt prevent them as admins taking action anyway) so here we are.Only in death does duty end (talk)22:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And I have also requested the close of the AE discussion based on material regarding the nature of the sanctions which was not available on the Arb page. I had also indicated in the Arb case that the admin who closed the previous thread imposing the sanctions had more or less indicated on his talk page that taking the matter to arbitration would be acceptable. <removed personal attack>John Carter (talk)22:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And considering how quickly you act, being the first responder to the request for arbirration, so is your stalking of me obvious.John Carter (talk)23:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator noteI did explicitly warn John regarding the AE request, and I think he is acting the fool and stirring up needless drama, but I do think a RFAR would usually be considered a valid BANEX exemption. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is precedent for it.Beeblebrox (talk)22:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:BANEX allows appeals and clarification of the *ban itself* not seeking sanctions against another editor in order to re-litigate what caused the ban to be requested in the first place. WP:BANEX is very clear on this, for an example see what happened to DrChrissy recently at AE. Secondly I have removed the personal attack above. Any statement by yourself that even comes *close* to suggesting that I am acting out of 'ego' is a personal attack and will be removed under WP:NPA.Only in death does duty end (talk)23:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Blatant violation of the IBAN, and couldn't possibly fall under WP:BANEX as the "clarification" has nothing to do with the John Carter—Hijiri case. How many times does John Carter have to be brought to ANI for stalking before somebody does something about it? John Carter was also warned about his personal attacks.Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Everyone can see my comments at the AE request: to someone who is aware of the problems these two have had with each other, but who holds no particular ill will towards either, a look through the events of today causes everyWikihounding red flag I posses to stand up straight and wave frantically at me. I seeForum shopping for some way to get Hijiri blocked,Wikilawyering an excuse to complain,Wikistalking to find "ammo" to use and a clear violation of a TBAN in the AE request. I'm sorry,John, I've admired your username from afar and I've agreed with you (sometimes vocally, sometimes silently) on a lot of matters, but on this; you look like the bad guy.
That being said, I'm not 100% convinced a block wouldn't be punitive at this point. The damage (the drama raised by these two back-to-back complaints) is already done, and I think a stern "Knock it the fuck off!" would do the job. If not, well... You don't get a second last chance.MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Considering that the matter is in a request for arbirration, which, as I remember, was the first thing I did today, might this thread be seen as being some sort of preemptive attempt atWP:FORUMSHOPPING? If the arbitrators support OID's contentions, I have no doubt they will say so. If they don't, then I really don't see what purpose this thread serves.John Carter (talk)23:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
As I noted at theWP:AE filing, I think a short block is in order. I appreciate the perspective ofUser:MjolnirPants here, but there's already been an ample supply of "knock it off"s dispensed in this case and they haven't had any effect. Perhaps stronger measures will underline how the community is sick of this behaviour and drama, and wants it to end.Lankiveil(speak to me)23:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC).
Or maybe we should let ArbCom determine that, considering that requesting a case was the first thing I did today. I am actually getting rather bored having to repeat myself, but the Arb request was the first thing I did today, as my edit history will show. In the process of writing it, unintentionally hitting a link early in a review of the material that didn't turn out well, I saw his history. As I indicated in my first comment at AE, if I was wrong, I would appreciate knowing that. As I indicated at AE, I have never had cause to look at an amendment before, and, actually, until today, didn't know where to find them, when the link was provided. That is a mistake on my part, and I note I requested the request be withdrawn, particularly considering the matter has been at ArbCom since my first edit today, before the AE request.John Carter (talk)23:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Support block of John Carter - In my opinion, this is egregious behavior, and that both the ArbCom case request and the AE request are breaches of the IBan not allowed underWP:BANEX. A block would, I hope, go some way towards convincing John Carter that the community is serious that he stay away from Hijiri, just as Hijiri must stay away from him.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record I am taking a hands-off approach as of now because I seem to have muddied the waters a bit in my reply to his question on my talk page. A previously uninvolved admin should evaluate this situation and take whatever action they feel is appropriate. (I would note that I am not saying I wouldn't act on any future violations of this ban, just stepping back from this particular instance)Beeblebrox (talk)00:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone in an interaction ban should do their best to honor it, and the way to do that is to pretend the other party doesn't exist. Don't follow their edits, don't comment on them, don't do anything related to the other user in any way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→01:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, can you two not just leave each other the fuck alone?Support block of no longer than a week. There was not a damned thing in the AE report that actually did any harm to the project. This is petty bickering that has wasted well enough time already. Enough.TimothyJosephWood01:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
