Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
TheresNoTime (talk | contribs) →I can't accept admin bullying: blocked 1 week |
|||
Line 1,317: | Line 1,317: | ||
*{{ec}} This very much is a [[WP:CIR]] issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Euneon&diff=prev&oldid=1066591451 this edit from 30 mins ago]). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar]]. However, even with that AfD, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hold_Nickar&diff=1060194808&oldid=1060156808 his anger issues] clouds over the good edits he does. Like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yajaw Teʼ Kʼinich I|this AfD]] was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
*{{ec}} This very much is a [[WP:CIR]] issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Euneon&diff=prev&oldid=1066591451 this edit from 30 mins ago]). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar]]. However, even with that AfD, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hold_Nickar&diff=1060194808&oldid=1060156808 his anger issues] clouds over the good edits he does. Like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yajaw Teʼ Kʼinich I|this AfD]] was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
*Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
*Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
*The diffs by {{u|DanCherek}} are damning enough—I've blocked {{u|VocalIndia}} for 1 week for personal attacks. [[WP:CIVIL|Civility is required]] from ''all editors'' on Wikipedia. -- [[User:TheresNoTime|TNT]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Problematic editor == |
== Problematic editor == |
Revision as of 04:59, 19 January 2022
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
The C of E and DYK
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In September 2020, User:The C of E received an indefinite topic ban: "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics." (with some additional restrictions) here. In November 2021, they appealed, but their appeal was rejected[1]. To quote from that appeal: "I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this."
At the moment, there is a discussion about 3 current DYK nominations by the C of E, which do not violate his restrictions, but simply show that they have continued their "provocative" approach with other subjects, in this case getting "fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#For fuck's sake. This is about Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager, Template:Did you know nominations/One fuck rule (with the article up for deletion already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-fuck rule), and Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves, where the article as well had to be rewritten to get rid of the utterly gratuitous use of "cock" throughout a paragraph[2]. After his two first attempts at getting a hook with "dick" and "cock" on the main page were rejected, they suggested a third alternative, again using "dick" in a deliberate manner.
Perhaps, as this extends to the mainspace, even harsher restrictions are needed, but for now I would suggest that the only way to finally get rid of the years-long disruption The C of E has brought to DYK and the Main Page is to change his topic ban to a complete ban from DYK broadly construed. Fram (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support DYK topic ban, as C of E shows no interest in reforming, stopping disruption. As I'm unaware of other disruption, neutral on broader sanctions at the moment. Star Mississippi 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support indef DYK ban. Again, stirring the pot. After User:Joe Roe noted how he spent so much time trying to get "Nigger Love Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" on the front page (appeal discussion), I knew we would back here. Even User:Jayron32, who was sympathetic in the appeal, previously noted that CofE "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page". Same shit, different day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support This again? Can we be rid of this for once and all? This is growing wearisome. --Jayron32 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support DYK topic ban at minimum. But note also that 'The Ce of E' has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere: note the title of this article draft [3]. The draft has now been moved to article space under a more appropriate title, but it surely has to stretch 'good faith' beyond reasonable limits to suggest that creating a draft under the name 'ohfvuk' was unintentional, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on DYK and the entire main page. Someone who admits to being
provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement
must be prevented from trolling on the main page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC) - Oppose A ban seems heavy handed. He's creating good content, even if it is provocative content. --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support I strongly opposed a ban last time, but even I have limited patience for this juvenile nonsense. In the end, if you're going to carry on being deliberately disruptive, you should expect people to become tired of you becoming a time sink. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, this sheds a different light on United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster (2 cocks in one DYK!). Well, it's a hobby.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was pretty happy to get my DYK for Shit flow diagram on the main page, but it wasn't cunning wordplay to include shit, it was just in the name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban from DYK. If this behavior moves to other main page sections, we should start thinking about a long block --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support full DYK tban. As I brought up at WT:DYK, this is wearily, horrendously persistent. Neither the "watermelon song" debacle nor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona are long ago. We will be here forever if we don't put a stop to it. Vaticidalprophet 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose.
Support. I really am not happy about it, CofE is a good contributor to the encyclopedia, but I finally got here because it's been a long-term waste of time at DYK. I don't care if a hook includes cock, fuck, dick, whatever. If that's the best hook, so be it. The problem is that it's seldom the best hook, it's almost always just juvenile giggling, it often produces drama, and that's a time-waster.Switching to oppose per CofE's stated willingness to comply with any required restrictions. The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content. Period. I don't care if the article is BEGGING for it, someone else can be the one to suggest it. valereee (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC) - Support, with mainspace topic ban on slurs/swear words - not only has this user been skirting with WP:NOTHERE in attempting to stir up divisions and arguments by trying to get inflammatory material posted on the main page, they also seem to be trying to use slurs and swear words as much as they can get away with, in a way that I can only describe as trolling. I would support the current proposal, along with a mainspace topic ban on using/posting anything to do with slurs/swear words (with the sole exception of reverting obvious vandalism). Theknightwho (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel this is a little heavy handed, when I was complying with the restrictions placed upon me last time. I am willing to change, if the swear words were the problem (as I was not under restrictions for that), I will be willing to submit to that additional restriction. I recognise my previous political issues and I do want to prove I have changed. I am prepared to add the "no swear words" restriction to it and formally propose it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, it’s one thing to say you won’t do it again, but why did you think that doing this was a good idea in the first place? You can see from the above reactions how out of step you were with the community. People are even talking about WP:NOTHERE. Can you explain what was motivating you, that you understand that whatever that motivation was it was misplaced and give assurance it’s not going to emerge in some other format beside DYK? DeCausa (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: I appreciate the open question. The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia but I am perfectly able to go without them (as can be seen from my many other contributions) but also as a way to attract editors towards a topic which can be improved as a result. I do understand how people can view that and I can assure you that it will not arise in DYK as the consensus dictates. Nor will it anywhere else where it is not part of a sourced quote. All I ask is that a few minor missteps in humour not overshadow my vast contributions towards DYK and that I be able to continue to contribute to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, weak oppose then. I know you do a lot at DYK and elsewhere. But this is a really bad misjudgment. It’s not “little a bt of fun” because it just causes work/hassle for other editors to sort out and wastes their time. And it’s just not funny. You probably are going to be Tban’d but if for some reason you’re not and it comes up again either because of DYK or elsewhere I would support sanctions. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I hope not, I love DYK because I think it is the best ways to encourage article creation and improvement. That's why I have proposed to voluntarily put myself under restrictions. I came in late to this so I was not able to put my proposal forward before people cast their !vote. I would hope this can be closed and given the chance for all to hear me out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- All of that is, for me, just completely belied by that n-word hook. Controversial, sure, but there's just nothing funny about that, and using that word to attract readers, knowing full well that it will completely disgust many readers, is in very poor taste. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies: That was an error in judgment on my part and I apologise for it. 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies Don't forget the Adolf Hitler hook that took the piss on a low-level Namibian politician's name -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Guerillero, yeah that wasn't funny either. User:The C of E, I appreciate the recognition. I don't know if that is enough to completely satisfy me, though. I mean, these articles, and the DYKs attached to them, they're well-thought out and planned--I know, cause I did a few myself. They're not just a slip of the tongue. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies Don't forget the Adolf Hitler hook that took the piss on a low-level Namibian politician's name -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies: That was an error in judgment on my part and I apologise for it. 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- All of that is, for me, just completely belied by that n-word hook. Controversial, sure, but there's just nothing funny about that, and using that word to attract readers, knowing full well that it will completely disgust many readers, is in very poor taste. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I hope not, I love DYK because I think it is the best ways to encourage article creation and improvement. That's why I have proposed to voluntarily put myself under restrictions. I came in late to this so I was not able to put my proposal forward before people cast their !vote. I would hope this can be closed and given the chance for all to hear me out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, weak oppose then. I know you do a lot at DYK and elsewhere. But this is a really bad misjudgment. It’s not “little a bt of fun” because it just causes work/hassle for other editors to sort out and wastes their time. And it’s just not funny. You probably are going to be Tban’d but if for some reason you’re not and it comes up again either because of DYK or elsewhere I would support sanctions. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: I appreciate the open question. The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia but I am perfectly able to go without them (as can be seen from my many other contributions) but also as a way to attract editors towards a topic which can be improved as a result. I do understand how people can view that and I can assure you that it will not arise in DYK as the consensus dictates. Nor will it anywhere else where it is not part of a sourced quote. All I ask is that a few minor missteps in humour not overshadow my vast contributions towards DYK and that I be able to continue to contribute to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, it’s one thing to say you won’t do it again, but why did you think that doing this was a good idea in the first place? You can see from the above reactions how out of step you were with the community. People are even talking about WP:NOTHERE. Can you explain what was motivating you, that you understand that whatever that motivation was it was misplaced and give assurance it’s not going to emerge in some other format beside DYK? DeCausa (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Very weak oppose - Based on how egregious some past threads, etc. have been, I read the top of this thread and was inclined to support. But while these are obnoxious, they aren't the kind of offensive we were talking about last time around. So I decided to take a step back and spot check of entries at User:The_C_of_E/DYK to see how representative those linked at the top are. Scrolling around randomly, I don't think I've found one that's offensive yet. Of course, if I search the page (there are 516 DYKs), I do see four fucks, two shits, one dick, two cocks, and one shag. Maybe some other words or double entendres I didn't think to look for. So yeah, he does seem inclined to the naughty in a way that's not appropriate (without good reason) on the main page. But I also see I see he does try to keep it lively -- sometimes to a fault. While I don't approve of going out of one's way to push dirty words onto the main page, I do think making the hooks as interesting as possible is the whole point. We have an awful lot of hooks that just aren't going to compel the average reader to click (I've submitted some myself), so I think when someone is committed to the idea of making fun hooks, we should try to retain that person when we can. All of this is to say if there's a more expansive restriction we can try, I think we should try it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the tricky part. C of E is under a very heavy DYK restriction. It's had even broader additions proposed before (e.g. an expansion to cover BLPs after the Uunona debacle) that only failed on technicalities. There is a point where widening a restriction to encompass an ever-broader swathe of a topic area is worse than just restricting the topic area entirely. C of E is a lot more than a guy with a dirty sense of humour -- I don't particularly mind the dirty sense of humour, it gets a chuckle from me. He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of. To add insult to injury, it's hard to even say he's committed to making fun hooks; when he works in sports, his most inoffensive area of interest, his proposed hooks are often workshopped on for long periods due to failures of interestingness in the original proposals. At some point, when somone is twisting the spirit of a tban to keep disrupting, implementing ever more twistable versions of it doesn't work. Vaticidalprophet 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with changing focus when restrictions prohibit me from working in a certain area. What is wrong with any of my Rhodesia hooks? I chose that because there are a lot of topics in there that don't have their own pages like the Police Support Unit or John Morkel (plus bringing Des van Jaarsveldt to GA) because traditionally they are areas that people shied away from. I always tried to keep everything balanced with criticism where appropriate for racial issues. Also, I was not under any restrictions for swears/slurs at the time but this is exactly what I am preparing to voluntarily submit to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Moving from one highly charged topic involving British imperialism (broadly construed) to another, following a topic ban from the first, might be seen as naive if you had only done that once, but the examples that @Vaticidalprophet has given shows that it seemed to be a way to evade the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. I don't think that trying to deny that is likely to turn out well for you. There is a repeated pattern of you simply broadening the scope to keep getting away with what seems to be (at best) trolling, or (at worst) WP:NPOV violations. Theknightwho (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand? I was complying with the restrictions that were put upon me. I was banned from a specific area (Which I have obeyed), I genuinely had no idea I was banned from every controversial area. I even checked from time to time with the editor whom put those on to see if it would or not because I was being very careful to follow the rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- You weren't banned from every controversial area - we both agree on that. However, the point is that changing topics is a way to evade a ban while continuing to engage in the same kinds of disruptive behaviours. This is something that Vaticidalprophet gives two examples of (jokes at the expense of names instead of demographic, and trying to get swear words on the main page instead of slurs). Even regarding Rhodesia, had you changed topics to something controversial but not engaged in any problem behaviours anywhere else, then I don't think anyone would have seen a problem with that. However, taken in the context of everything else, it felt like it was a topic that you picked precisely because it was controversial, and it felt like it was a matter of time before the same issues started arising again. The repeated patterns and the totality of your behaviour is what matters here; not the specific wording of a particular sanction taken in isolation.
- FWIW @The C of E, I do think your work is of high quality, from what I've read. The articles are interesting, cogent, and well put together. Just let the material speak for itself; there's no need to lower the quality with tabloid sensationalism.
- Theknightwho (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand? I was complying with the restrictions that were put upon me. I was banned from a specific area (Which I have obeyed), I genuinely had no idea I was banned from every controversial area. I even checked from time to time with the editor whom put those on to see if it would or not because I was being very careful to follow the rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Moving from one highly charged topic involving British imperialism (broadly construed) to another, following a topic ban from the first, might be seen as naive if you had only done that once, but the examples that @Vaticidalprophet has given shows that it seemed to be a way to evade the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. I don't think that trying to deny that is likely to turn out well for you. There is a repeated pattern of you simply broadening the scope to keep getting away with what seems to be (at best) trolling, or (at worst) WP:NPOV violations. Theknightwho (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with changing focus when restrictions prohibit me from working in a certain area. What is wrong with any of my Rhodesia hooks? I chose that because there are a lot of topics in there that don't have their own pages like the Police Support Unit or John Morkel (plus bringing Des van Jaarsveldt to GA) because traditionally they are areas that people shied away from. I always tried to keep everything balanced with criticism where appropriate for racial issues. Also, I was not under any restrictions for swears/slurs at the time but this is exactly what I am preparing to voluntarily submit to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the tricky part. C of E is under a very heavy DYK restriction. It's had even broader additions proposed before (e.g. an expansion to cover BLPs after the Uunona debacle) that only failed on technicalities. There is a point where widening a restriction to encompass an ever-broader swathe of a topic area is worse than just restricting the topic area entirely. C of E is a lot more than a guy with a dirty sense of humour -- I don't particularly mind the dirty sense of humour, it gets a chuckle from me. He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of. To add insult to injury, it's hard to even say he's committed to making fun hooks; when he works in sports, his most inoffensive area of interest, his proposed hooks are often workshopped on for long periods due to failures of interestingness in the original proposals. At some point, when somone is twisting the spirit of a tban to keep disrupting, implementing ever more twistable versions of it doesn't work. Vaticidalprophet 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It was the construction of the Dick Graves article that I found the most shocking: that it was written with such a disregard for encyclopedic principles in order to get seven mentions of the word "cock" in a single paragraph—to justify why "cock" should be used in the DYK hook?—when the sources used "rooster": this was a solid-gold rooster created as a publicity stunt to advertise the casino's "Golden Rooster Room" restaurant, but that reason was completely absent from the paragraph. It's time for The C of E to be given an indefinite ban from DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - My experience is that The C of E has never been interested in behaving collegially. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - This is the best solution to The C of E's front page trolling, rather than just adding curse words to his already lengthy list of restrictions. This leaves him free to write articles for the encyclopedia rather than for a provocative hook. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Leaving him free to write articles is well and good in theory but he is pulling these shenanigans in article content as well, not just DYKs. Consider United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster. This is an article about a fascinating topic that is relevant to the monetary and legal history of gold in the United States, gold as an artistic medium, the promotion of gambling in Nevada, and so on. The article is very good in many ways and I am glad that we have it in this encyclopedia, and I mostly commend The C of E for writing it. Cutting to the chase, this is an article about a golden statue. The reliable sources pretty much universally describe the subject as a "rooster". Over and over again, The C of E describes the statue as a "cock", or a few times as a "cockerell", surely not a common word in American English. So, this otherwise excellent article is jammed up with "cock", "cock", "cock", "cock", "cockerell" in every mention of the statue. The guy who commissioned the statue had the name of "Richard" and the nickname of "Dick". So, take a look at the talk page of that article, where you will find The C of E joking about "Dick's cock". Reprehensible conduct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dislosure I have edited the article to eliminate the "cockiness". Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- That article did run as an April Fools DYK though. If C of E was topic banned from DYK he wouldn't have the incentive to write it that way. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: You don't need to look at the talk page, "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" was in the Dick Graves article until BlueMoonset removed it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support and the juvenile Dick Graves stuff is indef worthy. Levivich 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I will leave it to wiser heads than myself to determine the proper course of action here, but I feel I need to say that I would be somewhat sympathetic to the "it's all just puerile nonsense" interpretation if not for the attempt to get a truly vile racial slur on the front page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. C of E's behavior seems to me to be intentionally disruptive. Paul August ☎ 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment While this is an extreme example, perhaps the extreme example, it’s only a blown-up version of what is inherently wrong with the whole “Do You Kare?” section. The idea of deceptively showcasing articles (which are often in need of vast improvement) is more in line with a clickbait spammer’s values than an encyclopedian’s. Qwirkle (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There is rightly a lot of discussion and !votes hinging on the "n-word" hook above. I am not part of the demographic that is targeted by this slur. However, I think it's worth reiterating that trying to get the slur onto the main page just for laughs is not reasonable. WP:NOTCENSORED is one thing, but intentionally trying to publicize a word that is known to hurt and marginalize people is just unacceptable. I keep waffling between outright support for a topic ban and just a comment highlighting the severity of the issue here. Ultimately, I don't know this user's work enough to judge them. I do know that learning about this has now colored my previous interactions with them at a race-related AfD and caused me to become concerned. Hopefully, we can depend on the editor to contribute in good faith going forward. No other comment on the topic ban at this time. AlexEng(TALK) 06:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support I don't know if C of E doesn't understand what is and is not within the community's boundaries for DYK or simply doesn't care about the community; either way, he shouldn't be allowed to continue this over and over. Happy days ~ LindsayHello
- Then please, do tell me so I know @LindsayH:. I am willing to submit to any restrictions that allow me to continue to work on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- The C of E, i find it hard to understand just what you mean, so i'll slightly elaborate on what i meant, and hope that answers your question. The first part of my comment was an attempt to be nice while suggesting that WP:CIR might be usefully read: Your behaviour could be that of someone who simply doesn't understand what he is doing wrong, which means that you aren't competent to be allowed near DYK. The second part is expanded below by ScottishFinnishRadish ~ the alternative to a lack of competence is that you don't care about the community, so you don't make the effort to read the room, to understand what the community wants and expects ~ from everyone, not just you. Either way, it doesn't matter to me which is the truth, your behaviour makes it necessary to restrict you so you stop being disruptive. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps take the topic ban, and before requesting it be lifted, learn to read the room. That you've continually pushed the limit in this way, even after sanctions, doesn't make me confident in new restrictions short of a tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Has C of E considered starting his own Profanipaedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "yes, he really puts the fanny into fanipeadia...", etc.
- Support. Limited restrictions have not borne fruit and have simply redirected the silliness to other topics; CoE is not contributing to DYK so much as gaming it for an audience of one. Removing the possibility of showcasing his antics on the mainpage seems like a clear use of WP:DENY that should be followed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Back in the original topic ban discussion, I wrote "If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism ... That is exactly the wrong way round." Now look at the "Dick's cock" paragraph before BlueMoonset rewrote it. That's a particularly egregious example of writing content to fit a gratuitiously provocative hook. "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock"? Who in their right mind could think that acceptable in a Wikipedia article, never mind promoted on the front page? Then there's the One-fuck rule AFD, which at the moment is showing an overwhelming consensus that the subject is not appropriate for a standalone article. The C of E has previously admitted to creating inappropriate provocative DYK hooks for his own amusement, and received a partial topic ban as a result - but he's still doing it, just in different topic areas. "I am willing to change", he now says, but where have we heard that before? In the original discussion, I thought a ban from The C of E's pet political and religious topics would suffice. But these new examples, plus the recent "...Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" one, make it abundantly clear that The C of E does not possess the judgment needed to create material for promotion on the Wikipedia front page. A full DYK topic ban is unfortunately needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and one addition I just have to make. In his appeal in November, The C of E spoke of the "maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed". And "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" is an example of that maturity, is it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Once someone just moves their disruption to a different topic, they need to be banned from the process altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. This is intentionally disruptive, trolling bullshit. It's obviously not going to stop without a topic ban. DoubleCross (‡) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. This just it too much of a time sink. MB 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: indef DYK ban. I firmly believe that there's a point at which it's just simpler all around to conclude that an editor cannot be trusted, and shutting it all down is preferable to yet another go-round. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not the domain of sniggering eight-year-olds who believe it's the bee's knees to use naughty language in public. Enough. Ravenswing 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - best to escort the fellow off the DYK premises. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indefinite topic ban from DYK and anything that has a relationship with slurs or questionable content: If anyone else had done this, they would have been banned from DYK a long time ago. We cannot allow users to try to get racial slurs or other blatantly provocative content posted on the main page. Honestly, it is shameful that this has been allowed to go on for this long. Considering the user's behaviour both on DYK and elsewhere, there is no indication that they have any intention to reform. Furthermore, if we allow this to continue, these events will eventually become front-page news. That potential scandal is entirely avoidable. There are no downsides to banning this user from DYK. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support The C of E is just deliberately trying to see how much they can get away with and is extremely aware of what they are doing. There's no subconscious acts here, it's all deliberate provocation and pushing. They may be creating content but the driving force appears to be how far can I push this, and can I slip something in under the that I know is juvenile and inappropriate. This isn't new, it's gone on long enough, this behaviour is not acceptable and is against the spirit of the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support as long overdue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: If an editor of C of E's tenure needs this kind of restriction, then they should be under one that is relatively easy to police. The more complex a restriction, not only the easier it is to (attempt to) game, but the more of a timesink it is for other editors to police. SN54129 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support DYK topic ban. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. There have been very many opportunities for course correction, and The C of E has taken none of them. I have yet to see anything that feels like genuine self-reflection about this behavior. And I'm honestly not convinced this will solve the problem entirely, as he's still working on fraught topics, and has shown a history of poor judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support racism, homophobia and dodgy Rhodesian articles on the front page? No thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Using juvenile humor such as this in DYK's isn't clever or funny. Using it in articles is just sad and there is absolutely no good reason. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support with an added note that the first hint of anything like this behavior cropping up elsewhere should result in a site ban. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support topic ban from DYK, broadly construed (no nominating articles, commenting on nominations etc.) GiantSnowman 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per everyone above. I'm no puritanical uptight person by any stretch of the imagination, but slurs, fucks, shits, cocks and double ententres don't belong on the front page. The C of E should know that kids use Wikipedia for research, and imagine a kid trying to explain to a teacher why those things are on the front page. I'm honestly surprised someone of The C of E's tenure needs to be told that. JCW555 talk ♠ 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support long overdue indef DYK topic ban. I was pretty sure that C of E was trolling ever since I saw his Sheep shagger DYK back in 2016. I think the idea behind the serial disruption falls under WP:POINT as well.--Catlemur (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support – not that additional pile-on is needed, but there is yet another aspect: the article created for shits and giggles in order to work as a DYK hook was not only misrepresenting sources, but also violated WP:ENGVAR in a way that I don't believe was accidental. If The C of E is trying to show a change of editing behaviour, that's not the way to go. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support unfortunately they are a net negative at DYK and have completely exhausted the community's patience for this behavior. (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose a knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on like this. I've only ever had positive interactions with C of E (at DYK or elsewhere), so I don't understand any of this utter nonsense. If they've shown a bit of an inclination for (occasional) bad jokes, then the solution would have been to address those bad jokes instead of banning them from an area where they have otherwise broadly disruptive. People have to remember that if this kind of stuff got on the main page, then at least one other person found it non-objectionable, so unless there's some old vendetta which I'm not aware of, this isn't particularly helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you'd read the first link, you'd know that his previous topic ban was not about "bad jokes". In the case, especially, of the Northern Ireland nationalist material, most people reading the DYKs would not have had the knowledge about the NI political scene to appreciate why the material was deeply offensive, which is why much of it flew under the radar for some time. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- In what world is "at least one other person found it non-objectionable" a valid defence against anything? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: The C of E is banned from creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content
Alternative proposal closed per WP:SNOW
|
---|
With that in mind, as{ @Valereee: above mentioned, I am prepared and willing to submit myself to the following restriction: "The C of E is banned from creating or proposing any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content and any hook may be vetoed by any editor". I hope this can be a fair compromise to allow me to continue working at DYK whilst ensuring an end to the disruption. I agree to be subject to this on the grounds that if I intentionally breach it, the original discussion above may take effect. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|
- Late to the party (I was unavoidably detained) but I want to add a PS from my vantage as DYK's universally acknowledged greatest hooker. The problem with CofE's DYK contributions is that he too often twists articles into unnatural states to accommodate a hook he wants, and there's nothing clever in that; anyone can stick a dirty word into an article and then repeat it in a hook. The true art of the risque hook is to take perfectly normal and appropriate facts that belong in articles anyway, and give them a winking slant. For example:
- ... that the biggest Turdus (not pictured) is 23–28 centimetres (9–10 inches) in length?
- ... that in a 2016 portrait, Queen Elizabeth II is depicted with someone else's bust?
- ... that Edwin Stevens, while in a missionary position, said that erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?
- ... that erection engineer Mark Barr had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee?
- Each of the above hooks reports absolutely appropriate article material, not something forced into an article that doesn't belong there. Like I said, there's no cleverness in the latter, and there's no need for it either; as the great Tom Lehrer sang,
When correctly viewed / everything is lewd / I could tell you things about Peter Pan / And the Wizard of Oz -- there's a dirty old man!
EEng 09:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)- The article says relatively large, but is it the biggest? Or just cleverer, as queried, "How does one know in advance whether a contemplated poopie will be under or over the critical length?" ~ cygnis insignis 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maximus means "biggest". EEng 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- The article says relatively large, but is it the biggest? Or just cleverer, as queried, "How does one know in advance whether a contemplated poopie will be under or over the critical length?" ~ cygnis insignis 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x
I've been observing this for a while - User_talk:216.8.164.86#January_2022. They never respond to any user talk queries AFAICT. All of the IPs belong to the same ISP based on WHOIS, and it's clearly the same person. The topic of singular interest seems to be Serbian history, and they've added a huge amount of new articles, some of which are relevant, but a lot of it is of dubious notability and veracity, as I've seen them fabricate various nationalist-related details. The IP ranges seem random within the ISP's address space, so I'm at a loss as to what to do, other than block anonymous editing from an entire ISP... right now the obvious candidates are 216.174.64.0/18 + 216.8.128.0/18 + 216.252.208.0/22 + 216.8.164.0/24 and that's already over 33k IP addresses, so I'm wary of that. Thoughts anyone? (Please ping me back.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- No other suggestions? I'll throw in a few pings of other people I saw on the same talk pages who noticed these kinds of problems: Diannaa Greenman Aseleste Jeromeenriquez
- If there's no other solution, I will go with an anon block on these netblocks so that at least we force user to register in order to be able to not lose track of them so easily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Joy: what's AFAICT? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Joy: what's AFAICT? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Second Chance
The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.
