Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Line 1,360: | Line 1,360: | ||
{{User|Horang2022}} |
{{User|Horang2022}} |
||
Hello, I am Reiro, one of the administrators in Korean Wikipedia. I know I have ongoing discussion with this user, but he seems some IPs in Korean Wikipedia, urging to reveal [[WP:BLP|the personal information related someone]] since 2020, just editing once and twice. Please look at below: |
Hello, I am Reiro, one of the administrators in Korean Wikipedia. I know I have ongoing discussion with this user, but he seems some IPs in Korean Wikipedia, urging to reveal [[WP:BLP|the personal information related someone]] since 2020, just editing once and twice. Please look at below in [[talk:lilka]]: |
||
:* Horang2022: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied. <br/> IPs :And how funny is it to erase the real name that can be confirmed from the secondary source and the primary source when Lilka has revealed his face, voice, job, birthday, and academic background?[https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EB%AC%B8%EC%84%9C_%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC_%EC%9A%94%EC%B2%AD/2021%EB%85%84_12%EC%9B%94&type=revision&diff=31039110&oldid=31038896&diffmode=source] |
:* Horang2022: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied. <br/> IPs :And how funny is it to erase the real name that can be confirmed from the secondary source and the primary source when Lilka has revealed his face, voice, job, birthday, and academic background?[https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EB%AC%B8%EC%84%9C_%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC_%EC%9A%94%EC%B2%AD/2021%EB%85%84_12%EC%9B%94&type=revision&diff=31039110&oldid=31038896&diffmode=source] |
Revision as of 04:36, 23 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. 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) |
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)- Thanks for the summarised version, I'm sure it will help. With the email, I'm referring to the "Email this user" function. It goes via the WMF servers, and neither of your email addresses are actually visible to each other. Generally, users don't directly email each other, and references to "email" generally refer to the "email this user" function. I'm sorry if I caused some confusion by my lack of clarity earlier on that. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:05, 20 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)
- Reading through the discussion, I see some bludgeoning by Omegatron. It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more. The canvassing concerns seem hyperbolic, particularly given the balance of the !votes in that discussion against Omegatron. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: Thankyou for taking time to analyze. With respect I think you've been a little soft to the unsigned significant changes in the discussion/nomination when people have responded to that nomination. So it's gone above a little bludgeoning. In terms of the canvas not affecting the !voting, that not really the point. Per Special:Diff/1061321198 the criteria was one of the top 10 contributors to this article - actually I've pretty sure on the edit count metric was not top ten prior to the canvas but useful contributions post canvas brought this user into a top ten edit count. A "top-ten" contributor who had been strident in attempting to ensure the article was not promoted was omitted. It is actually pretty easy to accept that Omegatron would believe they were doing an unbiased canvas ... though in practice it is very difficult to avoid concerns of systemic bias from particular angle and the obvious thing per recommendation is to declare the canvas on the discussion. But ion all events the canvas was secondary to the bludgeoning and talk interference and I again put as a very poor example for admins to show. Thankyou. 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ultimately this will likely fail due to a dialog failure here, I have to AGF this is not simply so Omegatron can cling to their adminship badge. With regards to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination considerations bludgeoning if it hints at restarting Dispute resolution processes will be needed or a more review etc. discussed with the closer ... if that sort of dialog fails there would seem reason for Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship under Disputes or complaints; that's not really a punishment angle its that privileges should not be left with those who don't really need them; on the counter side removal of said rights might cause Omegatron to go inactive. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:24, 21 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.[1]
- 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"[2] (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.[3]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[4]
- Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[5]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[6]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[7]
- Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[8]
- Warned on numerous occassions.[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]
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)
- The forum comment at Iranian Azerbaijanis is quite bad form. I'd be able to AGF about most of the other edits in this report, but am much more concerned by edits like Special:Diff/1061922934, where it appears that they attempted to pass off a source as saying something it did not. I think Armatura's suggestion of a medium-length tban is sensible, and think that having it apply to "origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed" would address the scope of articles where they've exhibited battleground attitudes. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
As per aforementioned discussion, I propose a 3-month topic ban for user "Aydın memmedov2000" on origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I've unfortunately had to revert a lot of this users edits, including just recently. Many of them were akin to the diffs posted above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Nunuxxx copyright violation
The following text added by Nunuxxx (talk · contribs · count) to Armenia–Georgia relations [13] 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 [14][15]. 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)