And, as I have indicated in my most recent comment there, I indicated a willingness to withdraw the AE request before the first admin responded. The drama since then has been, I regret to say, at least to my eyes, more driven by others than either me or Hijiri88, and I am thinking specifically about OID here, whose early and apparently ill-researched first comment in the earlier ANI thread were likely pejorative in its outcome.John Carter (talk)01:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the "drama" is driven by your complete inability tostop beating a dead horse. I mean, even after the IBAN was closed, you tried to get some more digs in. An IBAN means that Hijiri88 IS NOT YOUR CONCERN ANY MORE. AT ALL. --Calton |Talk05:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support a block simply based on the precedent set by the AE request opened by DrChrissy which resulted in them getting the block. DrChrissy's AE request is still visible on the AE page and the parallel between that one and John Carter's AE request is clearly obvious.Blackmane (talk)01:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The record will show that my first edit was to the arb request today. I last logged on on Wednesday, the 26th. Honestly, I hadn't looked at that page at all before editing it.John Carter (talk)01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that DrChrissy's request parallels John Carter's, not that he copied it, so I fail to see whether John Carter saw it or not has the slightest relevance. It's only relevance I can see is that it might have demonstrated to him what a bad idea his filing was before he pushed the "Save" button. --Calton |Talk05:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support a block The IBAN was JC's chance to let this go and walk away, and the discussion made it very clear that that's what the community expected both editors to do. Filing at both AE and RFAR simultaneously this close to the ban being imposed is like the opposite of that, and frankly, it's totally ridiculous, unacceptable behavior. I think alengthy block is in order here.Fyddlestix (talk)03:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support block. Aaaand there it is--as predicted, the issue is back here a week later. If John Carter did not want to abide by the terms of the IBAN, he should never have supported it in the first place. I'm not sure what the appropriate length is, but I hope the implementer will send a message that this has to stop. The Arbs and clerks will have to decide what to do about the AE. In the (I think very unlikely) event they decide to act on the request, someone may have to unblock him to participate in the discussion of conduct, but unless we are overruled here, I favor a block with bite.Snowlet's rap04:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support block Presumably it is very important to reveal how terrible the other editor is, but failing to notice that the community has had enough shows that strong action is needed.Johnuniq (talk)04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a ban-based block. BANEX does not precisely permit "appealing the ban" — it permits dispute resolution, of which "appealing the ban" is an approved example. Requesting intervention in the form of arbitration is definitely a form of dispute resolution, and blocking merely on the grounds of "you went to Arbcom" is not at all appropriate. Given the allegations of stalking, and my unfamiliarity with John's edit history,I'm not commenting on the idea of blocking for that, or for any other reasons.Nyttend (talk)04:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend: JC wasn't "appealing the ban"—he was (a) reporting Hijiri for having posted for translation assistance at WP:JAPAN, and (b) trying to get Hijiri further TBANned from Christianity articles. Neither of which he should have stepped anywhere near, even if they were legitimate.Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!05:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but the point is that this is still dispute resolution; I wouldn't have brought in "appealing the ban" if it hadn't been mentioned by someone else up higher in this discussion. BANEX isn't meant to stop dispute resolution.Nyttend (talk)05:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Eh, that feels like pushing the definition of "dispute resolution" as it is narrowly defined inWP:BANEX. If John had gone to ArbCom to request a case or a review of the community sanction, you might have a point here. But what John decided to do was refuse to walk away from a content issue he certainly should have known was not worth the disruption he would cause by allowing this to come back here a scant week after the IBAN was employed. Unless Hijiri had directly edited something John was working on--and I presume we'd have already heard about that if it was the case--the typical rules of anWP:IBAN mean that John should not have been discussing Hijiri's conduct anywhere on the project, unless it was part of an appeal to the IBAN or some other administrative context associated with it. (which is all the exception BANEX allows for. Look, I was ardently opposed to the IBAN (in part because I knew we were going to have to address this again almost immediately), but the fact of the matter is that itwas the community's ultimate consensusand John Carter initially greenlit it. And we made it clear that community patience is thoroughly exhausted with this long running battle of wills.Snowlet's rap05:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support block, preferably indefinite. The IBAN -- which, bluntly, seemed to be more the result of hounding by John Carter than by the behavior of Hijiri88 -- is less than a week old and John Carter is already testing its boundaries to continue his hounding. An IBAN means that the other partyis not his concern any more. If he's not going to let his obsession go, he's going to have to have it done for him. --Calton |Talk05:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support block - I know first-hand stalking and hounding are very serious offenses here, and they should not be taken lightly, especially after a pretty clear-cut warning was handed-out with the IBAN. There needs to be a consequence for simply ignoring the decision of the past ANI so editors do not need to waste their time on this anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk)05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support final warning to John Carter that any further evidence of edit-following, mentioning, contacting, reporting, or attempting to sanction Hijiri (or any other violation of the IBan), or of alluding to any editor's mental health,will result in an immediate block of six months' duration. I believe that John Carter has obviously seriously gamed the situation across several fronts here, and that he covered himself by seeming to ask Beeblebrox about his actions beforehand (and by the way John Carter seems to be mysteriously and conveniently conflating AE and RFAR[303]). I believe that because of the admin commentary, and the fact that there is a current RFAR (and AE) in progress, means that we may have to hold off on the block at present. But obviously, the warning could not be any clearer at this point: John Carter is on notice.Softlavender (talk)06:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that John STILL has not admitted to any wrong doing. This isn't a mistake, this is a user who believes they are right and justified to do this. What more does anyone need to say? --Tarage (talk)10:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If you were speaking to me or about my !vote, I would agree with you had not Beeblebrox given John Carter an OK to post a RFAR, and John Carter claims that in the process of filing and posting his RFAR he discovered a putative AE violation, hence the AE report.Softlavender (talk)10:52, 31 January 2017 (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.