In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and have stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.
More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.
I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.
Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support lifting the TBAN. This is the Platonic ideal of a TBAN appeal - acceptance of wrongdoing, understanding of why things went wrong, commitment to focusing elsewhere on the project, and a plan for the future. It's especially significant to me that the reason for wanting the TBAN lifted is that Slugger wanted to support, not oppose, deletion of a minor KoC official - clearly things have changed. I see only one warning for TBAN violation, and that was made right as it was imposed. It was clarified at the time as being an error, apologized for, and not repeated as far as I can tell by searching Slugger's talk page archives. Based on all this, I don't really see any need to make it probationary and have a review in X number of months, but if the community feels that needs to be a condition for lifting the TBAN, consider this a support for that as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - this seems completely reasonable. I have also left a question on the AfD requesting that someone who's familiar with the topic give some input on whether it meets a couple of the more niche notability criteria, as at a layperson's glance there seems to be a small chance (but I suspect not). If the TBAN is lifted, your input would be appreciated. Theknightwho (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Can't ask for fairer. Ravenswing 21:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: - 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Miniapolis 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Lifting of TBan. Their explanation above shows that they have changed and will not repeat same mistakes that caused the ban. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support sure! Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 09:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Commentnot enough to oppose, but I think folks should have a look at Slugger's activity at Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues and Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues#Promotional_crapwhere some of the issues that came up in his Knights editing surfaced again. While I have no doubts that this is in good faith as is Slugger's editing, I have some concerns about his ability to edit neutrally, and wonder if there's a potential guardrail option. Courtesy @Roscelese: who also engaged with the editor there. Star Mississippi 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Changed to oppose in lieu of conversation w SPECIFICO below. I see no indication he's going to change his patterns, especially if good faith questions are "unfounded speculations". A desire to !vote in an AFD isn't a reason to revisit editing troublesome areas. Star Mississippi 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)- Yeah, while Slugger seemingly had a straight-up COI related to the Knights of Columbus his editing on topics related to the Catholic Church in general ran afoul of policy on a pretty consistent basis. I'm definitely concerned that the recent cooling of those edits is motivated more by a desire to avoid being site-banned than actual commitment to improvement and that the destructive editing will resume if sanctions are lifted, but that can hopefully??? be addressed by just fast-tracking further reports of disruption from this user. Obviously it would be great if it turned out that he did not have to be kept out of topics that he cannot edit neutrally by force. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- ...aaaand I just checked my watchlist and no, he's still at it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Star Mississippi, If that's the way you feel, then that is the way you feel and I won't argue with you. However, I want to make sure you are basing your !vote on what I actually said. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the "unfounded speculations" to which I referred where found "elsewhere in the thread." I wasn't commenting about Specifico's question and you'll notice that I did, in fact, respond to her as I agreed that her question was in good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- thank you for clarifying. I wasn't clear that you weren't referring to Specifico, although believe bulk of my comment stands. Will review in the morning if I find it's not the case. Star Mississippi 03:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, while Slugger seemingly had a straight-up COI related to the Knights of Columbus his editing on topics related to the Catholic Church in general ran afoul of policy on a pretty consistent basis. I'm definitely concerned that the recent cooling of those edits is motivated more by a desire to avoid being site-banned than actual commitment to improvement and that the destructive editing will resume if sanctions are lifted, but that can hopefully??? be addressed by just fast-tracking further reports of disruption from this user. Obviously it would be great if it turned out that he did not have to be kept out of topics that he cannot edit neutrally by force. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Question for @Slugger O'Toole: - Could you describe the conduct for which you were sanctioned? Part of the plan for the future should be a clear understanding of the cause for the sanction. What was it about your edits that led to the sanction? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have briefly addressed the past and my plans for the future above. As stated, I have little time to edit and don't wish or plan to engage in disputes. It's one of the reasons I have not, and will not, respond to unfounded speculations about my motives elsewhere in the thread. I just don't have the time or the inclination. Likewise, I don't see a back and forth re-litigating the circumstances of my ban as being productive. I am sorry if what I said already is not enough for you as it seems to have been for everyone else.
- The community has the opportunity to give me a second chance. If they do, and I abuse it, the ban can easily be reimposed. If nothing else, I think I have shown that I will abide by the terms of a T-ban, as it seems you have abided by the terms of yours. If the community decides the standard offer does not apply to me then nothing will change, including, it seems, that reference error now in its third year. Either way, I am more interested in looking forward than backward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears to me that you have misrepresented the simple question I asked and failed to post any substantive response. From my experience at the Knights article, this is exactly the kind of uncollaborative engagement that resulted in your ban. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Checking Slugger's recent activity, I see lots of the same old problems here. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears to me that you have misrepresented the simple question I asked and failed to post any substantive response. From my experience at the Knights article, this is exactly the kind of uncollaborative engagement that resulted in your ban. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Slugger O'Toole's stated rationale for lifting the topic ban was already a bit suspect -- it's for the purpose of voting to delete one of Slugger O'Toole's own articles? really? -- but the evasive answers to basic questions and the antics at Talk:Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues means that Slugger O'Toole is going to have actively convince me to change my mind. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
discussion
- we still have active editors with sanctions, who were active before WP:N? Thats... well, absurd. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- The TBAN was imposed 2 years ago, so not as extreme as it sounds. Theknightwho (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL and WikiCleanerMan
User:Venkat TL, today has sent what could only be seen as a threat on my talk page falsely accusing me of bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council stating that I should "Be prepared with your defence." The discussion is over the merits of the article I nominated and noticed that all who are voting keep are not providing sources that can be seen as reliable nor help with the article's notability. After trying to explain the GNG guidelines he didn't even respond as to how the article basic the notability requirements, but instead he diverts from the topic and goes off on tangents, not addressing the actual concerns presented in my nomination. He's even gone on two different Tfd's discussions I started where he launched PA's accusing me of "making my own rules", "and enforcing them through mass AfDs without getting any consensus", "Everytime you get such strange ideas, please get them vetted from the community at the WP:VP or other relvant place, before enforcing them and wasting everyone's time." One those two Tfd's I warned about launching personal attacks but as seen on my talk page, but he doesn't care. I warned him on his talk page about such behavior. Tfd 1 and Tfd 2.
And at another Afd I started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society, he voted keep simply because it was started by me. This has become some sort of personal vendetta against me for whatever reason. Pinging Adamant1 who was on this Afd and informed him of the former discussion to show why Venkat TL only voted keep. Both Admanat1 and I have become convinced that Venkat TL and another user is the one who is bludgeoning at the Indian American Muslim Council Afd, but elsewhere as in the case of the Tfd's. For full disclosure, I posted the edit summary of Venkat TL telling me to shoot myself in the foot on Admant's talk page due to Venkat's concerning behavior.
Bear in my mind, I didn't want to take this to ANI but he left me no choice as a result of his message on my talk page. He reverted my warning on his talk page with the edit description of "Yes go ahead. Shoot yourself in the foot." This only implies he doesn't care and is only looking to be combative. This type of behavior can't go ignored. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment You are indeed bludgeoning at the AfD and that is not a threat. People have different interpretations of GNG; please drop the stick. The !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society is not unreasonable either. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- My comment clearly said it is "warning". Not my fault if you consider it a threat.
- On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council WikiCleanerMan has already made 12 comments, and the entire AfD page has been bludgeoned. He was harassing Ngrewal1 and confusing the participants by making unreasonable demands about sourcing, (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Does Reliable source need to follow WP:NPOV
- on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society WikiCleanerMan has already made 9 comments, His buddy Adamant1 has made 8 comments, and the entire AfD page has been bludgeoned by these two. He has a history of bludgeoning. Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's not bludgeoning. It's called having a discussion. Two Afd's is not a history as you say. Making comments is not a violation of any policy regarding Afd or any other discussion format. And claiming that it wasn't a threat when you say that I will be reported and be prepared to with a defense can be considered a threat. That wasn't a warning. What I posted on your talk page which you reverted was a warning and your edit summary revering it sounds like you wanted to go to ANI to begin with. And no I was not harassing any user. And I never made a demand. So please stop distorting the truth about what really is going on and that is your behavior. And Adamant1 is not my "buddy" as you claim. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why then have you pinged Adamant1 here? Where is the evidence of Personal Attack? Commenting about your frivolous bad quality nomination is not personal attack. Dont participate in AfDs if you cannot face such comments. No where have I made any personal attack and you are making false allegations, in the section title. Venkat TL (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's not bludgeoning. It's called having a discussion. Two Afd's is not a history as you say. Making comments is not a violation of any policy regarding Afd or any other discussion format. And claiming that it wasn't a threat when you say that I will be reported and be prepared to with a defense can be considered a threat. That wasn't a warning. What I posted on your talk page which you reverted was a warning and your edit summary revering it sounds like you wanted to go to ANI to begin with. And no I was not harassing any user. And I never made a demand. So please stop distorting the truth about what really is going on and that is your behavior. And Adamant1 is not my "buddy" as you claim. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I will let the numbers speak for themselves. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
You are misstating and cherry-picking what discussion and what bludgeoning is. Your repeated comments don't count as bludgeoning? Very odd that you are not addressing your own behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan, you need to stop WP:BLUDGEONing at the AFD. And drop the stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I am going to WP:AGF here, but I feel like I should make some brief points:
- Bludgeoning does not have to be intentional, and we need to be self-aware of our own behaviour. When a discussion reaches more than a few comments, yet you find yourself responding to each and every person who disagrees with you, then you're probably in danger of bludgeoning. If all you're doing is just repeating something you've said already without adding anything new, then you're definitely bludgeoning. Don't.
- Even if someone's a bit rude, calling it a personal attack doesn't give you a free pass to just ignore everything they've said. You do seem to be misinterpreting policy, so even if Venkat is a bit out of line, that doesn't mean they're wrong about that or that you should just carry on in the same way. FWIW, Venkat just seems frustrated with you more than anything else, and I think a lot of that comes from the way you're ignoring most of what they're saying.
- Users are entitled to delete most things on their own talk page, including warnings from other users.
- Nobody (and this goes for both users) should be using ANI as a threat. It feels like this is a case of the best defence is a good offence, with WikiCleanerMan getting the first strike in. It's not collaborative, it's not assuming good faith, and it's a great way to make both of you much more stressed than you need to be. Apart from anything else, it also wastes everyone else's time when it inevitably gets here in a flurry of emotion, instead of being dealt with sensibly.
- Both of you a step back for a bit, then come back to it with a fresh head tomorrow. Don't get into another spat here.
- Theknightwho (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho you are right, I was indeed frustrated by his behavior on AfD and comments. I will abide by your advice. I don't have any grudge against WikiCleanerMan nor do we have any ongoing disputes other than 2 AfD and 2 TfD. I request admins that the Baseless accusation of "Personal attacks and threats" should be removed from the section title as WikiCleanerMan has failed to provide any evidence for these accusations. Venkat TL (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The idea he hasn't launched any personal attacks is another baseless claim when he makes accusations at the Tfd's, where I provided a link to his edits on there, that I'm "making my own rules". This counts as a personal attack and the actual baseless accusation. But I want to know as to why Venkat is not addressing the claims against him and has not provided evidence that what he has done doesn't count as threats or PA's. Evidence of which I have provided. And frustration doesn't give you the right to do what you did. However, I'm fine with the discussion being closed per the recommendations of Theknighwho, but I suggest Venkat stay away from any discussion I start. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment First of all me and WikiCleanerMan are not "buddies." As far as I'm aware I haven't interacted with them outside of this incident. I take the fact that Venkat TL says we are, as if we are working together or something, to be a rather spurious and paranoid accusation which I totally reject. In no way are me and WikiCleanerMan "buddies." People be able to have discussions without being accused of working together or whatever. People don't need to look any further then that for evidence of Venkat TL attacking people. If that's not enough though, they said in the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council "clearly WikiCleanerMan you need a lot of policy reading to do, before you could participate in AfDs and confuse other participants with your misunderstandings, misreadings, ignorance about policies and guidelines." Calling WikiCleanerMan ignorant, and trying to gate keep them participating in AfDs by maligning their intelligence and knowledge, can't be interpreted any other way then a personal attack. Also, while WikiCleanerMan did write 9 messages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society, most of them were in response to me and a civil discussion we were having about the topic. Which I don't considering Bludgeoning. It seems like Venkat TL is doing some extreme cherry picking of mostly good faithed conversations to justify the accusation that bludgeoning is going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. This escalated way too fast and you need to at least make some kind of attempt to work this out diplomatically before invoking ANI. I can see why WikiCleanerMan decided to come here first. Venkat TL, you left a message on this person's talk page that is somewhat based on WP:4IM given that you said "This is your only warning" and followed by an "if you do x again I will do y". This isn't a 4IM situation so to speak and your talk page message could've been far less confrontational. And yeah, you kind of did threaten WikiCleanerMan. You threatened to take them to AN/I unless WikiCleanerMan ceased the action in question. Threats aren't banned on this encyclopedia by any means. I threaten people all the time when I give them vandalism warnings that they will be blocked unless they stop vandalizing. Describing this as a "threat" is an accurate assessment of the situation. This is more or less the kind of thread that could've been avoided had both parties tried to work out their differences beforehands rather than proceeding "I'm going to ANI" -> "Not if I get there first" -> this thread. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)- I have addressed this. @Chess no comments on bludgeoning? Is that not a concern for you? Are you only concerned about 4IM? WikiCleanerMan is not listening or addressing this despite a few admins telling him above. Venkat TL (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think said person may have been more receptive if you phrased your concerns more politely from the start, and do to the highly confrontational way this thread has begun and bad behaviour on the part of both parties, nothing is really going to happen since people don't want to wade through this and try to divine who's right and wrong on individual issues. Perhaps WikiCleanerMan spent too much time arguing with others at AfD, maybe not. But what do you actually want out of this thread? A firm warning? You could've and did give that yourself. Do you want a block? That would be overkill here. Do you see a t-ban from AfD passing? Do you want an elaborate display of ritual contrition? Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)- Not going to comment about coulda, woulda, shoulda. I warned him about WP:BLUDGEON and instead of acknowledging, he responded by filing this frivolous case without substance (the best defence is a good offence, WP:BATTLE?) . The point, @Chess that you are missing here, is that even now Wikicleanerman does not accept that there is any problem with his conduct, despite Dennis Brown and others telling him in clear words. I did not ask him to start this thread, but now that we are here, it would be a tremendous waste of our time, if this ANI thread does not have any effect on the issues raised. Venkat TL (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think said person may have been more receptive if you phrased your concerns more politely from the start, and do to the highly confrontational way this thread has begun and bad behaviour on the part of both parties, nothing is really going to happen since people don't want to wade through this and try to divine who's right and wrong on individual issues. Perhaps WikiCleanerMan spent too much time arguing with others at AfD, maybe not. But what do you actually want out of this thread? A firm warning? You could've and did give that yourself. Do you want a block? That would be overkill here. Do you see a t-ban from AfD passing? Do you want an elaborate display of ritual contrition? Chess (talk) (please use
- I have addressed this. @Chess no comments on bludgeoning? Is that not a concern for you? Are you only concerned about 4IM? WikiCleanerMan is not listening or addressing this despite a few admins telling him above. Venkat TL (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Chess, Venkat is still not addressing his own behavior which resulted in this ANI discussion. It does seem he wants some form of extreme action against me. He only warned me about bludgeoning on my talk page that was in the form of a threat. After which this discussion started. However, he has still not admitted what he did was wrong such as the PA's on at the two Tfd discussions where I left a warning in reply, either of which he didn't read or care to follow. And yet, even after providing evidence of PA's, he's acting as if he hasn't done such a thing. Evidence of PA's: Tfd 1 and Tfd 2. He seems to be on a crusade where instead of addressing his actions, he's cherrypicking examples, not from the Afd which resulted in the dispute to begin with but providing so-called evidence from unrelated discussions. Let's not forget that the title of this discussion was only changed to both of our user names only because he wanted to act as if this was about me and not him. I think you and Adamant1 are the only ones who have fully acknowledged Venkat's behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- But in any event, I think it's best we bury the hatchet and move on. If what I did was considered bludgeoning, then fine. I accept it and won't do it again. Simple as that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Both User:WikiCleanerMan and User:Venkat TL have been out of line, but neither of them should be sanctioned yet other than with a warning. User:Chess is right that User:Venkat TL should not have given a Level 4 warning, but a Level 2 warning would have been in order, and a discussion, such as they have provided here, would have been even better. At the same time, it is neither necessary nor useful to dispute every editor in an AFD. It does sometimes happen in AFDs (and sometimes gets repeated at DRV), but that doesn't excuse it. So, yes, WikiCleanerMan, you were bludgeoning, and your willingness to move on is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why should I be warned? I saw an inappropriate behavior and I warned the offending user to not continue the same. Now you may have given a level 2 or whatever you may like to call that warning, but my act of warning WikiCleanerMan is not an offence, much less a sanction-able offence. WikiCleanerMan may be acting like a snowflake, but why are you engaging in such false equivalence? Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Venkat TL should receive a warning. Otherwise, it's just one sided. Since there was clearly fault on both sides even if Venkat TL isn't willing to admit it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And for what offence milord? I am not responsible for massive over-reaction of snowflakes. WikiCleanerMan has already made a fool of himself by starting this thread over a non issue, and now you are following his footsteps with this ridiculous false equivalence. Venkat TL (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Frank advice: You'll probably want to shut up and walk away from this before you dig yourself into some kind of hole, Venkat. There's nothing for you to gain here. AngryHarpytalk 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not here for digging or gaining anything, I was dragged here. I am just pointing out the ridiculous false balance, after OP threw a tantrum. Remember (1) Warning someone is not an offence (2) My warning was not without a valid cause. That's all I have to say. Venkat TL (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The point of ANI is to request, discuss, formulate and (if appropriate) action resolutions to behaviour that is actively detrimental to the project. What it is not is dispute resolution, and we are not here to apportion blame. The fact is that you did escalate too quickly in the circumstances, and that is the reason you have received a warning; nobody is drawing any equivalences, because it's something we've considered on its own merits. In any event, WikiCleanerMan has accepted fault, requested that you stay away from any discussions they start, and does not want to press the issue any further. You have yourself stated that you don't want to take this further either. As such, there is no longer anything to discuss here. I understand why you find it frustrating, but you are engaging in WP:BLUDGEONING yourself at this point, which is why people are losing patience. Theknightwho (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Several points.
- (1) I can read the large banner on top. This thread is not about 'content' but 'user conduct' , which is what this ANI page is about. Who is calling this dispute resolution?
- (2) "I escalated too quickly?" Look up. This ANI thread was started by WikiCleanerMan not me, So how is WikiCleanerMan not quilty of this quick escalation, but me? Did you confuse me with WikiCleanerMan?
- (3) "I have recieved a warning"? When did that happen? And why am I not aware of it? Please share the diff, where I have received the warning. Also I request you to point me to the policy/rule I have violated by warning WikiCleanerMan.
- (4) Yes, I know this thread was over when WikiCleanerMan agreed to not continue the bludgeon. Initially he was not ready to even acknowledge the issue. So this ANI was certainly helpful. Thanks everyone. I came back here to reply only due to the inappropriate "both siding" by Robert.
- (5) Nope, I am not waiving off my Right of reply. This is not a random AfD. This is an ANI thread about me, where I am responding to comments about my conduct. I have full right to defend and speak on my behalf, if I deem necessary. I am not going to lie down and take inaccurate comments made about me. I have objections to some comments made about me and I am registering it. Venkat TL (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll make one point; that the other editors who have been cautioning you against battleground behavior and bludgeoning are proved more right every single time you launch another tirade. You can be mad all you want that people keep on daring to comment on your behavior, but I strongly recommend you keep any further objections to yourself and cease to dig your hole any more deeply. Ravenswing 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The point of ANI is to request, discuss, formulate and (if appropriate) action resolutions to behaviour that is actively detrimental to the project. What it is not is dispute resolution, and we are not here to apportion blame. The fact is that you did escalate too quickly in the circumstances, and that is the reason you have received a warning; nobody is drawing any equivalences, because it's something we've considered on its own merits. In any event, WikiCleanerMan has accepted fault, requested that you stay away from any discussions they start, and does not want to press the issue any further. You have yourself stated that you don't want to take this further either. As such, there is no longer anything to discuss here. I understand why you find it frustrating, but you are engaging in WP:BLUDGEONING yourself at this point, which is why people are losing patience. Theknightwho (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not here for digging or gaining anything, I was dragged here. I am just pointing out the ridiculous false balance, after OP threw a tantrum. Remember (1) Warning someone is not an offence (2) My warning was not without a valid cause. That's all I have to say. Venkat TL (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Frank advice: You'll probably want to shut up and walk away from this before you dig yourself into some kind of hole, Venkat. There's nothing for you to gain here. AngryHarpytalk 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And for what offence milord? I am not responsible for massive over-reaction of snowflakes. WikiCleanerMan has already made a fool of himself by starting this thread over a non issue, and now you are following his footsteps with this ridiculous false equivalence. Venkat TL (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Venkat TL should receive a warning. Otherwise, it's just one sided. Since there was clearly fault on both sides even if Venkat TL isn't willing to admit it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why should I be warned? I saw an inappropriate behavior and I warned the offending user to not continue the same. Now you may have given a level 2 or whatever you may like to call that warning, but my act of warning WikiCleanerMan is not an offence, much less a sanction-able offence. WikiCleanerMan may be acting like a snowflake, but why are you engaging in such false equivalence? Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Both User:WikiCleanerMan and User:Venkat TL have been out of line, but neither of them should be sanctioned yet other than with a warning. User:Chess is right that User:Venkat TL should not have given a Level 4 warning, but a Level 2 warning would have been in order, and a discussion, such as they have provided here, would have been even better. At the same time, it is neither necessary nor useful to dispute every editor in an AFD. It does sometimes happen in AFDs (and sometimes gets repeated at DRV), but that doesn't excuse it. So, yes, WikiCleanerMan, you were bludgeoning, and your willingness to move on is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- But in any event, I think it's best we bury the hatchet and move on. If what I did was considered bludgeoning, then fine. I accept it and won't do it again. Simple as that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan, I really do think you have been doing yourself a disservice by repeating your arguments as much as you do. Bludgeoning discussions is considered bad etiquette, but it doesn't help your case, either. More broadly, though, I've seen at least a few of those discussions, and what's abundantly clear is that both you and Venkat TL need to take the belligerence down a few notches. It's quite obvious you have rubbed each other the wrong way at some point, and I don't really care who the first offender was; carrying on in this manner will likely lead to an interaction ban, and given that you work in the same areas, I suspect neither of you wants that. And you could start by not replying to each and every comment that the other party makes in this discussion. I would recommend against any formal sanctions at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Unsuccessful Articles for Deletion attempt
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock which were created recently by a new user, 333Trey333 (talk · contribs). They weren't created properly, and I don't think they have any reasonable likelihood of success, so I think it would not be of benefit to anyone to promote them to a full AfD process ... and yet I am not sure they fit WP:G6, since deleting them might not really uncontroversial maintenance, as clearly at least this user thinks they should be followed. Anyway, administrators, this is why you make the big bucks: please take appropriate action, whatever you consider that to be. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) They also just tried PROD-ing the article, which I have disputed. Suggest G6 deletion, and linking the editor to the instructions of creating an AfD if they are so inclined. Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- And I have now provided 333Trey333 with instructions of how to properly nominate an article for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Sorry, but your deletion rationale 20:29, 14 January 2022 Floquenbeam talk contribs deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: erperiment or test or confusion; also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock which argues the opposite) (thank) is not correct. They didn't one argue to keep, the other to delete. Both were created with the same text, one of them was then edited by a defender of the article, who removed the original deletion rationale (which wasn't very detailed, granted). --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ugh. My bad, misread the history of the "do not delete" page. G6 is still fine, but I'll revise my message on their talk page. Thanks for catching that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) If the discussions were not created properly then deleting the discussions seems to be the obvious thing to do. We don't keep such mistakes as some sort of badge of shame against an editor who didn't know the correct procedure. It is still obviously the case that anyone, including the original nominator, can nominate this article for deletion properly if they feel that it should be deleted, something that I have not looked into. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Sorry, but your deletion rationale 20:29, 14 January 2022 Floquenbeam talk contribs deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: erperiment or test or confusion; also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock which argues the opposite) (thank) is not correct. They didn't one argue to keep, the other to delete. Both were created with the same text, one of them was then edited by a defender of the article, who removed the original deletion rationale (which wasn't very detailed, granted). --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Spammer + IP sock
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Afghanis suffa and his/her sock User:105.8.3.176 has been spamming the same website (which I have nominated for blacklist) for the past few days, and has sometimes added false information ([4], [5]). The user has so far continued to spam and add the fictitious "United Nations Roman Empire" to the same articles, despite the three warnings I gave. The user has not communicated so far. Veverve (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty clear vandalism, blocked both--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
AIV backlog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's currently 20 open reports at AIV. --Sable232 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty sure this would belong at AN, but consider leaving it here for the sake of visibility. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Section blanking
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like a review of a blunt instance of section blanking by an editor with admin privileges that appear to have been mis-used. I do not know if there is a pattern of similar abuse. Their lack of responsiveness is frustrating. Praxidicae, who finally responded in a single line on the Talk page (using the user name Santadicae), arbitrarily cut content out of the page Alpha Psi Lambda without offering improvements, then protected SIXTEEN YEARS of edits to make previous versions unviewable, and cited an unclear rationale that "WP is not a directory". Perhaps their point is to push others to offer citations; I responded to this on the Talk page, attempting to show good faith, but the cryptic and unhelpful lack of engagement ended there. This person had deleted a list of founders, a short bullet list of five historic milestones, and a short mission statement and purpose statement. --Pretty standard stuff for the 1,400 articles on similar societies that the Fraternity and Sorority Project works to improve. I have no connection with the group. I wouldn't mind helping find citations for this page, but this arbitrary and bullying deletion wasn't helpful in any way. I will immediately notify Praxidicae that I have opened this ANI. Jax MN (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like he did not protect 16 years of edits to make the previous versions unavailable, the edits in question were apparently revision deleted for violations of the copyright policy. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Primefac: You were apparently the one who executed the revision deletion, can you offer some insight here? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I asked Primefac about this on their user talk a bit earlier today. I’m pretty sure they’re just WP:BUSY at the moment and will respond when they get the chance. As for the OP, they might want to take another look at this talk page post, some of the edit summaries they left at Alpha Psi Lambda as well as WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:CONTENTAGE and maybe even WP:Namechecking. The OP’s first edit summary and their initial article talk page post have a WP:BATTLEGROUND feel to them which was probably not going to lead to constructive discussion for what appears to be a disagreement over unsourced content and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If copyright violating content was found in the article (as per the page’s log), it’s going to be removed most likely no matter how long ago it was added, and all the relevant diffs in between which contain such content are going to end revdeleted. Perhaps nobody bothered to check the article for copyvios until the recent bunch of reverts started attracting attention. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Marchjuly. It appears that the protection of the past 16 years of edit history was indeed done by Primefac, but of course their user name didn't appear as making that change, which happened at about the same time. A couple of us assumed (in error) it was Praxidicae. Copyvios are certainly serious, and I would have jumped to find citations or to paraphrase where needed. Now, I would rather quote and then cite in the case of a mission statement, so as not to distort the words with a bad paraphrase. I do not have rights to view or investigate the copyright claim now that everything is hidden. But twice, the short edit summary given when section blanking said nothing to warn of copyvio. Only an odd comment that WP is not a directory. Unhelpful/unclear.