Just so we're clear, the community supported the block, which was unilaterally overturned by the blocking admin and John knows that any further violation of this topic ban will be taken very seriously. If I see them here again over that topic ban, I will be proposing an indefinite ban.Twitbookspacetube (talk)02:39, 2 February 2017 (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.
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.
Hello! I had getting unarguably percept about this article. I had giving a chance to keep article because I had no evidence about this article. Open Source 2.0check me02:53, 1 February 2017 (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.
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.
That's lyrics to a song by the "$uicideboy$" called "FEMA Camps", as an FYI. Not a sure if it's a threat, but more vandalism/trolling. However, a short block I feel is warranted.RickinBaltimore (talk)15:30, 1 February 2017 (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.
(non-admin closure) At the behest of both parties, I am closing this. There has been no consensus as to whether canvassing took place and the only activity in the thread for a week has been the two parties trading broadsides as to who has more failed to assume good faith on the part of the other (which, if I am to be frank, makes both look something less than self-aware). Regardless, there seems to be no administrative purpose for keeping the thread open longer, especially in light of the fact that it is just encouraging both to entrench further.I have previously offered to administer an RfC on the content issue as a neutral third party and that offer stands. Said RfC will be broadly promoted in appropriate community spaces by me, to attempt a large turn-out to offset any lingering canvassing concerns and to keep as much of a buffer between Tenebrae and Pyxis Solitary as may be managed as the issue is debated. Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone.Snowlet's rap03:34, 2 February 2017 (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.
AtWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, an editor notified cherrypicked editors without any objective criteria as directed atWP:CAN, such as "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." After being asked twice for what criteria was used, this editor respondedhere that no explanation is required nor will any be given. The notice itself was neutral, but since this editor cherrypicked the editors to notify, it clearly seems likevote-stacking. If someone might take the time to see the canvassing concerns near the end of the discussion, beginning at 02:43, 16 January 2017, it would be much appreciated. The editor was made aware I was seeking an admin opinion. --Tenebrae (talk)20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't provide you an admin's opinion, but I do tend to agree that this is very problematic behaviour, both as regards the potential canvassing and the refusal to give a straight answer as to the criteria by which they selected these particular editors. That is to say, the editor either A) does not understand what constitutes canvassing on this project, B) knows and went ahead with it anyway, and is now using rhetorical tricks to avoid the issue, or C) did have a principled, policy-consistent strategy for picking those editors, but is now refusing to decode the situation just to spite Tenebrae. Realistically speaking, it is almost certainly A or B, but even if it were C, that behaviour would be highly problematic in its own right, even if no canvassing took place; a contributor on this project cannot just refuse to be transparent about their actions with regard to a potential abuse of process just because they resent their opposition in a content discussion. That would be just plain disruptive, since the other editor at that point has no other choice but to solicit further community involvement where none is needed, if there is indeed a perfectly good reason for the behaviour.
That said, maybe it will help if an uninvolved editor inquires.Pyxis Solitary,WP:CANVAS is a very important policy which safeguards our consensus-generating process from abuse by assuring that an individual editor cannot tip the balance ofapparent community consensus by selecting for participation in discussion those editors which might bend the discussion in their favour. On it's face, it looks like you chose the editors you pinged by some idiosyncratic standard. Under those circumstances, the onus absolutely is upon you to provide at least a short, simple explanation as to how you selected those editors in a manner which is consistent with the few exceptions made in the canvassing policy. You've said to Tenebrae"If you weren't so wrapped-up in your combative antagonism, you could figure it out for yourself.", but that's not a valid response (if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?) and, in any event, I looked at the discussion myself as an uninvolved party, and the basis for your selections was not apparent to me either. Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please?Snowlet's rap19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?" ... I'll respond to any editor's question that is not laced with the acrimony ofUser:Tenebrae. If you read his comments directed at me in this discussion, you would see that his behavior has been combative, accusatory and dismissive: "Here's something I thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained, but I guess that's not so"; "And as this editor appears unwilling to accept"; "you mischaracterize some editors' ambivalent stances or comments designed to add perspective as supporting your position."; "that's a completely different discussion tha[n] one that's centered solely on one editor's favorite film that one wants to promote."
"Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please?" ... I looked at the revision history of theCarol article as far back as 3 June 2013 -- and invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion. Most have not edited the article in a long time, but that did not negate their having been registered editors involved in its development.Pyxis Solitary (talk)22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I see--thank you for the clarification, Pyxis.Tenebrae, does that satisfy your concerns? I haven't done a full audit of every user Pyxis messaged, but those I did check seem consistent with her info here that she was summoning only those who contributed to theCarol article where the dispute began, aside from the fact that some were also explicitly tapped because they contribute toMOS:Film. Both categories of contributor seem to fall within the exceptions provided for inWP:CANVAS and the the large(ish) number of editors messaged suggests that it is unlikely that editors were cherry-picked from within these two groups. Are your concerns sufficiently put to rest that we might consider this part of the dispute resolved?Snowlet's rap22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I honesty can't say I'm convinced, for two reasons. First, Pyxis Solitary says "invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion." Why were some editors not invited? And second, Pyxis Solitary invited three additional editors on Jan. 22. How and why were these three additional editors picked? --Tenebrae (talk)00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Tenebrae, you are required to notify the editor whom you are reporting at ANI on their talkpage, and you did not do that. Also, just for the record, on 18/19 January you posted these notices[307] on 66 users' talkpages. You are a highly experienced editor with over 125,000 edits, and Pyxis Solitary is an inexperienced user with less that 5,000 edits. I'm not sure why you are using antagonistic and hostile language towards her, but I would encourage a much more collaborative and helpful tone and approach, especially with inexperienced good-faith editors who are clearly attempting good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia.Softlavender (talk)06:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you and other editors taking time to come here and analyze the issue; I know it's never pleasant.
I would also have to say thatPyxis Solitary's examples of my supposed acrimony fall far short of her calling me paranoid, as noted immediately above, and also far short of the stream of personal insults that this editor has directed at me. I began our exchanges with a very straightforward posthere:
I removed the list of accolades on this talk page, since Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. apply to talk pages as well as to article pages, and that list violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page because they aren't permitted in the article itself is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is that editor's attack in response. I've boldfaced the first instance of name-calling:
Stop inventing guidelines and policies. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades that deals with the Talk page. There is nothing in WP:TALK#FACTS that supports your assertion that a list in the TALK PAGE violates any WP policy. The rules that govern editing articles are not the same rules that govern Talk pages.All you are is a bully who wants to rule over the contributions of other Wikipedia editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
When I politely pointed out the relevant guidelines, Pyxis Solitary called me a liarhere. Eventually, another editor with whom I have no connection took Pyxis Solitary's behavior task in point-by-point detailhere.
I could go on, but I think the pattern of behavior is clear. If you'll look over theCarol and Accolades talk pages, I think anyone would find that I and other editors for the longest time were as civil as could be, and Pyxis Solitary responded with a pattern of hostility.
I'm not sure why we're discussing all this when the issue is vote-stacking. But now that this is out of the way, let me work through the rest of the posts above.--Tenebrae (talk)00:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yikes, that's disappointing. I thought maybe we had a simple communication breakdown here that could be solved quickly, but those civility and non-AGF issues seem pretty pronounced. As to theWP:TPG/policy issue, I've not seen the full explanation voiced on any of those forums, so here's my understanding for the record: material which is not suitable for inclusion in mainspace may sometimes be included on the talk page during discussion ofwhether it is suitable for mainspace, but only for a reasonable amount of time. Even then, there are circumstances where it may not be permitted at all (i.e. major BLP violations that touch uponWP:ATTACKPAGE territory). But certainly under no circumstances should disallowed material be preserved indefinitely on the talk page, just "for the record".
As to the behavioural issues, I'm still unconvinced of the votestacking. It's not outside the realm of possibility that these editors were selectively chosen, but until someone presents us with an analysis showing that Pyxis was not using some allowed metric (i.e., last twenty editors who edited that page), it's hard to support administrative action on that issue.
The breaches with civility are another matter. Pyxis seems to have gone from zero to fury with some of those responses, and she seems to have repeatedly assumed bad, rather than good, faith when evaluating the policy arguments supplied by some other editors, even though she herself seems to have limited experience with some of those policies. However, most worrying is her profound misunderstanding of how the Wikipedia consensus process works; as noted in these posts ([308],[309]) she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority to dictate content via fiat, and she needs to be disabused of this notion in a hurry if she is to contribute productively here.Pyxis Solitary, we do not establish consensus on this project by comparing credentials; most users never even disclose them and they are never a part of our content analysis. You must make your argument on proposed content basedsolely upon the sources and the policies we have formulated via community consensus (with a little bit of pragmatism to lubricate the process). Coming at someone with an "I know better because X, Y, Z" argument will onlydecrease the likelihood that experienced editors will endorse your view.
Further,WP:C is not just a luxury on this project, only to be embraced when your expertise/status are being respected with regard to the work you have done here, as several of your comments seem to imply. It is in fact a cornerstone of productive involvement and editors, even if they do not hold the idea in high esteem, are expected to comport with it to an at least baseline level which, in my opinion, you are nowhere near right now. I strongly advise you to review that policy andWP:NPA before contributing further, because you are, in my opinion, courting a block with your current approach--and in any event, it is sinking your efforts to get the content outcome you desire. I honestly think you have a bit to learn about our editorial processes here and how we generate consensus, so i would study up before making any gung-ho assertions about other editors making up policies. It might also help you to seek out a [[WP:Mentor to walk you through some of these processes.Snowlet's rap04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, but just to add, Tenebrae, Softlavender is absolutely correct in saying that you should have followed the standard policy for informing Pyxis of this discussion (i.e., a notice delivered to her user talk).Snowlet's rap04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect thatUser:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since "guilty until proven innocent" has been his modus operandi from thestart. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in"Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.
Have I lost my temper in my dealings with User:Tenebrae? Yes. Could I have handled it better? Yes. However, I don't take being accused of knowingly violating a WP policy lightly:
User:Tenebrae made an edit that I considered careless, reckless, and detrimental to the article. Not only did he delete summary content about critical response from the *Critical reception* section, he also deliberately changed a numerical figure I had that same day updated, back to the previous total. When I called him on it, he attributed this change to a revert:
His explanation was untrue. If you view theHistory you will see that the first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017. I provided the links to the revision history before/after User:Tenebrae edited the main article:
You could see by looking at the edit that it was not a revert -- it was amanual change and deletion. And I called his excuse for what it was: false -- and hypocritical because he continually accuses me of wrongdoing, when he, himself, does it.
♦ "I would also warn againstcanvassing ortag-teaming, asyour edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention."
(a) He accuses me of canvassing and (b)exactly how did User:Tenebrae learn that I had sent a private message to another editor unless he was following me to see what I was doing on Wikipedia. This shadowing is obsessive behavior associated with stalking.
– Also in this topic he wrote:
♦ "you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines."
re "When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you." User:Tenebrae wrote in this topic:
From what I saw, he was being untruthful and deceptive. This forced him to provide links to archived discussions -- which after reviewing only dealt with the *Accolades* section of a film article, not the *Critical response* section.
I allowed the hostility that developed between me and User:Tenebrae to spill over in my dealings with two other editors. That was wrong. Since then, my interactions with those same editors has been civil and cooperative.
The editor who "had some words to say today" took offense at my responding to his comment and sectioning the discussion, and lectured me based on his presumption that I had knowingly defied WP do's and don'ts (and I add, he twisted my keeping track of who had responded to the discussion and the gist of their comments into my creating a "voting list" -- which parrots User:Tenebrae's allegation:"I'd like to remind Pyxis Solitary that these discussion are not vote-based.").
I saw topics in this page that had been collapsed as "Extended content" and assumed you can do that in a discussion when the content starts to take up a lot of page space. I did a Google search for "Extended content" in WP and found theTemplate:Collapse/doc which states: "template is used for placing collapse boxes around short discussions and bits of discussions." The text I collapsed strictly deals with the accusations of "canvassing" and "voter stacking", which veered the discussion about "'List' vs. prose about lists" off-track. Since I saw that the collapse does not remove the collapsed content from the discussion, and since the text involved was not comments debating "'List' vs. prose about lists" guidelines, I used the template to keep one subject (discussion about list vs. prose) separate from the other (accusation of canvassing).
Don't talk about an editor without notifying him, especially at ANI - it could be viewed as if you were talking about somebody behind their back. Especially don't do this if you decide to accuse him of "twisting" and "parroting" things. Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter,Pyxis?CapnZapp (talk)23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter," – Woa! I didn't drag you into this ANI.Use:Tenebrae did:Addendum: One of those editorshad some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. He's the one who used you to bolster his "righteous indignation". Re-direct your outrage in his direction. And in your 1-2-3-4-5 comment in that discussion you took a simple record-keeping I created to keep track of editors involved in the discussion, and the kernel of their opinions, into my presenting "voting lists" (your words). If you had bothered to read the entirety of the comments in that discussion you would have seen that one editor wrote: "Please add me to the list of those who consider summary sentences about critical reception acceptable." Laying blame on me is calumnious. And lecturing me (or anyone) is inappropriate.Pyxis Solitary (talk)06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's it, my patience with you is up. You appear completely blinded by your attempts to "win" this discussion. Did I accuse you of dragging me into this ANI?No. Read what I said. Next item:Stop telling me where to "direct my outrage"! I don't know if you even realize it, but you don't get to characterize my posts as "outrage". The bit where you characterize me as lecturing you, however, seems rather on the spot, as you will see. And I don't care one bit about your excuses for that list - if you had more experience you would have understood how that is the way it would look, and that'sall that counts.
Now, let's forget your attempts to put accusations in my mouth, and instead move over to the things Ireally told you: Don't talk about an editor without notifying him. Don't put words in his or her mouth. Did you or did you not accuse me of "twisting" your list? Did you or did you not then characterize that view (that you yourself made up) using the word "parroting"? And, did you or did you not do so after being specifically asked to leave me out of it?
You don't get to shift that blame onto others. In fact, as long as you keep barreling down that road, you will continue to have miserable experiences on Wikipedia - until you can accept that you are just as much to blame for this clusterfest as your counterpart. But what you don't seem to realize is that I don't care about the actual subject here. I'm definitely not on Tenebrae's side, but forget about him - I'm responding toyour behavior. I'm asking you to cool your jets - whatever you're doing, you're doing it wrong. It isn't working. You're not getting any constructive results.