- (Non-administrator comment) I asked Primefac about this on their user talk a bit earlier today. I’m pretty sure they’re just WP:BUSY at the moment and will respond when they get the chance. As for the OP, they might want to take another look at this talk page post, some of the edit summaries they left at Alpha Psi Lambda as well as WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:CONTENTAGE and maybe even WP:Namechecking. The OP’s first edit summary and their initial article talk page post have a WP:BATTLEGROUND feel to them which was probably not going to lead to constructive discussion for what appears to be a disagreement over unsourced content and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If copyright violating content was found in the article (as per the page’s log), it’s going to be removed most likely no matter how long ago it was added, and all the relevant diffs in between which contain such content are going to end revdeleted. Perhaps nobody bothered to check the article for copyvios until the recent bunch of reverts started attracting attention. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd note that listing founders is standard for these society articles, and isn't a case of WP:Namechecking
- I first noticed these edits to this article while looking at recent Project activity. I saw the significant amount of blanking and thought it appeared to be vandalism. Had Praxidicae noted a need for citations or potential copyvio, this would have taken a more helpful course. I prefer to help rewrite, where I can. Jax MN (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, the information added in 2006, remaining in the article since, and restored by yourself, is a copy of this page, or wherever that came from. It's basically word for word and a pretty clear-cut copyvio, assuming that page came first, which looks likely. Any subsequent modification is going to be a derivative of a copyvio. I don't think the same is true of the other stuff you were adding, but then as already pointed out, that's unreferenced. No comment on the list if it's properly referenced, other than to say I don't find a list of original founders, or a mission statement particularly offensive. You may want to split out each of the different topics for discussion here (well, at the article's talk page). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- While I appreciate this can be confusing for new editors, if you want to see why something was revision deleted you should always look at the page log [6] or the deletion log subset not the edit history of the page. You should not expect to seen an explanation of revision deletion in the edit history. Sometimes there may be, sometimes there won't be. And while I can't speak for Praxidicae, it seems quite likely what happened here is they saw content they thought was unsuitable for a Wikipedia article and removed it. After removing it they started to investigate more and found it was a copyvio and so asked for revision deletion. This happens quite a lot since when removing content which is clearly unsuitable, sometimes you think 'you know what, this sounds like it probably came from somewhere else'. There was no reason to annotate the edit history and while I guess they could have mention it on the talk page, frankly there was no reason. The page logs adequately explain the reason for the revision deletion and an uninvolved admin has to agree with them it was a clear copyvio justifying revision deletion for if the revdeletion to happen. Also please remember that citations cannot fix copyvios except when there is a CC BY-SA compatible licence (in which case we normally do not revision delete) and for content re-written in your own voice you can just look at what RS you're getting the information from. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I see Praxidicae did specifically note their copyvio concerns on the talk page [7] and that was before this thread was started, so I'm very confused why this thread was started and made it sound like the reason for the revision deletion was "WP is not a directory" when there was nothing to indicate that was the case when this thread was started. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Jax MN said "...I would have jumped to find citations or to paraphrase where needed." However, the copyvio material would have remained in past versions of the page. These could have been reverted to at any time. Copyvios must be removed. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #1. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I see Praxidicae did specifically note their copyvio concerns on the talk page [7] and that was before this thread was started, so I'm very confused why this thread was started and made it sound like the reason for the revision deletion was "WP is not a directory" when there was nothing to indicate that was the case when this thread was started. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I first noticed these edits to this article while looking at recent Project activity. I saw the significant amount of blanking and thought it appeared to be vandalism. Had Praxidicae noted a need for citations or potential copyvio, this would have taken a more helpful course. I prefer to help rewrite, where I can. Jax MN (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think this thread was started in good faith, because that's pretty much what Prax told the OP to do. However, there is nothing to see here. Prax isn't an administrator, and she didn't use any advanced privileges to remove the content so she can't be accused of tool misuse. She did respond to the very first talk page message, so she can't be approved of refusing to communicate. Standard practice when COPYVIO is discovered is to remove it, and to remove all revisions that contain it. I have trust in Primefac (and in zzuuzz, who also looked) to check whether something is a copyvio before applying revdel - it looks like everything has been handled normally, and that nobody has done anything wrong, except perhaps Prax could have mentioned copyvio in her original edit summary, rather than the NOTDIRECTORY stuff (which may have been accurate, but is the less serious concern and wouldn't justify edit warring). In short: there is nothing to see here. Girth Summit (blether) 07:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what more information I can provide; as mentioned there were some copyright violations and I RD1'd the offending revisions. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Primefac. Would you mind letting me see the offending material, so I understand what the authors were trying to convey? I only came in to review this when I noticed the section blanking. I'll rewrite. Jax MN (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jax MN: I don't know if Primefac will do that or not, but I can save the time and effort - the content is literally on the page I linked above. Update the 'Today:" bit, add something about co-founding NALFO and that it's the first and largest Latino whatever, then quote and source the mission statement, and that will be that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I just did, but yeah, pretty much. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I just posted a revision of the article. I'm sure it will be highly scrutinized. All of us encounter so much page vandalism; this is a reminder to me, at least, not to over-react. And of course, it is a reminder that helpful edit summaries, though they may be tedious, help to teach new editors and to moderate emotional responses. Jax MN (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I just did, but yeah, pretty much. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jax MN: I don't know if Primefac will do that or not, but I can save the time and effort - the content is literally on the page I linked above. Update the 'Today:" bit, add something about co-founding NALFO and that it's the first and largest Latino whatever, then quote and source the mission statement, and that will be that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Primefac. Would you mind letting me see the offending material, so I understand what the authors were trying to convey? I only came in to review this when I noticed the section blanking. I'll rewrite. Jax MN (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I no longer have the time to dedicate to ANI responses or WP in general but my edit summaries (mostly) adequately explained my removals based on policies and established community norms. I invited the OP to take this to ANI because they accused me of tool abuse, not for any other reason as this is ultimately a content dispute. My response about not reading their 3+ paragraph soliloquy still stands, it's bludgeoning at best. If my action is undone, so be it but otherwise, I have very little to do with this as has already been established. SANTADICAE🎅 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also have to appreciate the irony of being reported here while op decided to reinstate their original edits here after accusing me of abuse and re-instated a copyright violation. Lastly, while I know this is an essay, I'd like to point out Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements, which this in no way qualifies. This is a run of the mill frat and is not notable in any manner and does not speak to how or why it's notable. SANTADICAE🎅 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
User:56FireLeafs - questionable edits
56FireLeafs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been removing a significant amount of content without leaving much, if any, reason/explanation in an edit summary. Seems to feel justified because, as 56FireLeafs said on their talk page in November (diff #1 below), "What am saying IS right". Much seems to be based on own option / wp:OR.
- Diff: Discussion on own talk page Nov 2021 Appears not much has changed since then.
- Diff: Edit and reply on BhagyaMani's talk page
- Diff: "Reason" added to my talk page This is obvious evidence that Wikipedians hate Ligers.
- Diff: Same content added to 56FireLeafs'
I did add two citations to Liger after reverting 56FireLeafs. They were easy to find.
Pinging talk page owners: @BhagyaMani and Sandstein:
This leaves me to strongly suspect that 56FireLeafs is WP:NOTHERE. Adakiko (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- S/he deleted ref'ed content at the Panthera blythae page a few times without giving a reason. And after I reverted their edits 2x, s/he posted ↑ talk. Y'day, s/he deleted the same content one more time, but after I posted a warning on their talk page, s/he stopped. I think s/he just did not understand NPOV yet, has lots of opinions but little knowledge. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Pardon for not giving reasons. But you have to admit that many info in those pages is not necessary. And what am saying IS mostly right. The relationship between Panthera Blytheae and Snow Leopard and the fact that it has at least some basic Panthera features and also the fact that is NOT considered the oldest Pantherine already places it within Panthera. Although i admit this statement can be questioned, my Liger claim is objectively correct. Carol Baskin has little to no knowledge of biology. So before i continue am gonna debunk the arguments most Liger opponents use:
"Their unnatural": Then don't shave your armpits, as that's unnatural. And also don't have a house either as that's unnatural. Natural and unnatural doe snot mean good or bad.
"Their habitats do not overlap": A) At some point in the Pleistocene they did. B)So your telling me that an American man cannot date a French woman just because their from different places? Also, Brown Bears (Ursus Arctos) and Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) live in different places but after Polar Bears migrated do the south they started hybridizing with Brown Bears.
"They don't exist in the wild": At some point they did. Plus, what does that have to do with anything of weather Ligers should exist or not?
Now that ive debunked this claims lets talk about why does animal rights groups are wrong about Ligers (PS: Am not defending the practice of breeding Ligers for profit, am only defending their existence). This groups constantly talk about Panthera Hhybrids suffering from "diseases". This is inaccurate because:
-Their studies are only based on Ligers (P.Leo x P.Tigris), not Panthera hybrids as a whole.
-This studies say that Ligers suffer from "sterility". First off, what does being sterile have anything to do with health? Second, females are perfectly capable of breeding, males usually are sterile but there is a small chance for them to be born fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. Also, not being able to reproduce=\=being useless. By their logic, i suppose that then homosexuality should not be allowed either, since males cannot reproduce between themselves, right? This video explains everything: Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler: minute 2:10
-This studies are only in reference to captive breed animals, but not hypothetical wild Panthera Hybrids. Animals breed in captivity =\= animals born in the wild. They also are only biased towards certain Ligers they supposedly saw but not ALL Ligers in Earth. They also forget that the reasons why they might suffer from diseases is due to zoo conditions (they same we could say about non hybrids in zoos) or inbreeding (There is evidence that white tigers are many times inbreed in zoos, and considering that zoos cannot afford having too many animals, lack of genetic diversity in Liger breeding is not that uncommon).
-Many of the people who made this studies have very outdated information and many of them possibly work for or support PETA.
-They gave a link to Carol Baskin's, who as i told you has little to no knowledge of biology, is a hypocrite who shames Joey Exotic for keeping Panthera species in cages despite her doing the same thing, using the same awful arguments against Ligers and also possibly killed her husband.
There you have it. Feel free to debate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And that right there is a clear flag of WP:NOTHERE if I ever saw one. This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers (and for the record, ligers not occurring in the wild does make them rather unnatural, and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy), but your own battlefield mentality.
- For my part, I'm the one who read and added that section to P. blytheae, and I actually read the source through. It is valid, written by people who know what they were talking about, and had valid concerns. The species has not been studied enough to state that its position is a fact. For that matter, very, very, little in paleontology is considered a fact when it comes to the classification and position of species. Your insisting otherwise calls into question your competence here.
- I concur with BhagyaMani that 56FireLeafs has many opinions and little knowledge, and also call into question their WP:COMPETENCE. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I really do not know who is that guy your talking about, i would appreciate if you gave me more info of him. "This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers". I was asking to debate n my page. And am not asking weather their natural or not, am ask if its fine for them to exist considering that Humans breed with Neanderthals and the fact that the eastern coyote was the result f crossbreeding between Coyotes and Wolfs. Panthera hybrids are no different as in all three cases its between species of the same genus. And you have to remember that natural\unnatural=\=good or bad. I suppose yo shouldn't brush your teeth as that's unnatural, right? And at some point ligers possibly did happen:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/ .People also thought that Brown bear and Polar Bear hybrids where unnatural as they did no happened in the wild, and look now, there are starting to hybridize. Not to mention there is evidence that lions crossbreed with snow leopards, who are closely related to tigers. "and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy" the fact that its considered doe snot mean its true. Also, female ligers are always fertile, male usually are sterile but their is a small percentage for them to be fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. And ive seen lots of male sterile Ligers that appear to be fine. And the reason why am making this debate is so people can get the right information so we can make sure the page does not misinform the viewer. I've tried to change the page multiple times so i could present the correct information but it appears that unless i can convince them otherwise, Wikipedians wont let me make the changes. Many Wikipedians are so biased towards reading articles that they never question if the articles in question are factually correct or if they contain outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not here to question articles--what you're talking about sounds a lot like WP:OR. If you have reliable sources, by all means, present them, but "debate me" is not a helpful stance and your current trajectory will get you blocked from the site sooner rather than later. Best of luck however you choose to proceed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be relevant, but they decided to take it to my talk page as well, with the same badly-spelled and formatted paragraph as above. And I would like to point out, blogs are rarely acceptable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Magnatyrannus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note the following was drafted with other editors at WP:PALAEO, and many more diffs can be provided: Ever since they joined Wikipedia last year, Magnatyrannus has made over a thousand edits to dinosaur- and paleontology-related articles. While some of his changes are valid, a vast majority are subpar; among other things, they have rewritten pages and templates to fit his viewpoints of how dinosaurs are classified, going as far as to delete statements they personally disagrees with, (diff 1 diff 2) and has WP:EDITWARed to keep them (see here). They have shown a strong preference for his "offical classifications" and a stern refusal to accept alternate viewpoints and seek consensus (see here, here, and here). They usually don't communicate, but when they do, it's usually a mocking remark (diff 3 diff 4). They have also written personal attacks on the user pages of those who disagree with them (diff 5). It has become tiring for WikiProject editors to sift through his changes to determine which are valid and which are not. Off-wiki evidence shows his combative attitude spills over to external sites, so we believe they are not WP:COMPETENT enough to build an encyclopedia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Co-signing the above and adding a few supporting diffs:
- Notably, many of Magnatyrannus' contentious edits are based on a single scientific paper expressing views that are not yet universally accepted by researchers, which violates WP:NPOV. Despite multiple attempts at communicating how scholarly consensus is established and promises by Magnatyrannus to the contrary (see linked diff), the user continues to engage in edit-warring behaviour to implement the findings of a single paper instead of the most neutral alternative (see diffs by FunkMonk). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- One may note that Magnatyrannus has continued to (seemingly) try to engage in edit-warring behaviour (see this revert: [10]) while completely ignoring this discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- The main issue with Magnatyrannus's edits is WP:IDHT, they essentially ignore the consensus of other users are edit war their preferred version. The fact that they make juvenile insults on other people's userpages shows major WP:CIR issues. I'd recommend a topic ban from taxonomy or possibly an under WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Awaiting administrative action He's still reverting other editors even if other viewpoints are explained to him, see [11] Atlantis536 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- At least some action feels necessary to get Magnatyrannus to even acknowledge this ANI thread. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Magnatyrannus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- At least some action feels necessary to get Magnatyrannus to even acknowledge this ANI thread. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Statto1950
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statto1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, dating back to 2014, who's almost entire contribution history entails removing properly-sourced content from the article on footballer Adam Farley. They have been warned multiple times for this, but persist (as do IPs). Statto1950's latest removal was accompanied with an edit summary [12] suggesting that I (along with User:C.Fred) am "a known Marine FC associate who is being investigated himself", which I hasten to add is untrue (though being accused of being of being a professional footballer makes a change from being accused of being a CIA agent, or a member of the Iliminati, and maybe I should be flattered?). Since Statto1950 clearly isn't going to play by the rules, I'd suggest sending off. Permanantly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have pageblocked Statto1950 from Adam Farley and semi-protected the article for a year. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikibullying by Agricolae
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hi,
This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Agricolae, has started following me around.
It started with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thursby
I am not saying the article could not do with improvement, but a while after his first edits this user gutted the entire article. The user continued with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thursby_(d.1543)
Then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_Flowerdew
And now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Aylmer_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gawdy_(died_1556) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aylmer
I have assumed good faith, but now this is getting creepy. This user is following me around, wikihounding me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you have some major issues with your edits, your competence, and your attitude, and need "following around".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but what do you base this on? I do not think you and I have ever talked before. I have always used the talk pages to try to reach a consensus. I do not follow people around. I have thanked people here plenty of times. I have been thanked many times. Wikipedia’s rules clearly state that: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I am not saying that I am perfect, or that my edits are, but I do not deserve to be either bullied or harassed. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi BeatriceCastle. So, first off, I would say that you are not entirely blameless here yourself. Looking at the edit history of Thomas Thursby, I can see that you and Agricolae have been going back and forth on this since October 2020. I think that seeking a third opinion, or some sort of dispute resolution before this point might have been a good idea. This has now deteriorated to the point where I see you are accusing them of vandalism, an accusation which itself constitutes a personal attack. So, we are not in a good place.
- WP:HOUND makes it clear that, while it is not permissible to follow someone around to annoy them, it is permissible to review their editing if you perceive there to be a problem. It looks like Agricolae believes that you have been inserting original research into articles. I've got to confess, dipping into the history of some of those articles, I think I see you supporting assertions by referencing things like 16th-century wills accessed via Ancestry.com. While primary sources are permissible in certain limited circumstances, that kind of thing does look rather dubious to me. I haven't done a detailed review, but I do get an OR vibe from a lot of the stuff I looked at, and I suspect that there may be some issues with the content you are adding that do need review. Perhaps Agricolae should have got more people involved before now, so you didn't feel that it was personal - again, we're not starting from a great place.
- Would you be willing to engage in dispute resolution with them over these articles? Girth Summit (blether) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, first off, thank you so much for weighing on the issue. I am absolutely willing to try dispute resolution with the Thursby articles. I completely agree that they could probably be better. But after that I wish this user would just leave me alone. It has honestly gotten to the point where I feel that, and forgive me for again quoting from your Wikipedia:Harassment article: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I actually agree with you that I should have handled this situation differently (and much better), and I am sorry if I said something to this user that was against the rules. For the 16th century wills, they are also at the National Archive, and I add a link there also. Plus I try to transcribe everything relevant. I am sure a lot of this can be discussed, and I am not against that discussion. It is just this user does not engage in discussion, for the most part. They gut my edits, then, when I refer them to the talk pages they mostly ignore me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Thomas Thursby article appears to be an original research issue brought up on 6 Oct 2020 and after nearly 6 months Agricolae trimmed the article of original research. BeatriceCastle has been edit warring on this article since 17 April 2021 along with personal attacks.
- Temperance_Flowerdew, more WP:OR issues. This time Drmies has responded on the article talk page and explicitly told you to read WP:OR and WP:RS. You have been reverted by 3 different editors on this article.
- Richard Aylmer (politician), more WP:OR issues. I would say, that Agricolae has found an editor writing/creating articles using their own opinion/interpretation of sources.
- This revert(Undid revision 1063780106 by Agricolae) seems like an attempt to personalize the issue, since it was Drmies you were reverting not Agricolae.
- Two personal attacks,[13][14].
- AND, edit-warring on Temperance Flowerdew against Drmies,Theroadislong, and Agricolae. Even as we type.18:46, 15 January 2022.
- BeatriceCastle should be blocked for edit-warring,personal attacks, and clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not edit warring, if I am, I am sorry. But why aren't people using the talk pages? Raise the points there, and we can discuss it out. I would welcome that. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Drmies and I did discuss it out on the talk page of Temperance Flowerdew. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- What you want is amply clear: to have your changes remain while others are compelled to discuss their objections with you. Worse, your discussion is replete with not listening to anyone but repeating yourself and accusing others of not responding to your concerns. You also have other problems, including WP:OR, using unreliable sources, and forcing material into articles that is not noteworthy, but because you find it interesting. You do not seem to grasp what this project is about, and for that reason, I agree with Kansas Bear that you should be indefinitely blocked as I don't see your approach to editing or the value of your contributions changing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- But my changes (except for the Thomas Thursby d.1510 where I did let Agricolae’s changes stand for six months after I had left my last reply on the talk page before changing it back) was the standing edit. Should not other people be responsible for arguing for their changes? Should not someone who follows someone else around, hounding them, be responsible for backing up their views for what should change? Is quoting Wikipedia’s rules repeating? I have actually read WP:OR, and must allowed to refer to those rules when it is relevant. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Kansas Bear and Bbb23. What’s particularly ironic is BeatriceCastle complaining
why aren't people using the talk pages
. Agricolae tried that at Talk:Thomas Thursby. What a horrendous waste of Agricolae’s time. Beatrice needs to be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and probably a whole bunch of other acronyms. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)- Precisely what about Talk:Thomas Thursby was a waste of Agriocolae’s time? BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- What you want is amply clear: to have your changes remain while others are compelled to discuss their objections with you. Worse, your discussion is replete with not listening to anyone but repeating yourself and accusing others of not responding to your concerns. You also have other problems, including WP:OR, using unreliable sources, and forcing material into articles that is not noteworthy, but because you find it interesting. You do not seem to grasp what this project is about, and for that reason, I agree with Kansas Bear that you should be indefinitely blocked as I don't see your approach to editing or the value of your contributions changing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Let me say that I don't think that BeatriceCastle needs to be indeffed, they need to be educated with regard to the norms of Wikipedia in a manner they can't simply dismiss as an involved editor trying to 'win' a content dispute. At that point it will be up to them. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, your comments were more conciliatory. Do you object to my indeffing the user (she has been blocked before)? Frankly, as I stated, the user's pattern of dispute resolution has not been constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't do a deep dive into the contribs and/or block history. I do think that an experienced and talented editor, dealing with a newb who doesn't really understand what we do, should have sought third party input rather than engage in a two-year slow edit war, so it's not exactly a great look all-round. That said, from my limited investigation, I do very much understand the OR concerns. I have no view of whether a block is appropriate - I wouldn't stand in the way if any admin who has satisfied themselves that discussion will likely be fruitless. Girth Summit (blether) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a case of stalking, let alone wikihounding, as the complainant intimates. Over a year ago, I did, as I do from time to time, a search for specific text-strings often indicative of problematic content. That led to a page the complainant had massively expanded with original research, long quotations of entire unpublished primary records, material drawn from online catalogues and databases, and personal speculation - in short, using Wikipedia as a venue to publsh their personal research. I cleaned it up in a manner consistent with policy. I then followed links on that page to a similar page with similar issues - these were the Thursby pages. They sat unchanged for almost a year and then the complainant unilaterally reverted the changes. The Talk devolved rather quickly into pointlessness, but it is worth noting that another editor also found the material to be inappropriate. Yesterday I did another of the same periodic text searches, and it identified another pair of pages, the Aylmer ones, similarly rife with inappropriate WP:OR and unpublished primary sources. At the time I landed on them I did not even know the same editor was responsioble (though this became immediately obvious based on the type of material that had been added to them), and I cleaned them up. I did then consult the complainant's for the first time to assess the extent of the problem, and that led me to the Gawdy pages, where again, as I had on the other pages, I removed inappropriate material based on content and policy, not based on who added it. As to wikihounding, described by the complainant, above, as joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, that just has never happened. I only 'joined' a single discussion in which they were already involved, and in that case they pinged had me when they reinitiated a discussion I had originally started, but another editor got there before me. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- You had never shown any interest in any of these articles until I edited them. I did not "massively expand" the page Thomas Thursby (d.1510). It was an article I had created. I was still editing and not done when you found it. I mostly agreed with your first edit, and left it alone after that. Then you gutted the entire article after six months. I wrote my counter arguments on the talk page, also waited six months, as you had, then reverted your last changes. Then you gutted the article again, almost immediately, not entering into any discussion on the talk page. And since then you have been following me around. After that original article (which I do agree originally had some of issues) you have followed me to six other articles. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is right, I never showed any interest in the pages before you edited them - they did not contain the problematic material before you put it there. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- So you were wikihounding me. You were not interested in those articles before. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Of course I wasn't interested in removing inappropriate material from the pages before the inappropriate material had been added. In most cases, it was a simple generic four-word text-string search that originally identified the pages as needing a look, and the resulting look made the problems evident, all without even looking to see who it was who had caused the problem. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- How strange then, that you kept finding me, reverting my edits without attempting to take it to the talk page first. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was not finding you. I was finding the inappropriate material. What is strange (well, not really) is that you kept making the same types of edits, such that I kept coming across pages you ahve edited, after you had been instructed multiple times why it was problematic. Agricolae (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And it did not occur to you during this string of coincidences that you might be committing WP:HOUNDING once you recognised my user name? BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- It did not because I knew I was not committing HOUNDING. Agricolae (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- How strange then, that you kept finding me, reverting my edits without attempting to take it to the talk page first. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Of course I wasn't interested in removing inappropriate material from the pages before the inappropriate material had been added. In most cases, it was a simple generic four-word text-string search that originally identified the pages as needing a look, and the resulting look made the problems evident, all without even looking to see who it was who had caused the problem. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Talk page of Thomas Thursby (d.1510), where we discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Thursby
- Talk page of Thomas Thursby (d.1543), where we discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Thursby_(d.1543)
- Talk page of Temperance Flowerdew, where we discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temperance_Flowerdew
- The first two articles were created by me.
- For the four other articles you have followed me to that I have edited first, I have invited you to take the discussion to the talk page but you have yet to respond. That is three talk pages we are involved in a discussion on, going on seven. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- So you were wikihounding me. You were not interested in those articles before. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is right, I never showed any interest in the pages before you edited them - they did not contain the problematic material before you put it there. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Your edits were problematic, and needed removing. There is an exception in WP:HOUNDING to allow editors to follow another editor's edits when those edits are problematic. This is necessary so that an editor who is editing problematically across articles can have their errors corrected. You're not listening to other editors here who are telling you that YOUR edits are a problem and whether or not Agricolae is behaving badly ... you need to change your editing to conform to wikipedia norms. Unless you do, someone is going to have to watch over your edits to make sure they aren't violating wikipedia policies like they currently are. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agricolae claims in his post above that he simply happened to find my edits, on seven separate articles, by pure coincidence. Are you now contradicting them and saying that they did follow me on purpose? And, how, precisely, are my edits problematic? Why not then go to the talk page and raise their concerns one by one? I am open to discussion. People have changed what I have written before, and I have received input in the past where I felt that they made an excellent point. When I am wrong, I say I'm wrong. Also, I have yet to see anyone being able to point out precisely why my edits are problematic. Of course they are not infallible, as I have said, but I think it odd that so many people seem to take the word of someone who had deliberately followed someone around, harassing them, breaking rules, over the word of somebody else without even looking at the edits in question. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I did not "take the word of someone" ... I went and looked at the last few articles you've edited. And they are full of misuse of primary sources, repeated information, information that is trivial and unencyclopedic, information that isn't about the subject of the article and is not necessary background to understand the subject. I haven't had time to check if there is WP:OR in them, as that takes a bit more time, nor have I checked for use of unreliable sources, but if you don't believe that I did my own checking, I can find the time somehow to check for those too. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, then go to the last article you checked and raise the point on the talk page there. Let us this discuss it out there. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I did not "take the word of someone" ... I went and looked at the last few articles you've edited. And they are full of misuse of primary sources, repeated information, information that is trivial and unencyclopedic, information that isn't about the subject of the article and is not necessary background to understand the subject. I haven't had time to check if there is WP:OR in them, as that takes a bit more time, nor have I checked for use of unreliable sources, but if you don't believe that I did my own checking, I can find the time somehow to check for those too. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agricolae claims in his post above that he simply happened to find my edits, on seven separate articles, by pure coincidence. Are you now contradicting them and saying that they did follow me on purpose? And, how, precisely, are my edits problematic? Why not then go to the talk page and raise their concerns one by one? I am open to discussion. People have changed what I have written before, and I have received input in the past where I felt that they made an excellent point. When I am wrong, I say I'm wrong. Also, I have yet to see anyone being able to point out precisely why my edits are problematic. Of course they are not infallible, as I have said, but I think it odd that so many people seem to take the word of someone who had deliberately followed someone around, harassing them, breaking rules, over the word of somebody else without even looking at the edits in question. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That’s not WP:HOUND BeatriceCastle, which is about tracking an editor to annoy them. Using an editor's edit history to correct the same problematic behaviour on multiple articles is not a violation. Your behaviour is a problem on multiple articles. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And again I say, what is this problematic behaviour? Because I keep referring people to the talk pages to raise their points there. If I am in the wrong, I usually say I'm wrong. Which rules have been broken? Of course some things can be improved on, they always can, and probably some things can have been written that were better stricken again. But to follow someone around, and remove all of their edits (most of them not problematic in any way), on multiple articles, is WP:HOUND. If you think I have broken some rule, go to the talk page of the article in question, raise the question there and let us discuss it out, by all means. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please read through this thread again. Some of the most experienced and talented editors on the project are telling you that there has been a problem with your editing. You should be asking for their advice on how to fix it. Girth Summit (blether) 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your input. I absolutely agree, and I am honestly asking for advice on how to fix it. I am happy to discuss any edit in question on the relevant talk page, and that is very sincerely meant. However, I do not wish to be wikihounded anymore, and I respectfully ask the community to keep Agricolae away from me from now on. I am always open to input on how to be a better editor, but not to being stalked. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your starting point should be to go back to the feedback Agricolae has given you already - for example the talk pages of the 2 Thurston articles. I have read them and looked at the edits you have made. (I did not "take the word of someone" either - I’ve looked at your editing.) Instead of WP:BATTLEGROUND arguing with everything that said to you, you need to take on board the comments that you have already been given, if you want to stay editing WP that is. You don’t seem to have understood that having looked at the interaction between you and Agricolae (yes, we can see it all) no one who has contributed to this thread thinks you are in the right. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- It might surprise you, but I did take Agricolae’s advice on board at first. As I wrote, the first article benefitted from their first editing and I concur that many good points were made. Like I said, I assumed good faith at first. However, they kept following me around and there comes a point when listening to one’s stalker becomes undesirable. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have left the article Thomas Thursby (d.1543) as it is (mess that it is) because I wanted nothing more to do with this user. They then followed me to Temperance Flowerdew, and when I invited them to the talk page there, then made two short comments not raising any concrete points regarding the article. By this time Drmies had gotten involved, and Drmies and I discussed it out. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- That avenue closed, Agricolae followed me to four other articles. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not what happened. Not at all. Agricolae (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your starting point should be to go back to the feedback Agricolae has given you already - for example the talk pages of the 2 Thurston articles. I have read them and looked at the edits you have made. (I did not "take the word of someone" either - I’ve looked at your editing.) Instead of WP:BATTLEGROUND arguing with everything that said to you, you need to take on board the comments that you have already been given, if you want to stay editing WP that is. You don’t seem to have understood that having looked at the interaction between you and Agricolae (yes, we can see it all) no one who has contributed to this thread thinks you are in the right. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your input. I absolutely agree, and I am honestly asking for advice on how to fix it. I am happy to discuss any edit in question on the relevant talk page, and that is very sincerely meant. However, I do not wish to be wikihounded anymore, and I respectfully ask the community to keep Agricolae away from me from now on. I am always open to input on how to be a better editor, but not to being stalked. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please read through this thread again. Some of the most experienced and talented editors on the project are telling you that there has been a problem with your editing. You should be asking for their advice on how to fix it. Girth Summit (blether) 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And again I say, what is this problematic behaviour? Because I keep referring people to the talk pages to raise their points there. If I am in the wrong, I usually say I'm wrong. Which rules have been broken? Of course some things can be improved on, they always can, and probably some things can have been written that were better stricken again. But to follow someone around, and remove all of their edits (most of them not problematic in any way), on multiple articles, is WP:HOUND. If you think I have broken some rule, go to the talk page of the article in question, raise the question there and let us discuss it out, by all means. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Your edits were problematic, and needed removing. There is an exception in WP:HOUNDING to allow editors to follow another editor's edits when those edits are problematic. This is necessary so that an editor who is editing problematically across articles can have their errors corrected. You're not listening to other editors here who are telling you that YOUR edits are a problem and whether or not Agricolae is behaving badly ... you need to change your editing to conform to wikipedia norms. Unless you do, someone is going to have to watch over your edits to make sure they aren't violating wikipedia policies like they currently are. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a very large amount to look at to try to get a perspective. There is a possibility that an editor can follow another editor around and delete their edits based on imposing an abnormally strict interpretation/ implementation of the rules. I don't know if that is happening here but how about Agricolae just agrees to mostly let the other editors at those articles deal with BeatriceCastle's edits and not particularly "go to" articles solely because BeatriceCastle is editing them? (without saying whether or not such was occurring) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately - Agricolae is correct. This is an article as BeatriceCastle last edited it. (Note that Cullen328 has since cleaned it up to this which conforms to wiki polices and guidelines mostly. BC's version includes the entire will of the widow of the subject, which appears to be only "published" on FamilySearch (not a reliable source), and many many other primary sources ... some of which appear to never have been published as they are given merely as catalog entries from the various archives holding them. There's also OR in this - in the bits "If the birth date given for his son of the same name, 1487,[12] is correct, he cannot possibly be the son of Elizabeth, as she was still the wife of Robert Aylmer (d.1493) then." There's also unimportant trivia - "Elizabeth Thursby, the 15-great grandmother of Prince Williiam, Duke of Cambridge, is possibly Richard Aylmer's half-sister" ... Or another recent article - as last edited by BC. Here we have the repetition of Flowerdew's arrival aboard the Falcon - which is given twice. There's more WP:OR - where "The source of the date seems unclear. The year 1618 for their marriage seems to crop up as early as 1912." is sourced to the 1912 publication referred to, which is clear OR. There's likely unreliable sources such as http://www.cynthiaswope.com/withinthevines/jamestown/jtmuster1623.html#top%20of%20page as well as a plethora of primary sources, again some only listed as catalog entries from archives. And a bunch of sites, I'm unable to check because they give me errors - http://libertyletters.com/resources/jamestown/temperance-flowerdew.php or http://www.wellowgate.co.uk/Appleyard/Kett/kett2.htm. To be quite honest, unless BC's attitude towards someone trying to help them (see Talk:Thomas Thursby, where there's a lot of not listening to someone trying to help them.) there's not much point in going to the talk pages. There are SO many issues, I don't blame Agricolae for just wiping most of the article out. And the attitude here is one of not listening still. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, Ealdgyth, I actually agree with the Richard Aylmer article. It was written by me many years ago (or at least two, I think, and I think Cullen328's reversal fair. I have not changed it back and do not intend to do so. I might add some of the information from Blomefield again, but a lot of it was stricken fairly. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is very fair.
Comment What on earth is wrong with familysearch, assuming someone keeps to the stuff that is based on official records, and doesn’t beg the question? Qwirkle (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Inappropriate calls of STOP WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At this AfD an administrator Dennis Brown made what I feel were premature references to WP:BLUDGEON and became ad-hominem, both with threats of sanctions and "You don't understand what you are talking about
". I'm keen to basically learn more although I have read and (attempted) to understand WP:NOTE, and while I know that such requests for clarification can go unsatisfied, it would appear WP:AGF was conspicuous by its absence.
You can see from the revision history in that AfD that the replies that I had made at the time of the Bludgeon reference were one explanation, (not calling for a change of opinion) one request for clarification made to the administrator in question, and one comment was left as is. Not bludgeoning at all. A separate, later thread of interaction with another editor resulted in some good sources, and indeed (and quite typically) I changed my opinion based on that other evidence. Again, not bludgeoning.
Subsequent attempts to get some resolution at WT:Don't bludgeon the process resulted in the administrator suggesting I raise an ANI, so here we are.
I'm unimpressed by the tone and actions of the administrator.
I'm considerably less inclined to participate much further. Chumpih t 18:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Don't bludgeon, and you won't be asked to stop. Don't try to change the meaning of bludgeon in a widely accepted essay, [15], and you won't get reverted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see nothing inappropriate about Dennis Brown's comments to you at that AfD. He was a bit firm with you because of your behavior there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- But I don't see what kind of "sanctions" a user could get for BLUDGEONy behavior, as was threatened at the AfD. Bludgeoning and harassing people !voting at AfDs is both annoying and common. If there is a penalty for it, please let me know so that I can ask for it next time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it continues beyond what was seen, WP:DE / WP:TE applies, which is the core that the essay covers. We've all seen it go so far it is genuinely disruptive before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm no great fan of WP:BLUDGEON, because it is often used to shut up an editor who has raised a valid point that has been ignored, but in this case, as with many, behaviour has fallen into that vast grey area where it is both valid to call it out and valid not to. Both protagonists here seem to have their heads screwed on right so the best outcome would just be for both to forget this issue and carry on editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it continues beyond what was seen, WP:DE / WP:TE applies, which is the core that the essay covers. We've all seen it go so far it is genuinely disruptive before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to see what specific actions of mine warranted Dennis Brown's comments. Can you tell me what lesson I should learn from this? Chumpih t 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- But I don't see what kind of "sanctions" a user could get for BLUDGEONy behavior, as was threatened at the AfD. Bludgeoning and harassing people !voting at AfDs is both annoying and common. If there is a penalty for it, please let me know so that I can ask for it next time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see nothing inappropriate about Dennis Brown's comments to you at that AfD. He was a bit firm with you because of your behavior there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've got to say that I agree with Chumpih's suggestion that Dennis Brown's initial comment about bludgeoning was inappropriate. It came after Chumpih posted a single response to Dennis's keep !vote. Dennis is most likely right about the notability of the subject, and Chumpih wrong, but being wrong about something, and then making a single further comment on the matter, apparently based around Wikipedia policy/guidelines, even if imperfectly understood, doesn't constitute bludgeoning as I see it. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but Dennis's initial response could easily be understood to imply 'don't disagree with me, that's bludgeoning'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The bit that stings is that threats of sanctions were made, from an administrator who has the means to carry these out. If some gross felony was being perpetrated - some continued disruptive editing, then fine, meter out the threat, and then later meter out the sanction. But in this circumstance such threats seem to be a significant abuse of power. It's toxic. It's unpleasant. Chumpih t 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the essay, it would answer a lot of your questions. And I couldn't personally have carried out any sanction, and that should have been clear. Saying I will "seek sanctions" clearly means I wouldn't be the one dishing them out, which I can't do if I'm involved in the discussion. The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions. It was not yet bludgeoning, but I could see that it was very possible, which is why I said " It is neither necessary nor desirable to reply to every comment", one of the bits of assistence from the essay. You went on to prove me right on bludgeoning. What is most disappointing is the fact that you later admit the topic is notable, yet were not willing to withdraw the nomination, something that is generally expected. When I said "You don't understand what you are talking about", I meant it, and is has proven to be the case. I didn't say until you had commented several times. And yes, I'm much more vigorous (less patient) as "an editor" than as "an admin", and have little patience with people who I think are wasting time because they don't understand what it going on but think they do. ie: you failed point about WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, for instance. I can't honestly apologize for that, as once again, I feel like time is being wasted due to you not understanding. I suggest simply moving on and learning from the experience, but I don't think you are likely to take advice from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, and the essay was read.
- You stated:
The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions
. That's just plain wrong - please refer to your change and consider the state of what was there at the time. - Re willingness after I admitted the notability, I'm happy to withdraw, and I'm also happy to allow the process to run to its conclusion, with those acknowledgements from me already there for the closing admin. In bold type.
- Apart from that, you expressed a vituperative tirade of WP:ADHOM. For your info, that's not an essay, that's a policy. Threats, insults, lack of civility. The works. Your conduct is poor. Chumpih t 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- And you are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you don't know what you are talking about, and again, you are misreading policy. That isn't ad hominem, that is an observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- re.
once again, you don't know what you are talking about
Will the WP:Personal Attacks from you ever cease? Chumpih t 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)- This again proves me right. That isn't a personal attack. If I called you a "butthead", that might be. If I said "you are probably too dense to understand", that might be ad hominem. If I say "you don't understand", that is an observation that is in no way insulting. It is informative, it is opinion, it is neutral. So this too, is just one more thing you don't understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your conduct is poor. Chumpih t 23:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think any person can know what another person does or does not understand, especially strangers on the internet communicating by text, and it's better to avoid commenting on other people's state of knowledge or understanding. It is condescending, judgmental, too close to calling another person stupid, and will almost always cause offense. I hope this helps everyone gain an understanding of how to better communicate in the future :-) (see how that sounds condescending?) Levivich 07:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- This again proves me right. That isn't a personal attack. If I called you a "butthead", that might be. If I said "you are probably too dense to understand", that might be ad hominem. If I say "you don't understand", that is an observation that is in no way insulting. It is informative, it is opinion, it is neutral. So this too, is just one more thing you don't understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- re.
- And you are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you don't know what you are talking about, and again, you are misreading policy. That isn't ad hominem, that is an observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the essay, it would answer a lot of your questions. And I couldn't personally have carried out any sanction, and that should have been clear. Saying I will "seek sanctions" clearly means I wouldn't be the one dishing them out, which I can't do if I'm involved in the discussion. The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions. It was not yet bludgeoning, but I could see that it was very possible, which is why I said " It is neither necessary nor desirable to reply to every comment", one of the bits of assistence from the essay. You went on to prove me right on bludgeoning. What is most disappointing is the fact that you later admit the topic is notable, yet were not willing to withdraw the nomination, something that is generally expected. When I said "You don't understand what you are talking about", I meant it, and is has proven to be the case. I didn't say until you had commented several times. And yes, I'm much more vigorous (less patient) as "an editor" than as "an admin", and have little patience with people who I think are wasting time because they don't understand what it going on but think they do. ie: you failed point about WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, for instance. I can't honestly apologize for that, as once again, I feel like time is being wasted due to you not understanding. I suggest simply moving on and learning from the experience, but I don't think you are likely to take advice from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The bit that stings is that threats of sanctions were made, from an administrator who has the means to carry these out. If some gross felony was being perpetrated - some continued disruptive editing, then fine, meter out the threat, and then later meter out the sanction. But in this circumstance such threats seem to be a significant abuse of power. It's toxic. It's unpleasant. Chumpih t 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dennis didn't misuse (or use) his tools or brandish his admin status, so you're right, Chumpih was out of line in raising the point. Admins can be sanctioned for poor conduct "unbefitting an admin" (or words to that effect) but that was not the case here. However I do think that he should not have threatened sanctions. That just inflamed the situation. Yes, bludgeoning was going on, but it didn't rise to the level of sanctions. Also there were ad hominems, as Levivich points out. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that anything was ad hominem, particularly saying I would seek sanctions, as that can't be ad hominem by definition. But I won't labor it, if someone thinks I was a bit harsh, I respect that. I will freely admit I'm more blunt and to the point when my editor hat is on, compared to when I'm using the bits, where I tend to be much more reserved. And my level of patience isn't as high. But all this strikes me as crocodile tears, crying out to play the victim, looking for validation. This is demonstrated by the fact that they tried to go change the meaning of bludgeon in the essay so it no longer applied to them. That is a bit comical. Could I have been sweeter and kinder? Sure, everyone can be in any interaction they have, but that isn't the point and isn't any policy violation, and it surely has zero to do with my admin bit. I don't like people wasting my time, and now they have wasted yours as well, including the fact that they didn't withdraw the AFD once they admitted the subject was notable. Ok, I'm done here, wasted a lot of time that could have been spent on articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've made a tweak to WP:BLUDGEON that hopefully will help matters going forward (if people read it). [16] Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that anything was ad hominem, particularly saying I would seek sanctions, as that can't be ad hominem by definition. But I won't labor it, if someone thinks I was a bit harsh, I respect that. I will freely admit I'm more blunt and to the point when my editor hat is on, compared to when I'm using the bits, where I tend to be much more reserved. And my level of patience isn't as high. But all this strikes me as crocodile tears, crying out to play the victim, looking for validation. This is demonstrated by the fact that they tried to go change the meaning of bludgeon in the essay so it no longer applied to them. That is a bit comical. Could I have been sweeter and kinder? Sure, everyone can be in any interaction they have, but that isn't the point and isn't any policy violation, and it surely has zero to do with my admin bit. I don't like people wasting my time, and now they have wasted yours as well, including the fact that they didn't withdraw the AFD once they admitted the subject was notable. Ok, I'm done here, wasted a lot of time that could have been spent on articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Would it be correct to conclude that it's appropriate to refer to an editor with Administrative privileges as
administrator
only when they're acting in an administrative capacity? If someone on their user page statesThis user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia
, is that statement to be disregarded in most interactions? Let's refer to an Editor With Administrative Privileges as an EWAP.
Are we to look upon the conduct and interactions of such time-served and trusted EWAPs as exemplary, or not?
Is it fair to conclude that it's acceptable for the EWAP to threaten to seek sanctions that the EWAP has the power to impose, because they wouldn't impose those sanctions, they would only recommend to their peers that the sanctions should be imposed.
Do please let me know if these conclusions are correct or not. Chumpih t 20:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)- Chumpih seemingly prefers to take nothing on board that anybody says to them at this board, and this latest post of theirs has devolved into downright trolling. Compare the Pestering section of Meta:What is a troll. I suggest this be closed ASAP, with or without a boomerang, so as not to waste editors' time further. Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC).
repeated personal attacks by Phil Bridger
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reported User:Phil Bridger a while back here for repeatedly accusing me of racism. Unfortunately he didn't receive a warning or anything at the time, because he's back to insulting me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clare's Girls' School (2nd nomination) . Where among other things he accused me multiple times of "peddling lies" and treating the AfD like a battleground for mentioning an RfC, and he also called out my intelligence. I asked him to assume good faith, drop the insults, and stop bludgeoning the discussion, but he's seems unwilling to. So it would be great if he received a warning for personally attacking me and bludgeoning the AfD. At this point I'm extremely sick of him showing up in my AfD just to insult me. He should at least receive a warning about it if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I simply called out the lie in the deletion nomination, that the South China Morning Post had been "determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong", when it had not, and pointed out that Adamant1's quote of a guideline that "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools...must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both" was accurate, and that the words "all" and "or" should be interpreted as common English words with an obvious meaning. If we can't rely on people to tell the truth in discussions then WP:AGF is disastrously undermined. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- How am I lying when I said multiple times that what I said was my own opinion based on my reading of the RfCs and that other people could ignore them if they wanted to? I told you I don't think what people said in the RfCs are the authoritative, be all end all, last-word on if The South China Morning Post is a reliable source or not. What's lying about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Then open a new RFC. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 21:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I will. That has nothing to do with this ANI complaint or Phil Bridger's attitude toward me about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant1, please address what you actually wrote in the deletion nomination, and what everyone can see that you wrote: "...the South China Morning Post, a reference that was subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong where this school is located." It is that which is a lie, not what you claim to have written in the reply starting "How am I lying...?", which is something completely different from what you actually wrote. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger: as I've stated multiple times now and you seem unwilling to accept for some reason, that was the conclusion I came to after reading through all comments in the four RfCs and the infobox. WP:SCMP clearly says "there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba." Notice it says there "including." Maybe it's just because I don't understand basic English or whatever, but as far as I'm aware "including" doesn't mean "exclusively." So we can use discretion to decide what it's an un-reliable source for outside of the topics explicitly mentioned in the infobox. Like personally I wouldn't trust SCMP coverage of anything related to the South China Sea. It doesn't really matter that the infobox doesn't explicitly mention the South China Sea as something they are un-reliable on. The point in summary infobox is to be a summary, not a 1/1 recreation of every single thing covered in the RfCs or a complete list of every possible topic that a source might be un-reliable about. What about that do you disagree with outside of the whole "your peddling obvious lies" thing? Which, to put it mildly, has been extremely circular at best. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure "including" doesn't mean "exclusively", but it also doesn't mean "on any topic related to Hong Kong" -- that's something you appear to have invented. It is difficult to see how a person acting honestly could put forward the arguments you have in the AfD. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The reason I said "on topics related to Hong Kong" was because several people said in the RfCs that it probably be trusted as a reliable source for some topics related to Hong Kong. Which I've been upfront about since Sun8908 asked me to clarify things. Looking back I probably could have phrased the nomination better to make that and the fact that it was just opinion clear, but I did say in the nomination that the sources weren't usable because they were trivial even if it is a reliable source. So I didn't think it mattered all that much. It should go without saying that what nominators say is solely their opinions without them having to explicitly say so in their nomination message. Like know one says "In my opinion this article doesn't pass the notability guidelines, because in my opinion there's only trivial coverage, in what are in my opinion the only references that exist. Etc. Etc. My opinion, my opinion." No one is there accusing them of "spinning lies" or being dishonest either just because they aren't prefacing every damn thing they say with "my opinion, my opinion, my opinion." No one expects that to be the standard and it's not on me if you or Phil Bridger think it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure "including" doesn't mean "exclusively", but it also doesn't mean "on any topic related to Hong Kong" -- that's something you appear to have invented. It is difficult to see how a person acting honestly could put forward the arguments you have in the AfD. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger: as I've stated multiple times now and you seem unwilling to accept for some reason, that was the conclusion I came to after reading through all comments in the four RfCs and the infobox. WP:SCMP clearly says "there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba." Notice it says there "including." Maybe it's just because I don't understand basic English or whatever, but as far as I'm aware "including" doesn't mean "exclusively." So we can use discretion to decide what it's an un-reliable source for outside of the topics explicitly mentioned in the infobox. Like personally I wouldn't trust SCMP coverage of anything related to the South China Sea. It doesn't really matter that the infobox doesn't explicitly mention the South China Sea as something they are un-reliable on. The point in summary infobox is to be a summary, not a 1/1 recreation of every single thing covered in the RfCs or a complete list of every possible topic that a source might be un-reliable about. What about that do you disagree with outside of the whole "your peddling obvious lies" thing? Which, to put it mildly, has been extremely circular at best. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Then open a new RFC. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 21:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- How am I lying when I said multiple times that what I said was my own opinion based on my reading of the RfCs and that other people could ignore them if they wanted to? I told you I don't think what people said in the RfCs are the authoritative, be all end all, last-word on if The South China Morning Post is a reliable source or not. What's lying about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant1, Phil was not bludgeoning. You were. From what I can tell, you interpreted an RFC incorrectly and continued to push those incorrect views instead of looking at the RFC again when challenged. The South China Morning Post is only unreliable when related to Chinese and Hong Kong politics, instead of anything related to China or Hong Kong as you seem to believe. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 20:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- He left 4 messages where he criticized me and didn't even vote in the AfD. Two of which were made after I asked him to stop insulting me and assume good faith. I don't see how that's not bludgeoning. Maybe it would be different if he had of actually voted and responding to something I had said to him, but neither thing that he replied to had anything to do with him. As far as me "believing" he South China Morning Post is unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong, that is me belief based on the RfC discussions. Which I read through and participated in. I never claimed that it was more then my belief. Nor did I say people have to agree with me. In fact I was extremely clear that people could ignore the RfCs and vote based on other things. I could care less and I've said so more then once. How exactly is me saying multiple times that it was just my opinion and people can ignore the RfCs if they want to "pushing my view" on anyone? Let alone how does me citing the RfCs, even if I read them wrong, justify Phil Bridger accusing me of lying multiple times (including here) or commenting about my intelligence? It's not lying to wrongly interpret something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- To be blunt, I don't see any personal attacks here. I see Adamant1 proposing deletion arguments that stretch credulity, and Phil Bridger expressing his opinion that those arguments are invalid. That's what happens at AfD. Just because a single user made a comment in one RfC doesn't mean that that comment has consensus to become an enforceable rule or norm regarding the reliability of a source. And clearly, no school needs to satisfy both the GNG and a secondary notability guideline in order to be considered notable. These two arguments are simply wrong, and you're just upset that Phil Bridger called you out on them. Could Phil have been nicer in his efforts to point out the shortcomings in your reading of WP policy? Sure. But none of this is anywhere close to necessitating any kind of sanctions for incivility. In my opinion, this doesn't belong at ANI at all, this is just an editor who is butthurt about being called out on their misguided efforts to delete an article, and they're whining at ANI in an attempt to intimidate Phil Bridger and/or find other people that are sympathetic to their cause. —ScottyWong— 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- First of all it wasn't a single person. Secondly, he didn't just call me out on them. I could really give a crap if someone says I'm wrong about something. There's a huge difference between that though and saying I'm "peddling obvious lies." I can guarantee I wouldn't be right now if he had of said I miss-read the RfCs from start without making the needless insults in the process. Same goes for him questioning my intelligence. My guess is that you'd probably make the same argument if he said I was Autistic or something along those lines instead.