Instead, just suck it up. Accept blame for whatyou have done wrong, without waiting for Tenebrae to do it first. Step away from this conflict. That's the way to win here on Wikipedia. You can always return later, when everybody has forgotten about any personal slights, so the focus can return to the actual topics at hand. But, that I can't ask of you. What Ican ask of you, however, is this: For the final time: don't involve me, please. As if it wasn't already clear, that includes not talking *about* the user (me), and it especially includes not characterizing that user's edits in any way that can be construed as controversial, and it *really* includes not doing so without pinging or even naming that user. Thank you and have a good day.CapnZapp (talk)11:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I recognize you are not the only one who engaged in that activity in that discussion, however you absolutely are the one who opened to door on those arguments by saying"Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"? Who else is responding to the third opinion request? Because someone who has zero or minimal familiarity with the film industry should stay out of this convo.". Please understand that this is the encyclopediaanyone can edit. And we don't do degree audits or resume checks at the door. Editors frequently contribute to content areas outside of their professional wheelhouses, and, in fact, the project depends upon this. You can't dismiss another editor's contributions because you have decided they lack your elevated understanding of the topic area. That's just not how discussion works here. In fact, sometimes the areas which represent subjects near and dear to an editors heart, or which represent overlap with their professional interests, are the areas where they need to exercise greatest caution in editing, because it can be hard to divorce oneself from their deeply-held convictions or personal knowledge when our policies require a more nuanced approach to the"truth". Regardless, you don't get to decide whose perspectives are sufficiently validated by their professional background to allow them to contribute to a given discussion and berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process is never ok, and hardly likely to turn minds to your way of thinking.Snowlet's rap07:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process". You are right and I was wrong to go that far. I realized that I was allowing my experience with User:Tenebrae to infect my interaction with two other editors, and shifted gears. This resulted in one of them thanking me after an edit, and my next contact with the other you can see for yourselfhere andhere.Pyxis Solitary (talk)09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I had a feeling you'd own up to that straight on. I honestly don't know why you and Tenebrae are having such a hard time getting on: you both seem like reasonable people to me. Is there any chance you two might try to reboot this working relationship, start from square one? I admit, I haven't read every line of that content discussion, but it seems to me there is room for a compromise approach.Snowlet's rap10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I think oncePyxis Solitary doubled-down on calling me a stalker because I looked at an editor's Contributions page that this precludes any claim of reasonableness on Pyxis Solitary's part. I think the highly defensive wall-of-text responses augurs that as well.
And does this strike anyone as reasonable:
I suspect thatUser:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since 'guilty until proven innocent' has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in"Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.
It's an old and not very good debate trick to deflect by not answering my two specific questions at 00:49, 24 January 2017 rather than risk having to concede vote-stacking. Saying, "I'm not going to answer" and attacking the questioner is not reasonable behavior. As for the stalling claim: No. A typical RfC lasts a minimum of 30 days, so the shorter amount of time that this FILMMOS discussion has been going on is absolutely typical unless one is impatient and wants to rush things for some reason.
And lastly: How much more combative language and how many more false accusations from Pyxis Solitary should one be expected to take? --Tenebrae (talk)16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with some of those comments, but if you want an honest and pragmatic appraisal, I don't think I see a sanction materializing at this time. It's impossible to be 100% on the matter, of course, but as to the issue that brought you here, the canvassing, I can't see a pattern at present which suggests selection for bias. If you think you find one, you can let us know, but that looks like a dead issue on the present evidence. As to the civility issues, they aren't nothing, but I'd be surprised if an admin blocked. I think you want to hold out for a formal administrative warning, but I'm not sure that's the way forward or that you'd certainly get it. She hopefully appreciates that the combative style is completely counter-intuitive to her goals. I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC. You've already expressed that you view that as important and I agree--under any circumstances and particularly these. I also recommend you post notices at a few central discussion hubs that are neutral and appropriate to the discussion. That's what should have been done here from the start, after-all; better by far than spamming user talks. Then you wait for (hopefully) enough people to form a larger consensus that will even out any effect Pyxis' notices had (if any). Wait the full 30 days and maybe a little longer if discussion is still heavy and likely to yield a consensus. There's no rush here. Just...if you two can't AGF, try to minimize direct conflict on the issues by commenting to others, or at least stick to purely neutral language about the policies alone, without any commentary upon expertise or character of other party. Alternatively you can always make a proposal regarding her here, but my recommendation is the above.Snowlet's rap06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC." He called it an RfC. But there is no RfC. Right now it is only a discussion in the MOS:FILMTalk page.Pyxis Solitary (talk)06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, right after he posted the 16:51 comment he went to the MOS:FILM discussion and did this:
Well, if there is no RfC, there should be one--hosted on the talk page for the article in question. Though a notice on MOS:Film or any other neutrally-chosen forum likely to draw in editors with useful insight is permissible. My suggestion above is just one reasonable solution (probably also the most policy consistent game plan / typical approach to this problem as well), but themain point I am trying to stress is that you two need to de-personalize this, and getting more editors involved will help not only that objective, but also make the consensus healthier and more clear.Snowlet's rap18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Never done an RfC before. And the bureaucratic hoops it requires you to jump through do not encourage lay persons to roll the dice on getting it right the first time. Just the simple act of inviting editors that had edited theCarol article to a discussion due to edits to said article turned into a hassle and haggle.Pyxis Solitary (talk)05:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the benefits of the RfC is that it allows you to avoid accusations of bias. You do need to be careful about framing the question neutrally and in a way that accurately portrays the positions of both sides.WP:RfC has all of the relevant info and resources (though I do admit is is not terribly user friendly to first timers). Alternatively Tenebrae could do it. Or, if you guys want me to, I can start it as a neutral third party with no particularly strong feelings on the matter. You will have to be patient with me though, as I will be busy today and tomorrow--and it would help if you each submit a (very brief) summary of your positions.Snowlet's rap07:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"I can start it as a neutral third party with no particularly strong feelings on the matter." – Thank you for offering help with the RfC. I'm not confident that I can dot all the i's and cross all the t's to the satisfaction of editors experienced with RfCs. Where do I submit the summary of my position? Here or your talk page?Pyxis Solitary (talk)04:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My talk page would be fine--just allow for up to a day...ish, for the RfC to go up. :)Tenebrae, if you feel like undertaking the RfC yourself to get it done faster, you are welcome to. But if you don't mind waiting on me to do it, can you take a minute to summarize the positions for your approach too?Snowlet's rap07:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Take your time, there's no rush! But do try to keep the argument as tight as possible; RfCs often work best if the proposal is kept as uncomplicated as the context allows, so the more streamlined your arguments, the less I will have to edit them when preparing the posting.Snowlet's rap01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in the spirit or letter ofWP:CANVASS which allows for a discussion to be held hostage because one editor disagrees with another editor's notifications. Which was more destructive to the consensus-building process: Pyxis Solitary inviting some other users to comment, or the sideshow resulting from Tenebrae's unfounded accusation? Knock it off. Stick to discussing the issue at hand, and if you can't do that without attacking other editors, don't hit the save button.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Before anyone hurls a claim like "unfounded accusation", it needs to be said that I asked that editortwice for what, if any, criteria was used. The editor twice refused to answer, and then responded with hostility.
When an editor can't give objective criteria, it's absolutely reasonable to suspect vote-stacking — and it's the responsible thing to come here and ask for an opinion other than my own. --Tenebrae (talk)01:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't put as much criticism on your initial inquiry as Ivan does, Tenebrae, but at this point it must be said that no one has been able to establish a pattern which strongly suggests vote-stacking, so I recommend moving on. The best suggestion I can offer is to RfC the matter at the article talk page, and publicize the discussion with notices on a handful of relevant boards, projects or other community spaces that are appropriate to the content. Hopefully this will generate enough new contributors to void the potential canvassing issue (if it were indeed a real problem, and I'm not sure it is). At the very least, it will give you both other people to discuss the matter with than each-other--said opportunity I encourage you to embrace, given your inability to AGF with one-another.Snowlet's rap07:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, and that does seem to be the consensus here — which was my whole reason to come to this page, to seek consensus by other editors, one way or the other. While I remain unconvinced, I obviously accept consensus. And once again, please let me point out: This all might have been avoided if the editor have behaved in good faith and simply answered the question about criteria in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk)22:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've noted on the FILMMOS talk page that the issue is resolved. If an admin or an uninvolved editor wants to close this, I have no objection. --Tenebrae (talk)23:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record:
At21:10, 25 January 2017: the advisory that User:Tenebrae inserted into the top of the discussion was collapsed as "Resolved" byIvanvector.
At22:25, 26 January 2017: the following statement was inserted into the collapsed content by User:Tenebrae, "The consensus is that not enough evidence exists to confirm vote-stacking."
No one taught you that when you win an argument to stop talking? You admitted that you selectively chose editors. Then you added three or four additional editors after-the-fact without any criteria whatsoever. I completely believe you chose them all carefully to attempt vote-stacking ... but I'm not willing, as you apparently were, to go look through the talk pages of potential editors and see how they were leaning. Any reasonable person would find it suspicious that you refused to disclose any purported criteria even after politely being asked twice. --Tenebrae (talk)20:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"I completely believe you chose them all carefully to attempt vote-stacking.
And there you go again! This entire turmoil has been rooted in your delusion that I must have been up to no good.
"I'm not willing, as you apparently were, to go look through the talk pages of potential editors and see how they were leaning."
Do you know what the word is for "Irrational distrust or suspicion of others"? It'sparanoia. Look it up.
"Any reasonable person would find it suspicious that you refused to disclose any purported criteria even after politely being asked twice."