- Adamant1 I understand your frustration but nothing Phil Bridger said rises to a violation of WP:PA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I can guarantee if things were reversed where I said someone was "peddling obvious lies" and questioned their intelligence that I'd be reported for it and Phil Bridger would jump on the indef block bandwagon like he did the last time I was reported for something. Either we all should be civil toward each and not attack each other in AfDs or it's OK to. I'm just asking he be held by the same standard that people, including him, have repeatedly told me I need to follow or be indef blocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- To be blunt, I don't see any personal attacks here. I see Adamant1 proposing deletion arguments that stretch credulity, and Phil Bridger expressing his opinion that those arguments are invalid. That's what happens at AfD. Just because a single user made a comment in one RfC doesn't mean that that comment has consensus to become an enforceable rule or norm regarding the reliability of a source. And clearly, no school needs to satisfy both the GNG and a secondary notability guideline in order to be considered notable. These two arguments are simply wrong, and you're just upset that Phil Bridger called you out on them. Could Phil have been nicer in his efforts to point out the shortcomings in your reading of WP policy? Sure. But none of this is anywhere close to necessitating any kind of sanctions for incivility. In my opinion, this doesn't belong at ANI at all, this is just an editor who is butthurt about being called out on their misguided efforts to delete an article, and they're whining at ANI in an attempt to intimidate Phil Bridger and/or find other people that are sympathetic to their cause. —ScottyWong— 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment to add one more example, I asked for clarification of the notability guidelines for organizations on the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) talk page. Phil Bridger used it as an opportunity to accuse me of "arguing for a different position" then the guidelines, which is ridiculous I'm arguing for anything in that discussion (a different position or otherwise), and he also insinuated that I asked for the clarification because I don't understand very basic English. It's not that much of an ask on my part that he be given a warning about his clearly bad faithed, insulting behavior. Especially if he's not going to lay off it on his own like I've asked him to multiple times already. How many times should I have to ask him to stop with it before he's warned for not respecting the request? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think the main problem is that all of Phil Bridger's accusations appear to be correct and valid. Even though he's not going out of his way to say these things as nicely as possible, everything he's saying about what you're trying to do in this AfD appears to be right. Maybe instead of directing your anger at Phil, you should try to practice some introspection and figure out why you are going to such lengths to try to delete this particular article. Why is it so important to you that the article be deleted, that you'd nominate it twice for deletion (despite the first AfD only getting unanimous keep votes), misrepresent the consensus of an RfC in an attempt to downgrade a source to unreliable status, and misconstrue the basic definition of WP notability in an attempt to prove that the subject is non-notable? Either you're doing these things willfully and knowingly, or your judgement is so clouded by some emotional attachment to the subject that you're making these mistakes in good faith. Either way, I think you need to realize that the problem here is you, not Phil Bridger. —ScottyWong— 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was not going to suggest a boomerang here, but I just got in to discover this, which is completely beyond the pale. Anyone who believes that there may be something in what was said there should note that I edited that discussion 90 minutes before this AfD report was started. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you modified your comment to reflect the fact that I clarified why I got the time wrong and that it had nothing to do with anything that was "beyond the pale", completely or otherwise. As I said, I'm just not good at reading military time. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looking all this over, I agree with Scottywong -- either Adamant1's judgment is clouded by something or other, or there's willful chicanery going on, because one would think that anyone with a soupcon of common sense would get that (a) any question about the reliability of South China Morning Post ought to be strictly limited to the Chinese government, (b) that question would be quite recent in nature, (c) neither pertain to neutral subjects like a bloody school, nor (d) impeach the several other sources cited in both the article and the relevant AfDs, leaving aside the 64 $HKD question that (e) there has not been any consensus that the SCMP is unreliable in the first place. So Adamant1, you can take your pick here: either you are indeed lying, or your competence is in question, because there is no flipping way it's possible to read ... [t]he clear consensus is therefore in favor of "Generally reliable for factual reporting" but there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply at some higher level of scrutiny than "normal". Particular concerns mentioned include SCMP coverage of the mainland China government, the Chinese Communist Party. or Alibaba" to mean that the SCMP is unreliable with regards to reporting of a Catholic girls school. Which option do you like better? Ravenswing 00:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I reject both options. There's a lot of language here and in the infobox along the lines of "particular", "includes", "rough consensus", "generally", Etc. Etc. Even the infobox says "additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics" but leaves out what those topics are and leaves it up to the reader to decide. Which doesn't make it sound like there is a 100% conclusive outcome that SCMP is only un-reliable for things directly related to the Chinese Government and nothing else. Otherwise, the infobox should just say so. That said, I'm more then willing to agree based on the feedback I've received that my reading of the vague language was ultimately wrong. Making the only two possible choices here either that I'm lying or incompetence is both bad faithed and overly simplistic though. Ultimately the mistake was caused by a number of things, none of which had anything to with lying or a lack of competence. That said, I'm still 100% responsible for what I write in my nominations messages and I will be more cautious about citing RfCs in them next time. Honestly, I wasn't really sure about citing one in this case, but I figured people could just disregard it if they wanted to or my reading of it was wrong. Which I acknowledge was the wrong way to approach things. Hindsight is 20/20, but no one should be taking what a nominator says as the last or de-facto word on a topic either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed not, but that doesn't mean that a nominator can be cavalier about their duty to know what the hell they're talking about and accurately cite appropriate guidelines and policies. A nominator also has the responsibility to clean up their own messes. You claim you're "100% responsible" for what you write? Fair enough. Then why haven't you withdrawn what is an AfD filed on erroneous grounds? Ravenswing 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nowhere in that AfD or anywhere else have I been cavalier about anything. On the question of why I haven't withdrawn the AfD, I didn't feel there was a need to withdraw it since there's obviously zero chance at this point of it not closing as keep and I'm not generally into doing things that are merely performative virtue signaling. That said, I have commented in the AfD that I'm fine with it being closed as keep (procedurally or otherwise) by anyone that feels like doing so. Since I could really care less what the outcome of the AfD is. Obviously there's no point in keeping it going though if no one is going to discuss the sources or just use their keep votes as an opportunity to attack me. Hell, you could have closed it yourself instead of wasting a vote by continuing the disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty well everyone who has called for the article to be kept has referred to the sources. Your problem seems to be that they have referred to them in accordance with the existing consensus-agreed policies and guidelines, rather than as they are in some fantasy world of yours where "or" does not mean "or". Once again, as has been stated above, the only problem here is with your actions. Nobody else. Many people, including me, have not commented on them much previously in the hope that you will learn, but you never seem to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever you say Phil. I wish you'd show the same energy you've shown here toward the multitude of people who actually live in a fantasy land when it comes to the guidelines, but you never will because they mostly vote keep and don't nominate articles for deletion like I do. Other then that, I don't really know how you would know what I've learned or what people have said to me about things since you haven't been involved in 99.9% of what I do on here, but I have zero urge to argue with you about it or anything else. So I'd appreciate it if you just dropped it, left me alone, and I will do the same. Seriously, assume good faith and stop treating this like a battleground. Like I said on the notability talk page, if you ever have a legitimate issue with something I do then write me a message about it on my talk page and we can discuss it in a civil manner like adults. Repeatedly airing your personal issues with my actions in random discussions isn't going to be productive though. Nor is it going to get me to give a crap about your opinion or "learn" anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- That entire paragraph is the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest you just stop replying here Adamant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- How so? I was done with the discussion awhile back. I've responded the last couple of times because Ravenswing asked me a question and then Phil Bridger needlessly continue it with his comment. I'm fine with this discussion being done though. It's clearly not going anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I was done with the discussion awhile back.
Obviously not. Let me add to the pile of voices saying, clearly and unanimously, that the only problematic behavior on display in this whole discussion is by you, and that you should probably endeavor to understand why that is rather than continuing to argue with the growing number of people pointing it out to you. --JBL (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- How exactly am I arguing about it or not understanding what people are telling me when I've agreed that posting a link to the RfC was a mistake and said I will be more cautious about it in the future? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Adamant1's newest comments on the AfD still show a profound lack of understanding, railing against how people are making a "bunch of bad faithed, off topic personal comments" instead of discussing what he wants to talk about. I'm not sure what about the premise of saying "I screwed up, I'm sorry for that, and I won't do it again" is so difficult for him to articulate. But assuming good faith works only as long as one demonstrates good faith. AGF is not a suicide pact, and does not require us to cover our eyes and keep on covering our eyes when bad faith is being manifested. Ravenswing 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I said it was a mistake, that I'm 100% responsible for my actions, and that I will be more cautious citing RfCs in AfDs going forward. How is that not saying I screwed up, won't do it again, or being bad faithed? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- How so? I was done with the discussion awhile back. I've responded the last couple of times because Ravenswing asked me a question and then Phil Bridger needlessly continue it with his comment. I'm fine with this discussion being done though. It's clearly not going anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- That entire paragraph is the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest you just stop replying here Adamant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever you say Phil. I wish you'd show the same energy you've shown here toward the multitude of people who actually live in a fantasy land when it comes to the guidelines, but you never will because they mostly vote keep and don't nominate articles for deletion like I do. Other then that, I don't really know how you would know what I've learned or what people have said to me about things since you haven't been involved in 99.9% of what I do on here, but I have zero urge to argue with you about it or anything else. So I'd appreciate it if you just dropped it, left me alone, and I will do the same. Seriously, assume good faith and stop treating this like a battleground. Like I said on the notability talk page, if you ever have a legitimate issue with something I do then write me a message about it on my talk page and we can discuss it in a civil manner like adults. Repeatedly airing your personal issues with my actions in random discussions isn't going to be productive though. Nor is it going to get me to give a crap about your opinion or "learn" anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty well everyone who has called for the article to be kept has referred to the sources. Your problem seems to be that they have referred to them in accordance with the existing consensus-agreed policies and guidelines, rather than as they are in some fantasy world of yours where "or" does not mean "or". Once again, as has been stated above, the only problem here is with your actions. Nobody else. Many people, including me, have not commented on them much previously in the hope that you will learn, but you never seem to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nowhere in that AfD or anywhere else have I been cavalier about anything. On the question of why I haven't withdrawn the AfD, I didn't feel there was a need to withdraw it since there's obviously zero chance at this point of it not closing as keep and I'm not generally into doing things that are merely performative virtue signaling. That said, I have commented in the AfD that I'm fine with it being closed as keep (procedurally or otherwise) by anyone that feels like doing so. Since I could really care less what the outcome of the AfD is. Obviously there's no point in keeping it going though if no one is going to discuss the sources or just use their keep votes as an opportunity to attack me. Hell, you could have closed it yourself instead of wasting a vote by continuing the disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed not, but that doesn't mean that a nominator can be cavalier about their duty to know what the hell they're talking about and accurately cite appropriate guidelines and policies. A nominator also has the responsibility to clean up their own messes. You claim you're "100% responsible" for what you write? Fair enough. Then why haven't you withdrawn what is an AfD filed on erroneous grounds? Ravenswing 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I reject both options. There's a lot of language here and in the infobox along the lines of "particular", "includes", "rough consensus", "generally", Etc. Etc. Even the infobox says "additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics" but leaves out what those topics are and leaves it up to the reader to decide. Which doesn't make it sound like there is a 100% conclusive outcome that SCMP is only un-reliable for things directly related to the Chinese Government and nothing else. Otherwise, the infobox should just say so. That said, I'm more then willing to agree based on the feedback I've received that my reading of the vague language was ultimately wrong. Making the only two possible choices here either that I'm lying or incompetence is both bad faithed and overly simplistic though. Ultimately the mistake was caused by a number of things, none of which had anything to with lying or a lack of competence. That said, I'm still 100% responsible for what I write in my nominations messages and I will be more cautious about citing RfCs in them next time. Honestly, I wasn't really sure about citing one in this case, but I figured people could just disregard it if they wanted to or my reading of it was wrong. Which I acknowledge was the wrong way to approach things. Hindsight is 20/20, but no one should be taking what a nominator says as the last or de-facto word on a topic either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
User making repeated small edits
N013i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just look at the edit history. In one case, they added a few sentences to an article on word at a time. Now it is mostly to their user page. Trying to get WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED? Besides this, they have created one article which is headed for deletion, MB 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The account was created in 2009 EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Right, but still far short of 500 edits. MB 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Honestly mate, I'm just doing something till the fate of MetalJesusRocks is decided, so I'll know hot to proceed in the future. If you do browse my edit history all the way back till 2009, You'll see I often create one or two articles over the years as I can amass time. ~Nabeel~N013i 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything to be concerned about here. Even if their goal is to game EC status for the purpose of editing EC-protected articles, the moment they vandalize a protected article or otherwise edit in a disruptive manner, someone will take a quick look at their editing history, very quickly realize that they gamed EC status, and block them. If they're not gaming EC status and not intending to vandalize protected articles, then no harm is being done. Although I'll admit it is strange behavior to repeatedly edit a bunch of numbers on your user page. —ScottyWong— 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Jacob300
- Jacob300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jacob300's edits are biased toward Somaliland. As far as I can see, that trend is likely to start around October 2020.
The editing trends of Jacob300, it has a very much history of deletions. Almost all of them are designed to remove statements that are detrimental to Somaliland. Jacob300 gives reasons such as "unsourced + duplication", "stable version", "No relevance to article" OR "Removed as per WP:BOLD" OR "Irrelevant". But it is clear that they are afterthoughts. Jacob300 often do editing wars for the similar reason. For examples, Las Anod, Khatumo State.
Somaliand has border disputes with its eastern neighbor, Puntland, in addition to the famous independence issue. (See also a BBC News.) This dispute involves the particular circumstances of the region, but is essentially a typical border issue. If we gather and compile information in good faith, we can find information that is favorable to Somaliland, and we can also find information that is unfavorable.
Jacob300 recently reverted several edits that I took the time to go over, without adequate explanation (Bo'ame, Buraan, El_Afweyn.) I think it's unacceptable to remove information that other editors have taken the time to research just because they doesn't like it. If ever contributed to Wikipedia after doing some research, they can imagine how demotivating it can be to do this.
I had several conversations with Jacob300 to resolve some similar issues, but his explanation was not logical.
- Talk:Khatumo State - ([17]) To show that a news site (Hiiraan Online) is a reliable source of information, I indicated a book (Between Somaliland and Puntland), but Jacob300 said, without giving any evidence, "it is also clear that Hiiran.com writers are not professional news writers." In a related discussion earlier, Jacob300 referred to the same site as "tabloids' articles," but this rationale is also not provided.
- Talk:Badhan, Sanaag - I asked Jacob300 why he reverted my edit based on a news site (Somaliland Today) as an unreliable citation, but he did not give me a clear answer.
- Sool, Somaliland - The reason for the revert by Jacob300 was unclear, so I asked his talk page for the reason, but there was no answer.
- Dhahar - Jacob300 reverted an edit of the other editor (not me) on the grounds that it was "Reverted to stable version." However, the reverted version indicated by Jacob300 are not stable, so I asked for an explanation on Jacob300's talk page, but got no answer.
I think Jacob300 is not neutral in matters concerning Somaliland, I think he should not edit anything related to Somaliland.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- At a minimum he needs a DS notice since he’s in Horn of Africa territory. 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Response: All of my edits and contributions are fully explained in related edit summaries and your notion that I remove statements “detrimental to Somaliland” are unfounded. In reference, to my edits on Bo'ame, Buraan and El-Afweyn - I have clearly stated in my edit summaries that reversions were made in accordance with WP:BOLD. If you disagreed with such edits, you could have taken this to relevant talk pages.
- For example, the edit I made on the Bo'ame page was in relation to the lack of relevance and undue weight it had on the article. In addition to unnecessarily bloating an article. E.g. in the sentence “In May 2015, Puntland's Ministry of Education visited the educational situation in Bo'ame district.” - Please explain how this is a notable event? As Wikipedia is not a news source.
- Additionally, my edit on the El-Afweyn page was also made on similar grounds. “In July 2001, the government of Puntland enacted the "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Puntland," declaring the Sanaag region, except for El Afwein and the northeastern part of Erigavo, to be its territory.” - Please explain how this relevant to the article? The addition of the header “Puntland influence” can also be viewed as not being in accordance with NPOV.
- It should also be noted that IP user 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk · contribs) has only made a single edit requesting a DS notice against me, which can be viewed as strange.
- Kind regards, Jacob300 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, you've addressed two of the issues there, fair enough. You've failed to explain several others. What makes Somaliland Today and Hiraan Online unreliable? You repeatedly use the phrase "reverted to stable version," but what makes those versions "stable," and says who? These are questions to which, as Freetrashbox accurately states, you've failed to respond. WP:BOLD does not immunize you against the need to defend your edits, when asked to do so, to the satisfaction of consensus. You may do so now. Ravenswing 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- One of the most important things to know about a town in this area is what kind of organization is providing what kind of government services. In my description, you can see that the Puntland government is involved in the administration of Bo'ame. This is quite a different feature from its neighbors Gambadhe or Fardhidin. Basically, Puntland's involvement in the administration in Sool is rare. The statements you erased together, such as the deadly conflict in August 2021, and Bo'ame's non-participation in the famous Somaliland national election of 2021, are also incidents notability of mention.
As for El Afweyn I have already explained why on the Talk page. However, your response to that was difficult to understand, as it effectively just repeated what you said before, and lacked specifics. Also, the name of the section was "Puntland influence" because the influence of Puntland was significant, and the name does not indicate that Puntland was good or bad.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- One of the most important things to know about a town in this area is what kind of organization is providing what kind of government services. In my description, you can see that the Puntland government is involved in the administration of Bo'ame. This is quite a different feature from its neighbors Gambadhe or Fardhidin. Basically, Puntland's involvement in the administration in Sool is rare. The statements you erased together, such as the deadly conflict in August 2021, and Bo'ame's non-participation in the famous Somaliland national election of 2021, are also incidents notability of mention.
Conduct problems at move discussion
- Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal attack by Achezet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Disclosing ANI discussion involving Djm-leighpark not Omegatron with regard to article/talk overlaying discussion)
Omegatron is an admin who notes "people are frustrating", at least at this version of their tlak page, which is a worrying trait for an admin; though no admin tools have been exercised in this event. I will suggest their contributions over a desire to move the article Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia have been disruptive and problematic, not of the standard to be expected of an experienced user let alone an admin where a higher standard is expected. A BOLD move of what might reasonably be expected be controversial at Special:Diff/1060932429, let alone issues because a move had previously been slightly discussed at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination/Archive 1#Adenoviruses only?, though the entire content of the talk and archive should have been. Following a somewhat assertive exchange correctly in my opinion raised a Special:Diff/1060938802 requested move on 18 December 2021. However per my comment at Special:Diff/1061542226 Omegatron had indulged in disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion and a Canvas, which while I can AGF he intended to be "fair", was, I would say, ultimately biased. Plus per WP:CANVAS good practice would have been to "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Ultimately the CANVAS issue is minor, change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter. Whether Omegatron's timing to challenge this today was to do with RL, which I can accept, although doing a CANVAS and then disappearing is not really great practice, but it can happen. However responding today a few days after the Special:Diff/1065055859 discussion was closed, half questioning my concern about discussion irregularities (and not owning the major part or the problems) at Special:Diff/1065826060 brings this here, plus Omegatron seems not to have respected closer Mike Cline's request to discuss a move review on his page as requested, but rather to continue on the article talk page dragging me into it first. This seems like behaviour that is unbecoming or any user, let alone an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to prejudice any serious discussion here, but, to be brutally honest, it is starting to look a bit like either no-one cares about this complaint, or they are all going WP:TLDR. I make no comment on the validity of the complaint. As an aside, this may be better suited to WP:AN. Just a few peanuts from the comment gallery. Cheerio. Mako001 (C) (T) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C) (T) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a
sad examplebad example to set. Thankyou. 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a
- You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C) (T) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE editing by Aydın memmedov2000
- Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[18]
- Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[19] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[20]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[21]
- Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[22]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[23]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[24]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[25]
- Warned on numerous occassions.[26]-[27]-[28]-[29]
Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- from what I've seen personally, I agree that the reported user is a NOTHERE nationalist editor. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- this kind of behaviour is hard to treat, a topic ban with an option of applying for a ban lift in 6 months if behaves in other areas perhaps could treat the problem. --Armatura (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Eastern Geek and EC permission gaming
Eastern Geek has, for their first 500 edits, made some 140+ useless edits to his common.js (examples [30], [31], [32]) and for the rest a series of category changes later self-reverted, see for example [33] and [34]. Since reaching 500 edits and 1 month tenure, the user has begun to focus on ARBPIA topics. As in other cases this feels like obvious socking, but even without spending the time to figure out who it is (guessing Yaniv) the extended-confirmed status was clearly gamed and should be revoked. nableezy - 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Eastern Geek (talk · contribs) has made a total of 562 edits from 5 December 2021 to 16 January 2022. That includes 143 edits to User:Eastern Geek/common.js and 218 edits using Cat-a-lot. I plan to remove the extended confirmed user right. I'm wondering if that needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Palestine-Israel articles. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought if you remove the extended confirmed user right, it gets restored automatically next time the user edits?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the extended confirmed user right and I believe it will not be automatically re-added. It could be added by an administrator if they were satisfied that it was appropriate. I notified the user but I'm still not sure whether it needs to be logged (I can't find any examples of similar actions being logged). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, I do not think it needs to be logged.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the extended confirmed user right and I believe it will not be automatically re-added. It could be added by an administrator if they were satisfied that it was appropriate. I notified the user but I'm still not sure whether it needs to be logged (I can't find any examples of similar actions being logged). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought if you remove the extended confirmed user right, it gets restored automatically next time the user edits?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I remembered an SPI discussion where an editor said that User:Icewhiz's sockpuppets used the strategy of racking 500 edits by making minute adjustments to pages, and editing PIA pages once the accounts became Excon'ed. Could we consider sending Eastern Geek there? Apolitically yours, NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's something that gets done by many socks in that area. Yaniv is fairly similar to Icewhiz, and they seem to coordinate off-wiki. They are similar enough that relatively few users can tell them apart. Nableezy is quite familiar with both. I'd say that if Nableezy says it's Yaniv, it's more likely Yaniv than Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella is also very familiar with them, it might do to let them know about this thread? Mako001 (C) (T) 23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Icewhiz was slightly more subtle than entirely useless edits to a file in their userspace imo. On brand for Yaniv but not a slam dunk. Would bet dollars to donuts its a sock of somebody though. nableezy - 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's something that gets done by many socks in that area. Yaniv is fairly similar to Icewhiz, and they seem to coordinate off-wiki. They are similar enough that relatively few users can tell them apart. Nableezy is quite familiar with both. I'd say that if Nableezy says it's Yaniv, it's more likely Yaniv than Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella is also very familiar with them, it might do to let them know about this thread? Mako001 (C) (T) 23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
/20 block done in 2008 still needed?
Is the indefinite block at 71.127.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), done all the way back in 2008, still needed after all of these years? The range is that of a residential ISP, and the vandal is likely to be gone after all these years, so I still don't see a point having this rangeblock. wizzito | say hello! 07:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm going through the Special:BlockList to see if there's any other ye olde rangeblocks like this that should be lifted. Will update here if needed. wizzito | say hello! 07:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Another one from 2008 as well: 12.26.69.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 07:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ye olde vandalism time! (all currently indef blocked.) wizzito | say hello! 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Wizzito I've gone ahead and dropped an ani-notice with Thatcher and Mr.Z-man for you in case they have any insight on these blocks. SQLQuery Me! 08:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't know if it was needed here wizzito | say hello! 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ye olde vandalism time! (all currently indef blocked.) wizzito | say hello! 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Another one from 2008 as well: 12.26.69.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 07:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blocked editor User:Artificial Intelligence Command And Control now making threats on talk page. Access needs to be removed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Nunuxxx copyright violation
The following text added by Nunuxxx (talk · contribs · count) to Armenia–Georgia relations [35] is taken word-for-word from pages 185 and 186 of "Armenia: Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State" by Samuel Weems, an infamous genocide denier, historical negationist, and criminal:
- The sufferings of the people of Akhalkalak dwarfed the tribulations of all other Armenians in Georgia. Thirty thousand had perished as the result of the Turkish occupation, and those who survived were starving. Some mothers attempted to save their daughters by offering them as wives to Georgian militiamen and soldiers. Russian, Jewish, and Georgian entrepreneurs were reportedly buying young girls for 100 to 300 rubles and sending them to brothels; eight- to twelve-year-old orphan boys were being sold for a pittance at Bakuriani; hundreds of women and children were pressed into servitude in the adjacent Muslim districts. All roads leading away from Akhalkalak were strewn with the bodies of fleeing Armenians.
Links to the pages [36][37]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- That extract is from Richard G. Hovannisian's “The Republic of Armenia Volume II: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920”, in the second paragraph of page 151, as was cited in the Armenia-Georgia relations article. I'd like to add that if you were concerned about a copyright violation, you could have reached out to me directly instead of escalating to ANI (which is a last-resort avenue). In any case, I did not read about or hear of Samuel Weems or his book before. I believe what may have occurred is that Weems copied the extract from Hovannisian's book to validate his own publication. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nunuxxx, could you expand on this a bit, I don't seem to understand: are you saying that this has been copied verbatim from a source, just not the source that ZaniGiovanni thought it had? Is there any reason why that is not WP:COPYVIO? (Also, are those curly apostrophes?!?) Girth Summit (blether) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Essentially yes, I mistakenly forgot to place the extract in a quote block as I had intended, however, I did remember to cite the source of the extract so as to indicate its origin. I will correct this shortly, or paraphrase it, whichever is more suitable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Nunuxxx: this doesn't seem like a reliable source, shouldn't it just be removed? Levivich 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has studied the subject in great depth, I can attest to the fact that Richard G. Hovannisian is considered in English academia the foremost expert on the First Republic of Armenia which is reflected by the detailed 4 volume series on its existence which he has published through the University of California press. He is acknowledged and cited by numerous authors, Armenian and Azerbaijani alike for his reliable and thorough academic contributions to the subject, therefore, I believe his publications can with certainty be considered as reliable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake, I misread and thought you were quoting Weems not Hovannisian. Levivich 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has studied the subject in great depth, I can attest to the fact that Richard G. Hovannisian is considered in English academia the foremost expert on the First Republic of Armenia which is reflected by the detailed 4 volume series on its existence which he has published through the University of California press. He is acknowledged and cited by numerous authors, Armenian and Azerbaijani alike for his reliable and thorough academic contributions to the subject, therefore, I believe his publications can with certainty be considered as reliable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I find it hard to credit the idea that you could have mistakenly forgotten to put text like that in a quote block. This isn't just about missing some tags: when you are going to quote someone, you have to write attribution stuff around it (e.g. "Armenian American historian Richard G. Hovannisian, writing in his history on the period The Republic of Armenia (Volume II), wrote..."). You didn't bother with any of that, you just presented it as your own words, and put it inappropriately into Wikipedia's voice. That's completely inappropriate on several levels: putting the obvious COPYVIO issues to one side, historians don't write encyclopedically, the are often making an argument and writing persuasively. Their views are their own, whereas we have to attempt to represent scholarly consensus. I don't have a view on whether the source is unreliable, as Levivich suggests, but certainly inserting without attribution as you did is massively inappropriate, and it makes me worried about whether your other contributions need to be checked over. Have you ever added text from a historical work in a similar manner before? Girth Summit (blether) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have used Hovannisian's work in other articles, yes. After familiarising myself with WP:COPYVIO, I deleted one paragraph that I used from the source here. I also created this article with that source and I can nominate it for deletion for COPYVIO or you could delete it yourself. I'm a relatively new editor, I only recently became active on Wikipedia some months ago starting with adding statistical data into tables, so I'm still rather inexperienced in regards to copyright policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to pass it off as my own, that was not at all my intention and I will certainly try to be more careful in future to ensure my edits are made in accordance with WP:COPYVIO and WP:MOS. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Did you copy any content from the source into the article? Our automated copyvio detection tools don't pick up anything on that article, but they are not foolproof - if the stuff comes from an offline source like a hardcopy book, or it's an online source that the tool can't access, the copyvio won't be detected. If it only contains a few sentences that were copied, they could be removed/rewritten, then I could revdel the old versions. If most of the text of the article has been copied from the book, it would be simpler just to delete the article and start again from scratch.
- Copyright is a complex, but important part of editing here. You can start by read WP:COPYRIGHT, the overarching policy, then following the links in there to find out more. But to understand it in a nutshell, take this on board: you must not copy text from any source. Ideally, you shouldn't be basing content off of a single source - you should try to collect two or three sources covering the material you want to write about, then try to summarise what they each have to say in your own words. Occasionally, there will be particular phrases that are almost impossible to express in different words - that's OK, but keep it to an absolute minimum. If you get the the point that you have copied a whole sentence, you have gone much too far. Changing the odd word here and there is known as WP:Close paraphrasing, and it's also not permissible - if your sentence presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, just using the occasional synonym to make them different, then it is too close to the original. Even in cases where the source is out of copyright, or in the public domain, there are tags that you need to apply to provide attribution if you copy from it in order to be compliant with our policy here. Oh, and in case you were thinking about copying content from one article to another: WP:CWW. Even if you wrote the original text yourself, you need to provide attribution when copying it into a new article.
- Going further than that, there are issues with the text quoted above which make in unsuitable for an article here. One group of people's suffering dwarfing that of another group of people: that's a subjective judgment, whcih can be mentioned, but the person who wrote that needs to be attributed; Wikipedia doesn't make judgments of that sort in its own voice. The rest of it should have been summarised into a sentence or two about people being sold into servitude and prostitution in order to survive - to fit with our house style, it shouldn't be written as emotively as it currently is. Girth Summit (blether) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I did copy and cite some paragraphs (with minor adjustments to grammar and geographical terms) in that article, however, it's from an offline PDF so it may not have been detected. Alternatively, perhaps the article could be moved to a "draft" and rewritten to conform to WP, or I can rewrite it from my sandbox, whichever you think is more appropriate. Thank you for explaining the policy in-detail, I will definitely acquaint myself with WP:COPYRIGHT to make my edits more original, and also more objective in accordance to WP:NPOV, as I understand the purpose is to present an objective collection of information and facts and let the reader form their own conclusion. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for being frank about that. I've deleted the page, and its associated talk page, as a copyright infringement - copyright violations aren't permitted anywhere, including in draft space or user space I'm afraid. If you are going to copy content from a source, you need to do that offline on your own device, and ensure that it is re-written in your own words before uploading here. Girth Summit (blether) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Moneytrees, as an admin with more familiarity with copyvio issues than I have - if you could skim through the thread above, and comment on whether you think any further investigation/action is required, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit (blether) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're slightly mistaken on one point; WP:NOATT says
If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary
, so if they wrote the original text and it has not been altered by other editors, copying without attribution is permissible. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I did copy and cite some paragraphs (with minor adjustments to grammar and geographical terms) in that article, however, it's from an offline PDF so it may not have been detected. Alternatively, perhaps the article could be moved to a "draft" and rewritten to conform to WP, or I can rewrite it from my sandbox, whichever you think is more appropriate. Thank you for explaining the policy in-detail, I will definitely acquaint myself with WP:COPYRIGHT to make my edits more original, and also more objective in accordance to WP:NPOV, as I understand the purpose is to present an objective collection of information and facts and let the reader form their own conclusion. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have used Hovannisian's work in other articles, yes. After familiarising myself with WP:COPYVIO, I deleted one paragraph that I used from the source here. I also created this article with that source and I can nominate it for deletion for COPYVIO or you could delete it yourself. I'm a relatively new editor, I only recently became active on Wikipedia some months ago starting with adding statistical data into tables, so I'm still rather inexperienced in regards to copyright policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to pass it off as my own, that was not at all my intention and I will certainly try to be more careful in future to ensure my edits are made in accordance with WP:COPYVIO and WP:MOS. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Nunuxxx: this doesn't seem like a reliable source, shouldn't it just be removed? Levivich 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Essentially yes, I mistakenly forgot to place the extract in a quote block as I had intended, however, I did remember to cite the source of the extract so as to indicate its origin. I will correct this shortly, or paraphrase it, whichever is more suitable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I may some changes to the article on Samuel Weems where the material from the obit tracks with the source content, though probably in an acceptable manner. That biography raises some neutrality concerns and makes me wonder if the book mentioned at the start of this thread is actually a RS for use on WP for anything but Weems' own views. I wondered about a talk page-discussion, but figure there are few eyes on that page. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Eliez148 BLP violations
Hi everyone! Since this user is new to Wikipedia, I assumed that he is not familiar with our Wikipedia policies, specifically for Biography of a living person. This user keeps adding information without citations in an article of a living person which we all know that it's a violation. I reverted it again three times, but the user added it again, and his reasons there was stated in my talk page, he added a source but in the edit summary, imdb which we all know that it's not reliable, I hope someone can warn him cause I do not know what to say about this disruptive user. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted the latest addition, it does require a source better than imdb that was provided in an edit summary. While lacking sources, the information added is fairly innocuous.--Mvqr (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Aca1291
Aca1291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- WP:CIR, disregard of MOS guidelines despite pointing to them in edit summary and on their talk page - [38], [39], [40]
- WP:PA - [41] [42], [43]
— DaxServer (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (formatted 23:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC))
- Blocked 31 hours. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @DrKay: After these [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] personal attacks in summaries in response to the block, I don't think a 31 hour block is going to resolve the issues. Meters (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've doubled the block and revoked talk page access but if someone else thinks more drastic action is needed, I'll support that action. DrKay (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @DrKay: After these [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] personal attacks in summaries in response to the block, I don't think a 31 hour block is going to resolve the issues. Meters (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Rodneyarchambault reported by User:Bluerules
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Page: 2021 NFL Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rodneyarchambault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]
Comments:
Editor has been adding an image of DeVonta Smith to the 2021 NFL Draft article without consensus. Three other editors, including myself, have opposed this inclusion, but this editor has continued to re-add the image to the article. This editor also does not appear to assume good faith, as they claimed "trolls" wanted an image of Micah Parsons included (which had been added on Dec. 31). When I created a talk page discussion about how this editor needed a consensus to add the image, they responded "Many support me. How will you explain this fascist censorship at the gates of Heaven?".
This editor, whose account appears to have been created yesterday and has only edited the 2021 NFL Draft article, may also be using sockpuppets. Shortly after I created the talk page discussion, I received a message about the subject from User:CurtisLaFrayne, a newly-created account with no other edits. Bluerules (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Many people want Devonta Smith there, Bluerules doesn’t own the 2021 NFL Draft page. Curtis LaFrayne is not my sockpuppet. My sockpuppet’s name is Wallace Reckenshaultz and I use him to entertain my granddaughters.
I did not realize it was against the rules to make a Wikipedia account.
I was only forced to revert because of the constant defamation of the page by Mr. Bluerules. He reverted just as many times as myself in bad faith.
I never said Micah Parsons was added by trolls, I added Devonta Smith without deleting Micah Parson! I was the one who added Mr. Parson’s photo back after the repeated deletion by trolls. The original account which added Devonta Smith’s photo continuously deleted Parsons to add Smith’s. I simply fixed the issue. Bluerules decided to deface the page by taking out Mr. Smith, an amazing player, entirely! Disgraceful!
I have broken no rules and have even fixed Mr. Bluerules own mistakes!
God bless, -Rod @rodneyarchambault on insta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyarchambault (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is against the rules to ignore consensus, assume bad faith, and use sockpuppets. No other confirmed editors have voiced support for the inclusion of Smith's image. Your own edit says "Just making a new accolade for Micah Parsons to appease trolls", indicating that those who want Parsons' image included are trolls. It is incredibly suspicious that the CurtisLaFrayne appeared right after your account appeared and, like your account, is entirely dedicated to getting the Smith image added.
- Any administrator assistance would be greatly appreciated. Bluerules (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- In fairness, I think the sockpuppet comment was a joke. There is no user by that name. Obviously the disruptive editing made it clear this was WP:NOTHERE. Theknightwho (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the sockpuppet comment was a joke, but it was also attempt to deflect from his probable sockpuppet account. Thank you for the help. Bluerules (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- In fairness, I think the sockpuppet comment was a joke. There is no user by that name. Obviously the disruptive editing made it clear this was WP:NOTHERE. Theknightwho (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Tendentious editing by User:Veneta1 on article Dua Lipa
- Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This was archived on 24 December 2021 (diff) without any comments, so i brought it back.
This was archived a second time on 9 January 2022 (diff) with the suggested sanction still pending; i had posted it on the main noticeboard by mistake, but received a couple of comments nonetheless.
This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing; even after being reported at WP:ANI on 20 December. This needs some attention, and hopefully an admin will take a better look, now that i brought the report back from the archives.
Diffs of User:Veneta1
- 01:48, 10 March 2021
- 03:17, 15 March 2021
- 20:47, 6 April 2021
- 21:36, 6 April 2021
- 22:23, 6 April 2021
- 00:04, 27 April 2021
- 21:48, 28 April 2021
- 00:07, 29 April 2021
- 15:16, 30 April 2021
- 22:46, 31 May 2021
- 19:30, 5 June 2021
- 21:27, 26 June 2021
- 16:34, 18 July 2021
- 05:44, 23 August 2021
- 19:48, 23 August 2021
- 22:06, 23 August 2021
- 09:18, 24 August 2021
- 09:01, 1 September 2021
- 21:52, 1 September 2021
- 00:01, 9 September 2021
- 05:27, 12 September 2021
- 07:03, 16 September 2021
- 22:49, 30 September 2021
- 08:00, 15 October 2021
- 18:55, 20 October 2021
- 08:23, 17 December 2021
- 17:24, 17 December 2021
- 13:16, 19 December 2021
- 14:00, 20 December 2021
- 01:14, 27 December 2021
Diffs of edit warring warning
- 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
- 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
- 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
- 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
- 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
- 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
- 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
Sidenote: I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The editor should be given an warning, and avoid repeating these edits unless they discuss it first on the talk page and seek consensus, providing that they have reliable sources to back their edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, they shouldn't be given another warning, because they've had seven warnings already. They've edited their own talk page so we know those warnings have been received. They've been informed of what policy says. We're now well within sanctions territory. Suggest a pblock from editing Dua Lipa, which would be revocable once they indicate an intent to edit within policy.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I agree; a WP:PBAN seems like the most appropriate sanction. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- This report is still pending administrative action. If any administrators are reading this and can impose the suggested sanction, i would appreciate it; unless someone disagrees. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I agree; a WP:PBAN seems like the most appropriate sanction. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, they shouldn't be given another warning, because they've had seven warnings already. They've edited their own talk page so we know those warnings have been received. They've been informed of what policy says. We're now well within sanctions territory. Suggest a pblock from editing Dua Lipa, which would be revocable once they indicate an intent to edit within policy.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Demetrios1993: If this is still happening in January 2022, please post the diffs of it. If it is not still happening in January 2022, then this is done and can go back to the archives: you've already achieved the goal, which is to stop this from happening. Levivich 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Thanks for the reply. The issue is that Veneta1 continued with the same disruptive editing even after he/she was reported at WP:ANI on 20 December 2021. So, i don't think my report had anything to do with it; i assume the only reason he/she hasn't disrupted the article since 27 December 2021, is because he/she hasn't bother editing Wikipedia, as is evident from his/her contributions. Nonetheless, the fact is that the user has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet this didn't prevented him/her from the same behavior. Assuming good faith is very hard at this point, and i feel that if the user isn't sanctioned appropriately, we will have to deal with the same matter in the future. Again, this is an issue of tendentious editing, which has helped the user evade detection for a long period of time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PBLOCK issued (not a PBAN, which is something quite different). Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Thanks for dealing with the matter. By the way, in short and for future reference, what's the difference between a WP:PBLOCK and a WP:PBAN? Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- A PBLOCK is a block from editing the article, a PBAN is a ban from the page, including its talk page. The advantage of a PBLOCK is that it leaves the talk page open for constructive discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was confused, because WP:PBAN, as it is written, implies the possibility of including or excluding an article's talk page from the ban. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- A PBLOCK is a block from editing the article, a PBAN is a ban from the page, including its talk page. The advantage of a PBLOCK is that it leaves the talk page open for constructive discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Thanks for dealing with the matter. By the way, in short and for future reference, what's the difference between a WP:PBLOCK and a WP:PBAN? Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PBLOCK issued (not a PBAN, which is something quite different). Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd be comfortable with a tban. AGF isn't a suicide pact, and we've got manifest proof of the editor's intent. Ravenswing 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I also gave them an alert for Arb Balkans edits, as this does seem to fit into "broadly construed", and should make enforcement easier if they continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- This user cites EPRESS.AM - an apparently, agonisingly, laughingly unreliable source, which cites an unknown social media user's unidentifiable facebook post, about an unheard "hydrogen bomb Armenians used" written with CAPS LOCKs and ??? marks, to prove a point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons". The fact that epress.am does not even have contacts, an editor, domain registration details, literally ANYTHING to make it an media outlet, that it is full of taboo words and incomprehensible profanity like "ժաժ տալուց բռնին" ("caught when jerking") or "ձեր լավը քունեմ" (I f***ed your mothers) and "փրկիր, տեր աստված" ("help me God, my Lord"), վիրտուալ հիսուս ("virtual Jesus"), "mr. putin will see you now" does not worry Grandmaster at all. He won't listen and keeps beating the dead horse again, and again.
- Grandmaster does not see or chooses not to see an apparent propaganda. E.g. he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying "That is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?... Btw, that BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima after the Armenian occupation."
- Grandmaster tests other users' good faith in him by using double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it unduly high weight like in Epress.am craziness example, or giving it unduly low weight weight, like here, by removing Armenian villager's quote despite it is cited by neutral RS", depending what better suits his POV-pushing for the given context.
This user chronically violates WP:CIR, WP:CPUSH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:ADVOCACY policies, disregards all pleas for stopping that behaviour by using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and keeps trolling the discussion till the opponent leaves the field out of desperation. No reasoning, no friendly word of caution, no warning, nothing affects Grandmaster. He just has this narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys", and edits under this light in recognisable WP:TENDENTIOUS style, just below the threshold to avoid a ban. I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed, would be the only helpful remedy.--Armatura (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is another baseless report on me by this user. Previously he joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [56] Recently he filed a 3RR report on me [57], which was dismissed without action, when I reported a banned IP user. This report here is a part of the same pattern of baseless reporting, apparently in order to resolve content disagreements using this board. I do not see that I violated any rules by disagreeing with Armatura's opinion. Regarding the discussion at Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself. Also, Armatara repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, which you can see even in this report, where he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Or bad faith assumption like this? Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [58]. Grandmaster 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wish I heard even a single word of reflection, Grandmaster, in which case I could perhaps accept your repentance, but alas. Oh, my previous ANI discussions and the interaction ban, you're saying? (even though for 14 years of being on Wikipedia I have never been blocked from any article or topic and even though my IBAN was effectively revoked). And you reserve a right to talk about "retaliation"? Aren't you the one who used to say that no need to mention previous sanctions? Or do I have to list your previous 10 blocks, most of them in AA area, here, one by one ? Or do I need to mention that you were one of the leaders of Anti-Armenian off-wiki coordination mail-list on Russian Wikipedia? All these old crimes would not matter, of course, if only your behaviour changed. But alas, you have not learnt the lesson in two decades. You do not hear when people tell you are wrong. You don't retract your POV even when it is ridiculously, apparently wrong, such as citing EPRESS.AM pile of blog-style lunacy and extreme profanity as an "example of Armenian media". Because you physically cannot. And good faith is not enough, competence and basic skill is required to edit controversial topics of Wikipedia, others should not clean the mess you create constantly. --Armatura (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Blocks from 15 years ago? Or incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki? The interaction ban that I mentioned was placed on you less than a year ago. The rest is more bad faith assumption and personal attacks, which I'm not going to comment on. Grandmaster 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have never done anything like you did (and been rightly blocked for, inclusive of BAD-faith off-wiki coordination), and if you want to hang on a single IBAN as a last hope, please be conscientious enough to mention that it was effectively rescinded (search my name here and see why). What amazes me, though, that speaking in your defense, you chose not to reflect on your own actions AT ALL, and instead focused shooting random targets as if this was some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Armatura (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- When you try to push some nonsense as "an example of Armenian media", do you even pay attention that it is an alleged non-identifiable Facebook post of a non-identifiable person in a blog with non-identifiable registration, with genial passages like this "кочевых варваров-вампиров" ("nomadic barbarian-vampires" - about Azerbaijanis), "так и надо, имел я город и маму турок" (they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother), etc? You just Google-dig a blog at some internet-sewer that publishes extreme sexual profanity and you present it as "an example of Armenian media" to prove your point? And you want others to simply swallow and not even dare to criticise your actions because you will backfire with badfaith accusation? You focus on "even an Armenian journalist" to prove a point, but an Armenian village head's account published by a reliable neutral non-Armenian source is unreliable for you and so it has to be removed? And you want those double standards to be respected?--Armatura (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board asking to ban your opponent looks like overreaction. Profanity is not prohibited in wiki articles. However, as I said, this source was not intended for use in the article, I showed it to you just as an illustration that the analogy is made by Armenian news outlets too. If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam. As for the village head, how qualified is he to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But when you restored it, I left it at that. Grandmaster 10:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Are you still defending that sh*thole and calling it "Armenian news outlet"? You know there is a limit to your WP:CRUSH, and it shouldn't be tolerated, especially in ANI.
If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam
- Oh who could've thought, another great example. Institute for War and Peace Reporting isn't an "Armenian news outlet" though, is it? I like how the premise changes as we go further lol. From the article:- "IWPR was founded in 1991 under the name Yugofax initially a newsletter that reported on the troubling developments throughout the Balkans from a balanced perspective. As the conflict developed into an all out war, Yugofax newsletter changed its name to Balkan War Report."
- And btw, IWPR's "Armenian reporter" isn't part of the Armenian media either. As a simple example, when New York Times publishes an article by an Italian reporter/journalist of theirs, that doesn't make New York Times Italian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said that IWPR was Armenian. I even linked to IWPR wiki page. Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- And btw, even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons. This is an article by an Armenian journalist, titled "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?" I'm sure you will not accuse Armenian media of propaganda in favor of Azerbaijan. - 19:49, 16 January 2022
- This is published at Epress.am, which is a media outlet in Armenia. - 20:13, 16 January 2022
- What fringe theory do I promote? I do not propose to use this source in the article, the purpose is to demonstrate the usage of the term in mass media. The author of this Armenian publication compares the present condition of Agdam with the aftermath of a nuclear attack... - 21:10, 16 January 2022
- The premise both in talk and in here is whether Armenian media used the term or not. When you were shown that your "Armenian media" is some sh*thole website with randmo self-proclaimed "Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука (Ruben Vardazaryan from Facebook)] author, you reply with some cope out one liner to me. When one says,
If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam
, you are supposed to show an actual legitimate Armenian media source, which was the whole point of the discussion, and which you failed to do, pushing your WP:CRUSH relentlessly. I can't believe I have to lay down all of this like I'm talking to a child, I don't believe that you don't understand all of this after so much talk, and I'm just struggling to assume good faith at this point. - Btw, I like that you weren't bothered by all the anti-Azeri/Turkic sentences in the article and by its rando nobody author, but I guess one goes "blind" when the article says FRINGE "Hydrogenic bomb dropped on Agdam" nonsense, or when you can suggest it as "Armenian media outlet", so long as it helps your POV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never said that IWPR was Armenian. I even linked to IWPR wiki page. Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board asking to ban your opponent looks like overreaction. Profanity is not prohibited in wiki articles. However, as I said, this source was not intended for use in the article, I showed it to you just as an illustration that the analogy is made by Armenian news outlets too. If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam. As for the village head, how qualified is he to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But when you restored it, I left it at that. Grandmaster 10:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Blocks from 15 years ago? Or incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki? The interaction ban that I mentioned was placed on you less than a year ago. The rest is more bad faith assumption and personal attacks, which I'm not going to comment on. Grandmaster 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wish I heard even a single word of reflection, Grandmaster, in which case I could perhaps accept your repentance, but alas. Oh, my previous ANI discussions and the interaction ban, you're saying? (even though for 14 years of being on Wikipedia I have never been blocked from any article or topic and even though my IBAN was effectively revoked). And you reserve a right to talk about "retaliation"? Aren't you the one who used to say that no need to mention previous sanctions? Or do I have to list your previous 10 blocks, most of them in AA area, here, one by one ? Or do I need to mention that you were one of the leaders of Anti-Armenian off-wiki coordination mail-list on Russian Wikipedia? All these old crimes would not matter, of course, if only your behaviour changed. But alas, you have not learnt the lesson in two decades. You do not hear when people tell you are wrong. You don't retract your POV even when it is ridiculously, apparently wrong, such as citing EPRESS.AM pile of blog-style lunacy and extreme profanity as an "example of Armenian media". Because you physically cannot. And good faith is not enough, competence and basic skill is required to edit controversial topics of Wikipedia, others should not clean the mess you create constantly. --Armatura (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Both of you chill out. Neither one of you is helping your own case by continuing to argue here, it just pisses everyone off. There's clearly a lot going on here, just wait until an administrator gets around to assessing this situation. Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
BoomerangArmatura created an RfC at Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" about highly-charged language with a definite POV. There is no...neutrally worded, short and simple
statement to start the RfC. Armatura instead advocates for their interpretation of the sourcing of the dispute. Armatura then WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by disputing every post that Grandmaster makes. Their OP here compounds the issue by making charges here that are poorly-supported by their presented diff's. the hyperbole of:The fact that epress.am does not even have contacts, an editor, domain registration details, literally ANYTHING to make it an media outlet, that it is full of taboo words and incomprehensible profanity...
belong at RSN if they wish to challenge GM's statement ofThis is published at Epress.am, which is a media outlet in Armenia.
It is not a behavioral issue but rather mundane sourcing dispute and GM's statement and overall behavior have been very neutrally-worded.Although it takes two to tango, this complaint shows that the disruptive behavior is more a result of Armatura's editing and probably deserves an WP:ARBAA2 partial block.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)- Striking per ZaniGiovanni's statement and input. I did not read back far enough for the prior discussion. I still believe that Armatura has poorly reacted but no sanctions are indicated. Both editors should leave the talk page alone and let the RfC ply out with other editors input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - If there is to be a witch hunt, it should be done by professional witch hunters at Arbitration Enforcement who have experience in dealing with the refighting of wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I was following this discussion, contemplating whether to comment or not, but the out-of-context stuff posted here is just too much.
- 1) Eggishorn I would kindly ask you to strike that "boomerang" proposal per the following - We actually had a talk discussion in Agdam prior to the RfC, see "Hiroshima of Caucasus" phrase promotion. You see, when talk consensus was actually against Grandmaster, Grandmaster himself suggested that RfC, for the reason unknown to me. And Armatura, even though having clear talk consensus, agreed for an RfC and opened it. This is not the first time Grandmaster suggests an RfC when talk consensus is against his POV btw, see Involved close overturned, discussion re-opened in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Grandmaster didn't bet an eye when their past colleague from ru-wiki (so much for the
incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki
) inappropriately closed that discussion as an involved party, but he momentarily "suggested an RfC" (again) when the close was correctly overturned by an admin. Please don't make such BOLD proposals without knowing the context. - 2) Grandmaster showing that vulgar blog website as "even Armenia media uses the phrase" is highly inappropriate. EPRESS.AM isn't "the Armenian media", it's a lunatic blog and that particular "article" was posted by some rando from facebook. What is even more inappropriate, though, is Grandmaster's continual defense of that website and trying to pass it as a legitimate part of Armenian media, which it's not. See what constitutes WP:RS. That, and pardon my French, sh*thole website shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. But no, you see an editor with almost 20 year account age like Grandmaster somehow doesn't see that, they kept defending it as "Armenian media" despite Armatura patiently explaining that this sh*thole of a website isn't a "media" of anything, and it can't be shown as an "example of term usage in Armenian media". The WP:CRUSH here is just unbelievable.
- Just my two cents for now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Baseless accusations again. Since when proposing an RFC is a violation of rules or misconduct? In fact, RFC is a preferable solution, because allows to make decisions not by a small group of editors, but by the wider Wikipedia community. What exactly is wrong with that? In fact, the admin who kindly assisted on another page with relisting and converting merge vote into an RFC himself advised that RFC would be a recommended option: [59], so I have no idea why ZaniGiovanni claims that proposing an RFC on either of the two pages was some sort of a disruptive move on my part. And then I'm again being accused of not reacting to closing of merge discussion by another user, despite Armatura making the same accusation against me at that page, [60] and being advised to stop it: [61] Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It was very interesting how you were so quick to react with RfC suggestions both times, given context, no accusation yet in this case just noting. And admins can speak for themselves. If they disagree with me given the context I've shown here, they're free to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- RFC as usual solution for such situations was mentioned in this comment by the admin, to which I responded by supporting the idea of RFC. Yet I'm facing with more bad faith accusations for just accepting the advice. Grandmaster 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Merges are explicitly not appropriate for RfCs per WP:RFCNOT. And another admin actually posted that clarification in the article's talk page, see comment by Redrose64. Looks like I was right all along, and an RfC shouldn't have been opened for that merger.