Politely asked? This professed respectful and considerate manner (definition of "politely") doesn't exist and anyone who reads it (now collapsed as "Unconstructive") can see for themselves. I did not respond to your questions because it wasyou that was demanding an answer. I don't respond to anyone's goading. It will be a cold day in Hades before anyone who has been following this here and in the"Lists" vs. prose about lists discussion can say with a straight face that you have been a "reasonable person".
There is no evidence that I was vote-stacking because I was not vote-stacking. I didn't even know what vote-stacking was until your conniption about what you thought I was doing. It's all in your head.
We're already at ANI, in case you haven't noticed, and your verbal abuse toward editors besides even myself are well-documented in this thread. Your name-calling and incivility in your most recent post ("It'sparanoia. Look it up.") speaks more about your behavior than it does mine or anyone else's.
And once more, all this could have been avoided if you had just done what we're all expected to do and give an answer when you're asked what, if any, criteria you used in picking editors to notify. It's a breach of protocol to say you'll only supply required answers to editors you personally like. --Tenebrae (talk)20:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
(1) You don't know when to quit, do you? You're on the right path to hanging yourself with your righteous indignation rope.
(2) "Breach of protocol": This isn't a military institution or alternative universe diplomatic corps. No one is obligated to respond to challenges from a provocateur. You proved in the15:25, 11 December 2016 message you posted on my Talk page -- accusing me of deliberately violating a WP policy about article Talk pages -- that you think you can intimidate and browbeat another editor. So, no, I did not respond to your "questions"#1 and#2 and#3 and#4 ... and I will not ever respond to any 'need to know' from you.Pyxis Solitary (talk)22:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Again with the name-calling. "Provocateur"? Plus, "you think you can intimidate and browbeat another editor"? I'm truly sorry you can't seem to acknowledge the incivility that more editors than I on this page have noted. Is it possible that every single one of us is wrong, and that your name-calling and other issues represent proper behavior? It's something to think about. And I'm also disappointed that you feel you can pick and choose — cherrypick, if you will — which editors you'll follow protocol with, which would have avoided all this, and which with whom you will not. That's not really how Wikipedia works, and I'm sure many other editors here would agree that your highly personalized stance is not collegial behavior.--Tenebrae (talk)03:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This is what other editors are going to see:
On15:25, 11 December 2016 you went to my Talk page to accuse me of having "placed the entire list, violations and all...." on an article's Talk page and "Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page...." You assumed intentional wrongdoing then. You assumed intentional wrongdoing with the {Please see} invitation to thediscussion about list vs. prose. You threw the first punch. I punched back. Don't take comfort in comments by other editors about my incivility. Every time you add another word to this ANI -- for which other editors found no evidence supporting your allegation -- you drive another nail into your coffin. You are not emerging from this with a halo.Pyxis Solitary (talk)07:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"[Y]ou drive another nail into your coffin. You are not emerging from this with a halo." These are all highly dramatic and incredibly personal comments which I and I think any reasonable editor would find inappropriate. Your post also goes far off-topic, but to reply: The fact remains you placed inappropriate edits — a disallowed laundry list of minor awards — on an article's talk page as a backdoor way of including every minor award for a favorite film of yours. Pointing out violation of talk-page guidelines and WP:FILM MOS is, to you, "[throwing] the first punch" — another needlessly dramatic and inaccurate phrase.
"The fact remains you placed inappropriate edits — a disallowed laundry list of minor awards — on an article's talk page as a backdoor way of including every minor award for a favorite film of yours." – That list was a record-keeping created inJanuary 2016 -- 12 months before you came along to accuse me of violating Talk page guidelines ... guidelines that do not exist.Nowhere in Wikipedia are there direct, specific, and verifiable guidelines about a record-keeping list in Talk pages. But your tact was to assume that I had knowingly violated an existing MOS guideline about article Talk pages and hurled the attack that I was"Trying to place disallowed edits", effecting a"breach of Wikipedia policy", and added the snobbish, snide comment"I understand you're a fan of the movie". You created the antagonism. You refuse to admit that you (1) assumed deliberate wrongdoing and (2) accused me of violating guidelines. When Irequested the link to where these guidelines were found you did not provide it. Other editors may roll over when confronted and accused of wrongdoing, but not me.Pyxis Solitary (talk)03:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I think what astonishes me most is that I went along with the consensus here that your actions did not constitute canvassing, and without prompting even notified fellow editors of this on the discussion page. Yet you still continue to hurl uncivil accusations and hyperbolic phrases and insults at me after you "won." I guess if we're going to use dramatic phrases, that is what would be called "kicking a man when he's down."
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.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.![[249]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aSS_Lawton_B._Evans.jpg){kind=link}
Done File name is now:File:Julie Maybury holding a framed photo of her daughter Kylie Maybury.jpg. --Ed (Edgar181)18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator noteI did explicitly warn John regarding the AE request, and I think he is acting the fool and stirring up needless drama, but I do think a RFAR would usually be considered a valid BANEX exemption. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is precedent for it.Beeblebrox (talk)22:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