- And FYI, not sure how you've missed this too, the admin who overturned that inappropriate closure was fine either way. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- While I wasn't aware of that information page at the time (I mean, I knew it existed, but I forgot about that part), I still think it's the better option, to convert this overturned MERGEPROP into an RfC. That extension (~30 days instead of ~7) and expansion (better advertised) helps in several ways, not least being that the involved close happened in Oct. In any case, this was a logged WP:ACDS action, so I think that affords me the discretion to do it that way. El_C 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Funny, though, how I ended up using the highly bureaucratic DS to WP:NOTBURO it hard. As always, I am immune to irony. El_C 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- While I wasn't aware of that information page at the time (I mean, I knew it existed, but I forgot about that part), I still think it's the better option, to convert this overturned MERGEPROP into an RfC. That extension (~30 days instead of ~7) and expansion (better advertised) helps in several ways, not least being that the involved close happened in Oct. In any case, this was a logged WP:ACDS action, so I think that affords me the discretion to do it that way. El_C 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- RFC as usual solution for such situations was mentioned in this comment by the admin, to which I responded by supporting the idea of RFC. Yet I'm facing with more bad faith accusations for just accepting the advice. Grandmaster 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It was very interesting how you were so quick to react with RfC suggestions both times, given context, no accusation yet in this case just noting. And admins can speak for themselves. If they disagree with me given the context I've shown here, they're free to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Baseless accusations again. Since when proposing an RFC is a violation of rules or misconduct? In fact, RFC is a preferable solution, because allows to make decisions not by a small group of editors, but by the wider Wikipedia community. What exactly is wrong with that? In fact, the admin who kindly assisted on another page with relisting and converting merge vote into an RFC himself advised that RFC would be a recommended option: [59], so I have no idea why ZaniGiovanni claims that proposing an RFC on either of the two pages was some sort of a disruptive move on my part. And then I'm again being accused of not reacting to closing of merge discussion by another user, despite Armatura making the same accusation against me at that page, [60] and being advised to stop it: [61] Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I've waded into this topic area, but one thing certainly hasn't changed; for the love of whatever it is you care to insert, would people please consider that administrators don't take action based on who has the highest word count or most invective? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't there an inverse relationship between wordcount and winning the decision? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
User Kelownatopdog
This user is making personal attacks in his edits accusing people of vandalism and being Hindu nationalists. He has also removed many user discussions on Jhatka’s talk page and inserted more personal attacks against people on there. Kindly take a look at it. 2605:8D80:626:1CB3:3D3B:CB63:BB5E:AFEC (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Last edit was six days ago, so to us, this is a stale dispute. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone over their contributions, and given some advice their talk page on some issues with their editing. I reserve judgement for now on whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or not, as I saw some things which were very concerning, but also some decent work as well, which definitely mitigated the concerns for now. I hope they won't end up back here, but I wouldn't be greatly surprised if they did. I recommend that this be closed with the outcome as "user warned". Mako001 (C) (T) 14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
2601:644:8D81:8690:D4F:EA31:7031:CB4E NOTHERE (racism and personal attacks)
[62] Holy smokes, this IP posted one of the most grossly offensive things I've seen in my years here, additionally engaging in personal attacks by calling editors triggered libs and ratfucks. And their response after being warned does not bode confidence that they'll learn from this [63]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I opted to go through here instead of AIV since rev suppression is probably preferred. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for 3 months. I get that people are probably going to disagree with me, but I don't think we should be using revision deletion so often. Someone else can revision delete it if they really want to, but this looks like some edgelord trying to get a rise out of people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly don't disagree with you. Deb (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Edgelord"? Wow. I just learned a new synonym for "troll". Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- They're just infected with the internet and the lack of consequences related to posting such stuff. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It was a new one on me too, but it seems to fit. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Edgelord"? Wow. I just learned a new synonym for "troll". Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly don't disagree with you. Deb (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for 3 months. I get that people are probably going to disagree with me, but I don't think we should be using revision deletion so often. Someone else can revision delete it if they really want to, but this looks like some edgelord trying to get a rise out of people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I revdel'ed it before I saw the above. I generally do just to remove their trophies, at least when they are really out there, dripping with racism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it suggests doing so somewhere in WP:DENY, and that policy was basically written with this sort of nonsense in mind? Mako001 (C) (T) 23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Incivility of User:Nil Einne
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm saddened that User:Nil Einne was less than courteous in his messages to me on my talk page. I don't in general seek conflict and wish the OP would apologize and rewrite his complaint. OP's use of "irrelevant crap" is IMHO harsh language and, especially in light of the fact that OP failed to indicate what content was deemed by a highly subjective process to earn that label, should be withdrawn. Armduino (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Armduino: I incorrectly assumed from your edit summaries that you'd know which article I was talking about and so didn't bother to mention it. I shouldn't have done that and I apologise for not making it clearer earlier. However as I mentioned on your talk page, if you needed clarification you could have just asked rather than opening this ANI. And I won't be withdrawing my comment.
You do keep adding irrelevant crap about some random apparently non notable living person to an article about someone else [64] [65]. I admit when I wrote that, I assumed you also added a fair amount of the significant information about the subject's again apparently non notable brother that I [66] (and others?) removed. Looking at the history [67]/[68], it seems most of it was already in the article when you started. Still you did move that stuff around [69] [70], rewrote it and even added a small amount [71] rather than remove it, or at least just leave it be for someone else to deal with, as you should have. Just because the information is mentioned in the same source doesn't mean it's acceptable to add it to an article on some other person.
Besides irrelevant stuff about other living people, you also added to two different articles [72] [73] that someone prejudiced the outcome of a trial when the source [74] did not say such a thing. Which is in some ways worse albeit affecting a highly notable individual so I admit doesn't cause such a strong concern to me personally.
BLP violations are unacceptable and you keep making them. I'd note BLP aside, while writing this I noticed you also added the subject heading "Harassment by the CBSA" [75] a clear violation of WP:NPOV since the sources do not remotely support using such a characterisation in wikivoice.
Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Armduino, you have your apology now; [76] this wasn’t worth opening an ANI over. Nil Einne, remember when I got hauled to ANI for using the word “darn”? Now you have for using the word “crap”. So we both know what to avoid in the future. Armduino, the irrelevant content you are adding to BLPs is referred to in Wiki-speak as WP:UNDUE; please stop adding UNDUE material to BLPs, and take more care with NPOV and source-to-text integrity on content you add. WP:BLP policy is to be taken seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing Footballers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviewing Footballers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing AfD templates repeatedly [77][78][79][80]. Was warned.--Mvqr (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Addition of OR and SYNTH and copyrighted material
User:Aramaram159 has been adding SYNTH and OR to Aramaic original New Testament theory (see the recent history of the article). The user has so far no communicated, and has ignored my three warnings. @Ymblanter: has masked 8 revisions of the user on this page for copyright infringement. The user needs to be blocked, and for good measure I think Aramaic original New Testament theory should be protected. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked a week for copy vio. Feel free to discuss the other issues here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Is what is left at Aramaic original New Testament theory#Mistranslations a copyright infringement? The writer died 66 years ago. Veverve (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The book was published in the US in 1936, so, yes, assuming it was copyrighted, and the copyright was property renewed, it will be copyrighted until 1 January 2032--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: I guess you should remove it and mask all revisions until now, then. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry but it might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the book by Torey, but there is no text from it in the current version. Ig you mean Norton, who is extensively ciyed, that book was published in the UK, and then we need the death date - which I could not easily locate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: I guess you should remove it and mask all revisions until now, then. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: I was also talking about the book of Torrey, whose very long quote begins with "Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic" and is currently in the article. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Neel.arunabh's competence issues
Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081 § Neel.arunabh
A few months ago there was a discussion here about Neel.arunabh's editing and general competence issues focusing on two particular incidents, in that case nominating an article for deletion so that they could use the AFD to ask for help with formatting a table, and reverting articles to years old versions undoing loads of work and hundreds of edits because articles weren't displaying properly on their phone. That discussion was closed after discussion fizzled out with no action, but I think there is a need to have a discussion about Neel.arunabh's fundamental competency to edit here because they are making a huge number of time wasting edits and seem to have issues accepting community consensuses that they don't agree with personally.
Earlier today they submitted two requests to have WP:Protection policy unprotected [81] [82]. Both these requests have the utterly stupid rationale that "the page about protection shouldn't be protected" - not only does this have no basis in policy whatsoever it also makes no sense if given a second of thought - what on earth would be the benefit of unprotecting a highly visible troll magnet policy page?
A few weeks ago Neel.arunabh posted a question on the computing help asking why their Facebook app wasn't working and why a mobile game they played wasn't giving daily challenges anymore [83]. A number of editors wasted their time explaining that Wikipedia isn't Facebook, no one can fix the game or their app and that they needed to ask Facebook for support. They seem to have been completely unable to understand that no-one here could help them because a a few days ago they posted about the exact same issue at the teahouse [84] bemoaning that in the three weeks since they posted at the reference desk no-one had fixed their Facebook and that they thought posting at the teahouse would get it fixed because it has "higher visibility". "Can Wikipedia fix my Facebook" is the kind of stuff that newbies who've been here a few weeks post, an editor of six years tenure should know better.
Neel.arunabh seems to have serious issues accepting the opinions of other editors when consensus is against them and resorts to edit warring, disruptive editing and bludgeoning the process to get what they want. For one example look at the move history of I Love NY (2015 film). Neel.arunabh has decided that they don't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a 6 year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. They started by performing a series of cut and paste moves, see the edit history of this redirect, for example, [85]. Once that failed they tried to use the page move function to move the page to a different title [86], this was reverted and the page was moved protected. They have then spent the last 5 years opening various move requests for the page, basically the entire talk page of the article is move requests started by Neel.arunabh that were rejected by the community [87]. Today they've had another go at getting the page moved to another title, firstly they requested that the move protection (that was put in place because of their actions) be removed so they could move the page [88]. Secondly they filed a technical request to have the page moved, again without any sign of having a clue what they're doing. First of all they claimed that this is an "uncontroversial" move, something that is patently false, and secondly they were asking to revert a 6 year old move that occurred in the middle of their move war as an "undiscussed move" [89]. They then filed yet another requested move on the talk page asking to move the film away from it's actual title.
If you need another example of Neel.arunabh bludgeoning the process have a look at the redirect 🍜. Neel.arunabh decided that they wanted this to point at Ramen, and so they embarked upon a campaign of bludgeoning redirects for discussion until they got what they wanted. They first nominated this rediect for discussion in July 2020 [90] which closed as soft redirect to Wiktionary. They then re-nominated the redirect in August 2020 which closed no consensus for their proposal [91]. They nominated the redirect again in December 2020 [92], which again closed with no consensus for their proposal, despite them trying to do an WP:INVOLVED close their own RFD with the result they wanted [93]. Finally they nominated the redirect again in July 2021 which finally closed with the result they wanted [94]. Four RFD discussions about the same redirect in the span of a year is just ridiculous coming from one editor.
There are a load of other things I could bring up, like this AFD [95] where they turned a discussion about a scientific unit into a weird rant about their "female friends" and resorted to pinging random confused people about a discussion they had no involvement in, or all manner of things that they've collected talk page warnings for over they years but this report is already really long. Fundamentally I think that despite having been here for 6 years Neel.arunabh is disruptively clueless about huge parts of Wikipedia policy and guidance. Their contributions here, especially in administrative areas, are disruptive, and they seem to be unable to accept consensus against them. For the overall good of the project I think a block is required, per WP:CIR 192.76.8.88 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
break
- I have very few competence issues, but I learn from them. Back in May, I tried moving Tholi Prema (2018 film) to Toliprema just because of DaxServer's example on Talk:Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam#Requested move 8 May 2021. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and you caused a discussion to have to take place because you moved it away from the WP:COMMONNAME, and they reverted your move. Not sure why you brought that up, that isn't helping your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I learn from every mistake I make. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's less helpful than you realize, if you keep making more, new mistakes that are very similar, telling us you didn't learn much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I learn from every mistake I make. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and you caused a discussion to have to take place because you moved it away from the WP:COMMONNAME, and they reverted your move. Not sure why you brought that up, that isn't helping your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Noting, as it may be relevant, that I have opened a discussion at RFD regarding 41 redirects created by Neel.arunabh. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- That was definitely long, but actually pretty concise, there is just a lot of material to cover. I tend to agree that this is a serious WP:CIR issue, and it seems to be having a parasitic effect on the encyclopedia. I would support a block. We aren't therapy, and time is simply too precious to be wasted this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I was considering opening a discussion following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_12#Yaraana_(2014_film), as the inability to evaluate English-language sources demonstrated by their participation in that discussion is a serious problem. To add to these concerns, Neel.arunabh has admitted to copying other editor's comments to guide their participation in talk page discussions. While a degree of mimicry may be appropriate, the error that Neel.arunabh was apologizing for in this discussion suggests that they are in fact copying comments whole-cloth and then lightly editing, in this case leaving in text that was only relevant to the specific arguments of the discussion from which the response was copied (I believe a similar exchange in an RfD discussion that I had with them but have not gone hunting for this diff). This behavior raises concerns about both English-language comprehension and potentials for copyright infringement in mainspace. I think that a CIR block would be reasonable, and Neel.arunabh's response above (
I have very few competence issues, but I learn from them
) does not inspire confidence a) that their English difficulties are behind them or b) that they are capable of reliably recognizing when and where their English falls short. signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do learn from every mistake I make and I do not repeat the same mistake again. See the first time I was blocked. That was because I kept removing essential references from pages because of reference errors and started edit warring. Now, I do not delete references. I was recently blocked for edit warring over a different theme. I no longer perform copy and pate page moves. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The report here details you reporting your facebook issues, and after it was explained that that was a mistake, you then did it again at the teahouse. If you learn from every mistake, why did you do that twice? MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do learn from every mistake I make and I do not repeat the same mistake again. See the first time I was blocked. That was because I kept removing essential references from pages because of reference errors and started edit warring. Now, I do not delete references. I was recently blocked for edit warring over a different theme. I no longer perform copy and pate page moves. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I grow up to make more helpful edits. My own move-war that was contested by an RM has been the been the main inspiration behind my current RM at I Love NY (2015 film), because now I have learned what is WP:COMMONNAME and to look for the spelling in English language reliable sources and not on fan-made posters. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The thing about "protection page shouldn't be protected" reads to me as nothing more than a joke and can probably be ignored. (Would make a good WP:APRILFOOLS candidate though). No comment on the other issues presented at this time. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:7527:31CC:E739:B1A (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the diffs I provided in the OP are just a small selection of problematic behaviours from Neel.arunabh, it is in no way comprehensive and I could easily have quadrupled the size of the report (but then no-one would have bothered to read it). I didn't even mention things like their abusive sockpuppetry and logged out editing as OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 108.35.3.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which they used to do things like remove speedy deletion templates from pages they had created [96] [97] (coincidentally the same set of redirects @BilledMammal: has just nominated for deletion, double voting in the RFD about 🍜 [98] and edit warring across a number of articles. I could also bring up things like this move review, which they seemed to open not to contest the result of the discussion but because they wanted someone to explain policy to them [99]. I could also provide a huge number of diffs of them edit warring across a huge number of pages, look at the histories of 🙏, 🙏🏼 and 🙏🏿 for example [100] [101] [102]. There are also their disastrous attempts to fix things, like "fixing" reference errors by deleting references and content from articles. They claim above that they stopped doing this in 2015 after a block for edit warring, something that is patently false as a look at their talk page will show them collecting more warnings for the same behaviour in 2017 [103] and 2020 [104], in the last one they ask "how am I supposed to fix reference errors except by reverting the page to an old version" - someone with this little clue shouldn't be trying to fix reference errors, in fact they shouldn't be editing at all. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I admit that cracks like "I am just saying that I will not accept one thing unless I get other things as well" don't fill me with confidence. Something that Neel.arunabh seems to have a hard time with generally is the premise that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, that sometimes one is on the losing side of consensus, and that the thing to do if one is is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I remember the endless disruption around the ramen redirect. I also remember this bizarre incident. Granted, it's pretty old, but it doesn't really inspire confidence that the user should be editing here. Spicy (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would support a WP:CIR block or ban. Like Rosguill, I was wanting to open a discussion after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Yaraana (2014 film) but am currently too busy to put together anything of substance right now. As an RfD regular, I can say with certainty that his contributions there are disruptive and a net negative. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, I do not make as many disruptive edits and have learned what is WP:COMMONNAME and to look for the spelling in English language reliable sources and not on fan-made posters. And I will start warning other users one day. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tavix I am making positive contributions at RfD too. And I have been nominating my own redirects for WP:CSDG7. Neel.arunabh (talk)
- We can now add borderline canvassing attempts (Special:Diff/1066490896) to the list of problematic behaviors. The two comments made in this diff also once again display a poor command of English to the point that it interferes with his ability to make or understand arguments, coupled with rote repetition of common RfD phrases. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's more than borderline, it's blatant canvassing—Neel is pinging users to the discussion that they think will
oppose deleting unicole characters
, which is biased and partisan. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- Normally I would consider the fact that the actual list of editors pinged would almost certainly backfire and produce the opposite of the intended result to be a mitigating factor, but given the overriding CIR concerns, it is perhaps less so in this case. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rosguill and Tavix I have removed the pings and I have said to wait for a consensus. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- ...which, much like pretty much every other response you've given here, just underscores that you do not actually understand the problems with any of your actions beyond the fact that other editors have taken issue with them. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do understand the problems with my actions. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- ...which, much like pretty much every other response you've given here, just underscores that you do not actually understand the problems with any of your actions beyond the fact that other editors have taken issue with them. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rosguill and Tavix I have removed the pings and I have said to wait for a consensus. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Normally I would consider the fact that the actual list of editors pinged would almost certainly backfire and produce the opposite of the intended result to be a mitigating factor, but given the overriding CIR concerns, it is perhaps less so in this case. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's more than borderline, it's blatant canvassing—Neel is pinging users to the discussion that they think will
Neel.arunabh has decided that they don't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a 6 year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title.
It is not true that I am on a 6 year crusade. After, Talk:I Love NY (2015 film)#Requested move 11 July 2017, I have been convinced that "2015 film" is permissible under Wikipedia article title policies and per WP:NCF. However, in May, I started move-warring over a film title spelling, and that was contested in an RM by Ab207. So, now I am learning about WP:COMMONNAME and my current requested move at Talk:I Love NY (2015 film) is to get it moved to the WP:COMMONNAME without anymore move wars. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)- OK, would you prefer me to amend the statement to
Neel.arunabh decided that they didn't like the "(2015 film)" in the title and has embarked upon a multi year crusade to try to get the article moved to a different title. It took about half a dozen reverted moves, a block for move waring, the page being admin level move protected due to their disruption and three RM discussions over the course of two years where not a single person agreed with any of the titles they proposed for them to even consider that policy and other editors disagreed with the move.
? Do you think that's a fair summary? You also haven't addressed a single one of the other issues people have raised here apart from repeatedly saying "I've learned, I've learned, I wont be disruptive in future". You've had 5 years of talk page warnings, and haven't paid attention to any of them. If you want more examples why did you move Naina (song) to Naina (Arijit Singh song), we have only one article on a song by this name, so by policy the article should be located at the "(song)" disambiguation. Why did you move Daava to Daava (film)? This is the only article on something we have called "Darva" so it should be located at the base title. Why did you draftify Daava and Fareb (1996 film), WP:DRAFTIFY is clear that only newly created articles are eligible for draftification - these articles had existed for years, and the rationale you gave - "no recent sources" - has no basis in any kind of policy. Why did you move Arjun Pandit (1999 film) and Fareb (1996 film) to the date when they were re-released? Policy is that films are disambiguated based on original release date. Even worse the titles you moved them to weren't even the dates that they were re-released, because you were guessing based upon the release date of articles on unreliable sources. It is blatantly obvious that you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing, and almost all of your contributions consist of you making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes. You obviously lack either the competence or maturity to edit here, and a block is needed to prevent other editors having to waste any more time cleaning up after you. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) - I agree about amending the statement. The reason why I moved Naina (song) to Naina (Arijit Singh song) was because there are many other songs titles "Naina", bu I appreciate your request at WP:RM/TR. And I will not waste anymore people's time. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't disagree with the statement I made at WP:RM/TR and agree with moving the article back then why on earth did you contest the move by opening a WP:RM where you endorse reverting your own move, stealing and slightly editing the statement I made [105]? What the Fuck are you doing? Do you understand what requested moves is for? This is a completely inappropriate use of the requested moves process, has yet again resulted in other editors having to run around cleaning up the mess you've made. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to self-revert my move. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- So the problems here with your editing:
- Requested moves is for "Controversial" or "Contested" moves - if I suggest moving a page and you agree there is no need to go through a week long discussion at requested moves
- I had already started the process for getting the page moved, there was no reason at all for you to start another process for moving the page. Running multiple processes at once just wastes everyone's time.
- You started the requested move after the page had already been moved back to the original title
- You copied my statement from the technical requests page and passed it off as your own. This is creepy, a copyright violation and seriously beings into question your competence to edit if you can't express simple thoughts in your own words.
- Your unnecessary requested move was picked up by the bot and added to the list of requested moves. The person who did the technical request had to fuck about cleaning up the mess that you made, turning a 30 second job into several minutes of clean-up.
- I said that your editing here consisted of
making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes.
, to which you said that you would avoid wasting people's time. Less than an hour later you were wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes resulting in a mess that other people have had to clean up. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- So the problems here with your editing:
- Just to self-revert my move. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't disagree with the statement I made at WP:RM/TR and agree with moving the article back then why on earth did you contest the move by opening a WP:RM where you endorse reverting your own move, stealing and slightly editing the statement I made [105]? What the Fuck are you doing? Do you understand what requested moves is for? This is a completely inappropriate use of the requested moves process, has yet again resulted in other editors having to run around cleaning up the mess you've made. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, would you prefer me to amend the statement to
- Just once, back in 2016, I edited a part of a user's comment. The edit was reverted, and I no longer edit people's comments er WP:ETIQUETTE. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- And please see my message on Ab207's talk page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support block. User clearly does not understand what they're doing wrong and, despite statements to the contrary, seem determined to keep behaving this way. Net-negative to the project, whether it's due to competence or other issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- HandThatFeeds I do understand what I am doing wrong. Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- So, it's funny, I actually didn't get the RfD ping, because Neel misspelled my name Tazmin, and it doesn't send a ping when you correct a name in a message. Instead I found this thread because I'd checked out his talkpage after wondering why I'd seen the same user behaving strangely at two places in two days, as I was the one who declined the RM/TR request. Not knowing the full context, I had been a bit bemused by the notion that a protected-for-move-warring page could be casually moved because one person felt there was a clear correct title. (It did not cross my mind that the move protection, six years ago, might have been because of the same editor.) I was then a bit annoyed by this post-reply edit that made my cross-post from RM/TR to RFPP retroactively ambiguous. Now, when it comes to the set of redirects that I was (meant to be) pinged about, I actually think those are reasonable creations—maybe meriting deletion, I'm not sure, but not CIR-indicative. However, everything else presented here makes me feel like this is one of those situations where it would not be a good use of the project's resources to continue trying to make this editor understand our policies and norms. I have a lot of patience for people who struggle to get some things, if they're willing to listen to advice they're given. That does not seem to be the case here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that more than enough patience has been expended waiting for this editor to learn from his/her mistakes. It's time to give up on him/her. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- To all those supporting a block. I make at least some edits per week without any CIR issues. That's extremely high for me to learn from my CIR mistakes and so very clearly this is something all admins need. A block is the exact worst thing we can do for users here - our job is to educate people to contribute constructively and we don't do that by blocking the user and making them (if they are lucky) unhelpful users. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- FTR, no, our job is not to endlessly spend volunteer resources trying to teach editors to contribute constructively. At some point we have to move on, and the fact that you would argue this is not helping your case. valereee (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is it possible a p-block from article space would allow this user some more room/time to develop competence? I do see that some of the disruption has occurred in other spaces. valereee (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- CIR doesn't magically disappear with a partial block, it just changes addresses. Article space is the only reason we are here, after all. The rest of these back pages are only to support articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: given that the last ANI thread was about them using AFD to ask for tech support, I've provided numerous diffs of them bludgeoning processes and wasting time at the help desk, two admins have weighed in that their contributions at RFD are disruptive and "a net negative" and that even while this thread was ongoing they've managed to make a mess of moving a page I don't have much confidence that that's a viable solution here. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, both. Whenever I see a user who seems to be sincerely trying to attain competency, I'd like to figure out a way to let that happen. But, yeah. @Neel.arunabh, indefinite blocks aren't necessarily permanent. If you're blocked you can consider contributing more carefully at some other wikimedia project to see if you can develop the necessary competence and appeal here in a year or so. valereee (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Valereee I am sure that some users can trust me like Tamzin above. The last time, when I went to AfD, then wbm1058 suggested that I go to WP:VPT. But by mistake, I went to WP:VPR. This was when I was in the previous ANI thread. Then, after a couple of talk page discussions, I finally went to WP:VPT. So, wbm1058 can trust me to participate in the correct place. Talk:The Weeknd/Archive 2#Layout, Back in February 2021, I was making edits to The Weeknd and Osh33m was busy reverting Walter Görlitz's and my edits to their own preferred version. Then, Osh33m was blocked for edit-warring. Osh33m finally brought the sections back to my contribution. So, Osh33m can also trust me on Wikipedia. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I... If your reading of my comment is that I trust you, then I think that says more about competence issues than anything else here. And that sounds really mean but I don't know how else to put it. Neel, I know this isn't a pleasant position to be in, but I think sometimes a person reaches a point where they just have to accept that what they want from Wikipedia and what Wikipedia wants from them are not going to match up. You've had six years and 4,000 edits to learn the basics, and still haven't... Maybe this just isn't the right hobby for you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin I have learned the basics. Community editing is definitely the right hobby for me. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support block; I was particularly convinced by MrOllie noting that they did not learn from their mistake of using Wikipedia as Facebook tech support.
- I suspect that English is not their first language; it may be beneficial for them to edit on their native language Wikipedia before appealing here, as the language barrier may be why they have struggled to gain competence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal I totally disagree with you. I know English more than any other language. And I will make more useful contributions on English language sites. This is not just on Wikipedia or any sister site. See my StackExchange profile. Even on StackExchange, I ask useful questions. Your statement above
I suspect that English is not their first language
is a violation of WP:PA. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)- Noting this warning that they just placed on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- And suddenly I find myself feeling less bad about supporting a ban here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Neel.arunabh: your StackExchange history is pretty bad too. For example, the December 16 2021 question https://spanish.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4442/my-recent-question, where you were counseled for plagiarism in asking your question. If you think that is evidence of asking useful questions, I suggest you carefully reread what people wrote to you in StackExchange. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- rsjaffe Only one instance, I was counseled for plagiarism. But I have asked some useful questions at https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/14005/why-do-south-asians-often-use-lakhs-and-crores-instead-of-millions-what-i and many others. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Noting this warning that they just placed on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal I totally disagree with you. I know English more than any other language. And I will make more useful contributions on English language sites. This is not just on Wikipedia or any sister site. See my StackExchange profile. Even on StackExchange, I ask useful questions. Your statement above
Proposal
This might be a bit premature, but: User:Neel.arunabh seems to be unable to contribute here without causing major issues which take up excessive amounts of community time, or in other words "are a net-negative". Their answers to questions have been evasive (whether intentionally or not) and unsatisfactory, and have only served to make their issues even clearer. Their behaviour is at best indicative of a lack of competence and at worst, plain old trolling and deliberate timewasting. Since we assume good faith, I'll say its the former. But these issues show no sign of being resolved and this discussion is steadily turning into a waste of time, energy and resources for all involved, with no real signs from Neel.arunabh that they properly understand the issues raised.
Therefore: It is proposed that User:Neel.arunabh be indefinitely site banned per WP:CIR.
Mako001 (C) (T) 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above, I have some sympathy for Neel—although less so since the absurd warning to BilledMammal—but think it would be best if he found another hobby; and if he can't see that, a ban is the only way to compel it. I say "find another hobby" because, yes, indefinite ≠ infinite, but when issues like this persist for 6 years, it's unlikely to be the sort of case where a few years away from the wiki is all someone needs in order to return as a constructive editor. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Issue on a Talk Page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[173.75.43.9] appears to be soapboxing on Talk:Aileen Wuornos. The evidence is here:
[Exhbit A] [Exhibit B] [Exhibit C] [Exhibit D]
- I have repeatedly explained WP:NOTFORUM to this user, but they don't seem to understand, and are continuing to soapbox. I've even asked to explain how it relates to the subject, as Talk Page posts are supposed to be on Wikipedia, but I don't think they're doing it. Their last post says the talk page is being used correctly, "to correlate marriage laws to tragic results." Again, they didn't explain the relevance to the main article.
Help? I apologize if I did something wrong in this situation. $chnauzer 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
190.5.46.74: Disruptive editing and failure to communicate
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
190.5.46.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I need assistance with this IP editor. As their talk page shows, I (and another editor) have tried to communicate with them multiple times, using templates:
I also wrote them in detail explaining the problems:
However, none of this helps and they refuse to communicate, reintroducing the material without discussion, using bad sources and bad English and in general being disruptive. I think they mean well, but they need some admin telling them they need to communicate. --Muhandes (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It must be very frustrating, Muhandes. The IP may not be aware of having a talkpage. I have blocked them for a month, with information about how they can be unblocked in the block log (which I believe they will see next time they try to edit) and on their page . Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
- Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Personal attacks by editor
질량 분석 accused me of being part of a troll army and attacked my language competence. I placed a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. They removed this as "garbage" and then posted another attack: "stop sabotaging the work of others, better learn German instead or keep quiet". I am done with this issue, please deal with this user. Pikavoom Talk 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, those are pretty egregious, especially the threadbare nature of the article this editor (with all of 36 mainspace edits) is seeking to protect. I've made my opinions known at the AfD.
Postscript: the editor tried adding YouTube and a link to a Wikipedia article as "sources," which I reverted; he reverted them back with the crack "stay out of things, if you don't have an understanding." [106] I'm thinking I'd be comfortable with a block. Ravenswing 13:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- And blessings upon you. Ravenswing 14:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
User:42812 TV unable to heed warnings or listen
42812 TV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
@42812 TV: popped up a few days ago and added the website TopHit for music release dates in Russia. Editors in the music project do consider TopHit a reliable source for music charts as it is backed by one of the official monitoring organisations. However 42812 Tv has been using the websites singles/songs listing page to add single release dates even though there is an established norm and consensus that WP:THIRDPARTY sources are required for songs and singles - as artists and labels often say different things about what is and isn't a song. Also being a non-notable music market (in terms of size/scope), its highly unlikely that music is released only in Russia and not elsewhere in the world when the artists in question are not Russian. I reverted the edits with edit a summaries and a number of warning on the user's page as well as attempts to explain this. The user has ignored these and reverted back, now engaging in both WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR with a number of different editors.
Pages targeted
- Positions (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Off the Table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Motive (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Little Things (ABBA song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Zara Larsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Anne-Marie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Poster Girl (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- La Fuerza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (issues include adding unsourced information)
- Little Bit of Love (Kesha song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Till the World Ends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- High Road (Kesha album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- When Christmas Comes Around... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- It Was a... (Masked Christmas) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Santa, Can't You Hear Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Confetti (Little Mix album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Slow Clap (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Let Me Reintroduce Myself (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- POV (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hurricane (Kanye West song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- and more.
The list goes on. A number of other editors have reverted and reverted back.
Multiple warnings have been given on the user's talk page here. At this point, its beyond warnings and wonder if there is an appropriate topic ban e.g., all music pages or if we think its an overall ban? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly believe the user is also a sock puppet of Zhmailik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and many other accounts he's created to evade blocks. The behavior is similar and the edits he makes are as well. 2600:6C46:4A00:4C5:DCC9:ECDF:7E42:EF83 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Not involved) - Would it be in interest to make an SPI if you believe it's a sockpuppet? SoyokoAnis - talk 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked the user for 31h to reduce the damage, but a more permanent solution is likely needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: can you extend it to indef? This user is actually Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Zhmailik (compare the name with those at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zhmailik if needed). (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Editor DilploCult and Paolo Petrocelli
Diplocult (talk · contribs) This editor contacted me via email sent through WP. This in an effort to get me to make Paolo Petrocelli back into an article. It is currently a redirect per this AFD[107]. There was nothing wrong with the email, it was a plea, providing many sources,in order to prove Diplocult's notability. Yes, in the email Diplocult admitted being Petrocelli.
This is just a notification of this off wiki contact. I thought it may be necessary because-
- Diplocult has a COI. He made four edits to the article but back in 2020.
- Diplocult may have contacted other editors or may still do so.
I have no plans to edit the article (Which I have never edited at all) which was last edited 3 months ago. Any administrator who would like to see the email, I'll be happy to provide a copy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I received the same email via WP. I have no idea why he contacted me. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- My God, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? The relentless self-promotion is absolutely nauseating. See https://www.paolopetrocelli.com/ (or any number of other websites endlessly repeating that
Paolo Petrocelli, PhD-EMBA-FRSA, is a senior cultural manager driven by the belief that culture, arts and education are a major force for growth, development and change globally. A passionate, innovative and dynamic manager with an extensive experience in leadership positions in a variety of organizational settings, he is an international relations and global cultural affairs expert
and so on and so forth). EEng 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I haven't been able to determine whether FRSA is the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Free Radical Scavenging Activity, or the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association.
2A02:A03F:E0F7:A700:5DB:7E08:1BEB:76D8/64
Some nasty vandalism and personal attacks coming from 2A02:A03F:E0F7:A700:5DB:7E08:1BEB:76D8/64 (talk · contribs) since September, but no action was taken after an AIV report. Could this range be blocked? Pahunkat (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
IP blocked for three months. Thanks for reporting. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Admin procedural advice requested
Please see WIR: Yara Salman - administrator advice needed?. Looks like this was initially 2016 COI multiple Admin deletions, and then Admin protected from recreation in 2021. Since that time, the WikiProject Women in Red member Lajmmoore has put forth a legitimate effort to create the article, minus the COI. I've left a message on the WIR talk page asking the blocking admins to allow this article to be published. No responses yet. If we do not get a response in a day, perhaps, how can I move this to Main Space without violating any kind of wheelwarring dictates, or anything else? Please advise, thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Maile66: For infos, of the two admins you pinged at WT:WIR, Materialscientist has tuned off "most of" their notifications, and that includes echo, while SeraphimSytem hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours. So a post to MS and SS user talks directly rather than a trip to WP:ANI seems to be the best strategy! :) As well as notifications of this thread here, of course. SN54129 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Edit war at Dadivank
Is it possible to semi-protect Dadivank? There is a bunch of sock accounts and IPs edit warring there. Please also see my report at WP:AN3: [108] Thank you. Grandmaster 19:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam
I had edited an article drafted by User:TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and left an unpleasant message on my talk page. They then started to nitpick several of my recent article translations from Bengali to English, mass deleting chunks of information, removing relevant citations, despite being told by other users that there is nothing wrong. I suggest looking through his recent contributions since editing my talk page and you will see majority of them are not focused on contributing to and benefiting our encyclopaedia but trying to criticise each and everything. It's totally fine to add "citation needed" comments, but their attitude is not sensible and it seems they are actively targeting me by specifically going through my recent article translations. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I scanned your contributions because of your misplaced belief that translating content from other wikis excuses you from providing citations etc. A summary of my relevant edits:
- I redirected one of your articles and was thanked by a very longstanding editor.
- I came across Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury mis-citing sources and using circular sources, and nominated it for an AfD. This is a borderline case and might go either way depending on who shows up.
- I tagged Habibullah Qurayshi—which was already tagged for depending on a single source by some other reviewer—for potentially failing WP:N, which you are free to undo.
- I tagged Ismail Alam for using unreliable sources from fringe publishing houses.
- I discussed issues about your latest article (Nur Qutb Alam) at a talk-page section and provided some suggestions. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- You do realise I'm only human. If you want me to address all of this it will take time. I just created the Nur Qutb Alam article and you've already criticised it... just give some time and it will improve. Be patient, don't be aggressive when addressing, and we can go through it eventually bit by bit. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Leaving a note at talk-page is not criticism, per se. I pointed out what is allowed as a source (and what is not) about articles concerning S. Asian History.
- The articles which were tagged by me were written by you weeks ago. Tags stay for months, before being actioned: you have no worries. But, please do not write unsourced controversial statements (like at Syeda Shahar Banu) or delete sourced content (like at Titumir). Go through the articles, you have translated and cite every line to a decent RS. Else, remove them. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- You do realise I'm only human. If you want me to address all of this it will take time. I just created the Nur Qutb Alam article and you've already criticised it... just give some time and it will improve. Be patient, don't be aggressive when addressing, and we can go through it eventually bit by bit. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Racialist slurs at Ainu people
- Vamlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I recently removed and moved some pictures in Ainu people per WP:Gallery, when suddenly a user reverted my and three others edits. I should note that I did not remove any outstanding pictures, but two paintings and one rather bad quality one. The other pictures simply got moved. Not sure what can trigger such an outburst. The edit summary is quite horrifying babbling about "pseudo white Caucasians" and "mixed breeds".[1] I seriously doubt that such terminology is acceptable, and the worldviews of an user using these terms should not be spreaded in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Last but not least, the removal of content seems disruptive and was not explained in his/her "edit summary". As such I think reporting this incident for racist terminology is a good reaction. I have also pinged the user on the talk page. A comment or sanctions should be enforced if further disruptive and racist eruptions come out of this user.-193.107.22.36 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- Vamlos (talk · contribs) editing habits and focus on race and Asia looks awfully like that of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. His 30,000 byte addition to Talk:Interracial marriage in September 2020 is truly something to behold. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Without comment on the DE/NOTHERE aspect, noting that Dreamy Jazz found Vamlos
Unrelated to WCF at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive § 22 December 2021. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. There is a clear, uncomfortable focus on racial purity in Valmos's editing, as can be seen in this recent edit they made to Orang Asil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Without comment on the DE/NOTHERE aspect, noting that Dreamy Jazz found Vamlos
- Such a fascination with race and purity, expressed in these and other edits, bespeaks a basic mindset that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. I have blocked per NOTHERE. Perhaps the user is unrelated to previous race-obsessed editors, perhaps not. At the very least we can say that a talk page full of warnings for all kinds of disruption (lack of proper edit summaries, unverified edits, poor writing, racist language in article space) have not helped. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Legal threats at Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy.
At Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy. sbelknap (talk · contribs) has cited the "Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel" events (Bollea v. Gawker) as justification for removing content from the Curtis Yarvin article on BLP grounds. This information includes a direct quote from Yarvin's blog which has been cited by two reliable sources. Yarvin and Thiel have worked together in the past, so per sbelknap, including this information is "an existential threat to wikipedia" because Yarvin's buddy might come for Wikipedia like he did for Gawker. The chilling effect issue is obvious.
Per most reliable independent sources, Yarvin's fringe political views are the primary reason he is notable. Without those views, and sources about them, it's unlikely he would warrent an article in the first place. Failing to summarize these sources would damage the neutrality of the article.
Previously on that talk page, sbelknap has also argued that Yarvin's father's Jewish ancestry should be mentioned via obscure primary sources. This was, apparently, intended to be an indirect counterpoint to sourced comments that he is associated with the alt-right, which is associated with antisemitism. For this, sbelknap, bizarrely, compares Yarvin to Werner Goldberg, a Nazi soldier who also had a Jewish father. Yarvin's own blog is the closest thing we have to a reliable source for his paternal grandparent's religion/ethnicity. sbelknap also cites a Daily Mail blurb about Larry Sanger as a reason to include primary sources in BLP articles.
I consider all of these to be serious red flags.
There are obvious BLP issues here. I have tried to explain these issues and have gotten nowhere. Considering the "existential threat" comment, I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of WP:NLT looks at this situation.
Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- In my very much non-admin opinion, this is the kind of legal threat that deserves an immediate block, for at least some time. To my mind, there is a big difference between, "this is defamatory," and "unless this article reflects my preferences, I will bankrupt Wikipedia as an associate of the article's subject famously did to a media company." People who wander into WP:NLT territory should be warned. This is not a wander; this is jumping in with both feet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but... Where exactly is the threat here? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, sbelknap described this as an "existential threat" to Wikipedia. The idea being proposed is that Wikipedia itself will be sued into oblivion by Yarvin's patron. This threat was supported by a totally unrelated legal case brought up by someone who is chummy with Yarvin. As far as legal threats go, that's pretty direct, but even without that, it still introduces a chilling effect to suppress sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is none. :: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats quoting from section on Defamation "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." sbelknap (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You have failed to explain why a direct quote of something he said, as supported by multiple reliable sources, is "defamatory". Yarvin said the quit part loud, on a blog he published himself, and reliable sources noticed that. That's not defamatory. Since you claimed that legal action was plausible, and used that threat to remove content from the article, you have made this into a much wider and more serious issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin, see the diff:
"This article defames Curtis Yarvin and is an existential threat to wikipedia. Interested editors can review the Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel events to understand the legal consequences of defamation to a media entity. The Curtis Yarvin article notes Yarvin's association with Peter Thiel. Being an anonymous wikipedia editor may protect that editor but that is not going to protect wikipedia itself from legal jeopardy. As one example, ... Yarvin writes, 'It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot).' ... This is grossly distorted by a journalist, and by the time it gets to this wikipedia page, it means precisely the opposite of what Yarvin intended."
In addition to it being original research on Sbelknap's part to examine Yarvin's blog in search of potentially exculpatory ways to parse the latter's language—based on the transparently false premise that either Wikipedia or the reliable secondary source labelled Yarvin a "white nationalist" in the first place (they did not)—the above comment seems intended to create a"chilling effect"
by raising the implication that Wikipedia itself (if not"anonymous wikipedia editor[s]"
individually) will likely face"legal jeopardy"
of an"existential"
nature if the quote from Yarvin's blog is retained.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)- Independent of the question of whether this actually is defamatory, that is not remotely a legal threat. It's hyperbolic and overkill, but it's not a legal threat. For it to be a legal threat he would have to, well, threaten legal action. Flagging potentially defamatory content is a basic part of maintaining the encyclopedia. We have a whole series of templates for it. People should take care to not point out potential defamation in an alarmist manner, as that can be disruptive. And they should not do it as an excuse to cover up encyclopedic content, as may or may not be happening here. But it's still not a threat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was unaware of those templates. That is a useful resource. Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- As one example, see the diff
"Yarvin has written in support of slavery"
This is not what the cited secondary source asserts and the secondary source cherry picks text from Yarvin's writings. This and other examples in the article seem to me to be clearly libelous. For BLP, it is essential that wikipedia articles be scrupulously fair. sbelknap (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Independent of the question of whether this actually is defamatory, that is not remotely a legal threat. It's hyperbolic and overkill, but it's not a legal threat. For it to be a legal threat he would have to, well, threaten legal action. Flagging potentially defamatory content is a basic part of maintaining the encyclopedia. We have a whole series of templates for it. People should take care to not point out potential defamation in an alarmist manner, as that can be disruptive. And they should not do it as an excuse to cover up encyclopedic content, as may or may not be happening here. But it's still not a threat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin, see the diff:
- You have failed to explain why a direct quote of something he said, as supported by multiple reliable sources, is "defamatory". Yarvin said the quit part loud, on a blog he published himself, and reliable sources noticed that. That's not defamatory. Since you claimed that legal action was plausible, and used that threat to remove content from the article, you have made this into a much wider and more serious issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but... Where exactly is the threat here? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I note that the user in question has refused to explain their objections to certain material, instead simply asserting
The burden is on each wikipedia editor to avoid libel. I provided links to the primary source
- this is decidedly unhelpful and creates a pointless game of twenty questions. If there is material which is libelous, we should change it, but if a user is unwilling to identify their objections, they are not acting in good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Rlink2
Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, who was blocked in 2013 indefinitely for unauthorized botting, both on and off his account. The site he has been adding as an archive URL appears to trace to the websites he added on Wikipedia before he was blocked, and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question. (Editors may also be interested in reviewing the earlier account's global contributions, where there are about dozen blocks on several wikis.)
Currently, he operates AWB on his main account (clearly using some script to fill in website titles) as well as an authorized bot account Rlink2 Bot (contrast the declined RotlinkBot).
My first inclination was to block for the seeming evasion, but the editor's talk page is largely without issue so far and the bot account was approved. However, given the potential COI and his main account being used for high-speed editing itself, I am left in a bit of a quandry. (A few of the other admins I discussed with seem to lean more strongly toward blocking immediately, though I'm sure they can speak for themselves.)
Opinions sought/welcomed (or bold action if someone feels more strongly on the point). Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Revoke AWB access from account for flooding. — xaosflux Talk 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- How am I flodding? I go at 10 edits a minute, which is consistent with other editors. Let me know how I am supposed to use the tool and what rates are acceptable. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Revoke AWB access including the bot. I am fairly convinced these are the same individuals, and I believe they have some sort of stake in the archive sites (archive.today and ghostarchive.org) they are performing automated work in regards to, if not being the outright owners. I believe the main account's current AWB activity looks to be the unapproved activity proposed as a second bot activity here. Activity on eswiki should also be noted. The four RFCs on archive.is should be reviewed for historical content, including admission of Rotlink of either owning or being heavily involved in the development of Archive.is and the 2013 botting issue that resulted in over 30 cross wiki blocks. More action may be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding "relationship", if anything, I have been in talks with Mark Graham of the Wayback machine in terms of possible collaboration, and we have many editors on here already working with the Internet Archive. Supposing I was related to archive.today (or otherwise), I don't think "getting" at me for that aspect alone is helpful because we have people working for archive.org as well. I have a metheology for picking archive sites to use, we have a limited amount of archive sites, and some of them do stuff that the others can't. If Wayback can't archive a site, but something else can, I don't think it's right to say I'm connected when there is a clear explanation for why I do what I do. For example, archive.today can bypass paywalls, archive.org can't. And ghostarchive.org can do Youtube videos, which up until very recently archive.org could not. And you seem to be missing my bare ref fixes that also use web.archive.org. You omit that part of the argument as well.
- Regardless, I have spent a lot of time on non archiving matters, such as fixing bare refs. There are clear differences between my and Rotlink's account (such as the fact Rotlink doesn't appear to be a native English speaker). Rotlink only added archive links, from the look of it. If the community realizes that my time spent archiving refs is not appreciated, I will stop doing it. Maybe even revoking AWB access is the right choice, even though I do review every edit I make with it. But I do not think a full on block is required. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno: when you say that Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, are you speaking with your checkuser hat on? Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, solely based on naming, behavior, and strongly overlapping interests. Izno (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
All this seems to be based on the fact that you think I am Rotlink, which is not the case. Yes, the username might be similar (unfortunate coicidence when picking my username) but I have no affiliation with Rotlink whatsoever. I read the archive.today RFC before creating an account and I thought the name "Rotlink" sounded cool, so maybe it had an subconsious effect on my username. I knew someone would think that this was the case sooner rather than later, so for that reason I kinda regret choosing that username. Rlink2 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Immediately revoke AWB access and block: This user is using their account to operate an undisclosed bot. Their edits indicate that they are a meatbot. Furthermore, there is no possible chance that they are properly analysing the truly absurd number of edits that they are making. All of this is incredibly problematic, even ignoring the probable ban evasion and conflict of interest. Considering the sheer amount of disruption and other questionable actions, a block is warranted in this situation. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, sometimes I do sacafice quality for speed, especially before the new database dumps come out. This is the exception though, not the rule. And sometimes I have days off, yesterday was MLK Day, so I have more time to edit. It wasn't non stop, there were clear breaks however. I don't edit when I'm sleeping, and I don't edit when I'm at my workplace. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't have a list of bad links, I wuoldn't be constantly reverting mistakes. Also note that everytime someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I respond instantly. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't be able to respond that quickly to messages since I would be away from the computer. Rlink2 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've noticed this user prolifically across my watchlist recently. The sheer number of edits is astounding, and indicates either a meatbot or a literal unauthorized bot. Either way, it is clear these edits are done with little or no care for their accuracy or helpfulness. To give just one example, I've noticed the addition of a template [109] which, if we go to its template page, appears to do nothing and was created on January 12th by Rlink2. I am not a template expert, but I can't see the point of adding this template which appears to do nothing to thousands of articles. And even if it does serve some sort of purpose, the total lack of documentation is wrong and must be corrected so we have some clue as to what the hell the template does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Trainsandotherthings: The purpose of that template is to mark bare PDFs, since the title of those are not so easy to extract. I should have added some documentation, but didn't, sorry. The purpose is for me and other editors to categorize and then go through the PDFs that are bare. I really did (and still do) like your train articles. Rlink2 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well I'm glad to see it does serve a purpose (and that you like my articles), please add some documentation though. I am not convinced you are related to Rotlink, particularly considering the difference in English proficiency. Fighting linkrot is important, but I think I speak for many when I say you need to be more careful with your mass edits. I have compared AWB use to a B-52 bombing run: it can be very powerful, but if you call in the bombing run in the wrong place, the cleanup is massive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @Trainsandotherthings:. I am just stressed right now and your feedback made my day.
- If the issue is with my choice of archive site, just say so. If the result of the ANI thread is that I shall no longer do link work with any archive site that isn't archive.org I will happily follow that. I do way way more than just archive stuff. Wayback is the gold standard of archive sites, and it is always the one I prefer the first. My work will not be seriously impacted if I am prevented from using any site that isn't archive.org, it just means longer do anything with preventing linkrot with sites that do not work with the Wayback machine, which, thanks to the amazing team at Archive.org, is rapidly becoming fewer and fewer. In the mean time, however, those links will unfortunately have to rot. The Wayback team is amazing and I am sure they will get to fixing all the issues, but in the mean time we should not prevent the usage of other archive sites until the Wayback team can fix the sites not working properly. But this is up to the community to decide. I was and have been taking a break from archiving "no-Wayback" sites anyway.
- If the issue is that I go too fast, I will make sure to slow down. Yes, I have been faster in recent days, but usually I go at 10 edits or less which I think is OK.
- If the issue is that I don't review my edits all the time, I will begin reviewing my edits all the time (which i already do for the most part).
- If the issue is that I need to be more careful, I will be more careful. Yes, I have made mistakes with AWB before. Just look at the Citevar situation. I responded by cleaning it all up. We are all humans, imperfect. I propose that if my AWB access is revoked, it is revoked for a limited amount of time (maybe a week? month?) because I think I do important work with it. My edits have been a net good, based on community feedback. And keep in note that even Izno said
editor's talk page is largely without issue so far
meaning that there is some level of support and consensus for my work. I respect each and every one of the editors in this thread, and I hate to see misconception burn bridges. Rlink2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)- I was myself dragged over the coals at ANI for the better part of a month in November 2021. It was an experience I would not wish upon anyone but the most disruptive editors or vandals. It is why I usually refrain from commenting here at all, but as I said earlier I've seen your name pop up a lot on my watchlist so I felt the need to comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Hurricaneinfomation
Hurricaneinfomation. is repeatedly creating articles that are not notable, from articles Tropical Storm Helene 2012, Hurricane Isaac 2018, and Tropical Storm Ana 2021. IMO, this has got to stop, especially creating the Hurricane Isaac 2021 hoax article, even though this user has edited 2-3 days ago. This user has also been repeatedly warned, one was a final warning. Any thoughts/comments on this? Severestorm28 02:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I left a final warning as I'm about to go to bed and don't like to block and run. No objection to someone taking it further, but concur with @Severestorm28: that we're long past patience, especially with the recreation of Isaac. Star Mississippi 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Huh. I was about to mention that he'd only created three articles ever, but the talk page does look daunting, with all the warnings and pleas to engage in actual conversation over these edits. I also see some serious WP:OWN behavior with requests for page protection [110] [111] which run "I need Semi Protection because I don't want anyone want for anyone to vandalize/destroy my wikipedia page. Since I go to college and when I'm not here people can vandalize my page all they want to and I don't want for anyone to do that." I'd support a NOTHERE block. Ravenswing 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't accept admin bullying
- Further information, User talk:VocalIndia#Speedy deletion of Chen Jinggu
Hi, as according to my two year over experience on Wiki, i can't accept that was copyright violation , it was only one sentence with a few general words. Firstly, I started Chen Jinggu article with one sentence then i added "Legend" section that was copied from Guanyin article. I've explained in the page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW). I don't know that was original editor's copyvio. Violently admin removed the whole article. Really need to delete the whole article? They should only remove copyvio contents that came from Guanyin's article. Clearly that is not my violation. However, admin Justlettersandnumbers says the original stub version is also a copyright violation. I've shocked and that was only one sentence describe "Chen is a historical shaman priestess. She is one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect. " That tiny sentence was also edited by several editors. See below. Really?
Our article | The source[112] |
---|---|
... a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect | ... one of the most important goddesses in Southeast China (the chief deity of the Lushan sect).... A historical shaman priestess who became ... |
. What a bullying! Sorry, I was angry and fiercely responded. Pls kindly teach me out and want to restore original stub. Tia VocalIndia (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The personal attacks need to stop. In the past few hours you've repeatedly called other editors "dogs" [113][114][115], "jealous [dogs]" [116], having a "poor mind" [117][118], "useless" [119], and "disgusting" [120]. DanCherek (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Akbermamps. I've also noted that "the basic facts aren't serious copyright violations." according per my experience. That's why I strongly against admin's action. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. VocalIndia (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Problematic editor
The IP address 70.66.130.107 has been making some problematic edits. Particularly pertaining to global warming misinformation, and other political based misinformations. This user also seems to engage inn editing in complete non facts such as how spires affect the height of buildings. Profile seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.66.130.107
" There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 70.66.130.107"}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyMcEvoy (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)