- Girth Summit You asked if they copy-pasted text to other articles. Not sure if these violate COPYVIO, but here: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni I believe those are acceptable block quotes. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wanted to also add that it's interesting how Nunuxxx, being a self-proclaimed person who studied the subject in great depth, misrepresents historian and their quotes, ignoring conclusions in the book and passages he cites, just to defend his tendentious edit. Please see reply and explanation regarding that edit here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit I've done some spot checking now and I don't see anything that hasn't now been removed, although I cannot access the main source copied from. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Girth Summit You asked if they copy-pasted text to other articles. Not sure if these violate COPYVIO, but here: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 19 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)
Neel.arunabh's competence issues
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [21] [22]. 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 [23]. 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 [24] 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, [25]. Once that failed they tried to use the page move function to move the page to a different title [26], 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 [27]. 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 [28]. 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" [29]. 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 [30] which closed as soft redirect to Wiktionary. They then re-nominated the redirect in August 2020 which closed no consensus for their proposal [31]. They nominated the redirect again in December 2020 [32], 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 [33]. Finally they nominated the redirect again in July 2021 which finally closed with the result they wanted [34]. 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 [35] 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 [36] [37] (coincidentally the same set of redirects @BilledMammal: has just nominated for deletion, double voting in the RFD about 🍜 [38] 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 [39]. 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 [40] [41] [42]. 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 [43] and 2020 [44], 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 [45]? 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 [45]? 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 that they have now removed their warning, and the three responses that were made to it, which does seem to reinforce suggestions that they don't understand guidelines like WP:TPO. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal I have struck my warning and have restored the responses. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: They've been doing the same thing in this conversation, e.g. this edit [46] where they moved one of their comments and added a fake timestamp to make it look like it was said in reply to the comments added after it. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neel.arunabh: No,
I suspect that English is not their first language
is not a personal attack, quite the opposite. Lots of people here (including myself) have first languages other than Engish, and that is not a negative characteristic. When an editor clearly has difficulties understanding how things work at English Wikipedia, one possible reason is that their command of English isn't quite strong enough; suggesting that your problematic edits might be caused by your misunderstanding guidelines and instructions because English is a second language for you is in fact assuming that you edit in good faith. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 20 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
- And now they are proceeding to spam WP:RFD with poorly thought out copy paste votes, including claiming that two redirects created in 2010 and 2009 would fall under WP:R3, a criteria that only applies to recently created redirects (emphasis is in original policy) [47] [48]. Upon being called out on this they have misleadingly edited their original vote [49]. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have made a helpful vote here. I never copy and paste votes. Statements like "Delete per nom" are universal statements used regularly by deletion discussion participants. If I nominate a page for deletion, I would vote "Delete as nominator". Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- And I am making more helpful votes here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neel.arunabh: "per nom" is not a useful vote. In fact it is listed in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as an example of the exact kind of useless pile on voting that doesn't add anything to the discussion - WP:PERNOM. If you were putting time and effort into writing your votes why on earth did you vote
Keep per Tamzin, Walter Görlitz, and Walter Görlitz
[50] Did you not notice that you mentioned the same person twice? Why did you propose to delete redirects under a speedy deletion criteria that obviously did not apply? Why did you edit your comment in a misleading way that made other comments meaningless? You were literally just telling Tavix that you understand everything now, your competence issues are solved and that you'll stop being disruptive, then you instantly go and start disrupting RFD with more incompetent editing. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)- I am trying to compete better at RfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Compete? This ain't a competition! You would think given your active disruption that you would stop digging yourself a deeper hole, but you just...keep...digging. School 25 is a perfect example of that: you say that there is no school with that name, but that is demonstrably false with a very basic search. Your next contribution, the Political conflict RfD is also quite the opposite of helpful. If you had read the discussion that took place, or clicked the link you placed, it would tell you that the section you want the redirect retargeted to no longer exists. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying hard with RfD statements. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see you've stealth-edited your Political conflict !vote after Tavix' comment above, as well as thre of the !votes 192 took issue with [51] [52] [53], after I complained above about you doing that at WP:RFPP/D. (I actually think "per nom" is a forgivable misunderstanding of a rather subtle XfD norm that has more to do with who's !voting and when they !vote than about what's said... But the constant stealth edits are another sign of just not getting it.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying hard with RfD statements. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Compete? This ain't a competition! You would think given your active disruption that you would stop digging yourself a deeper hole, but you just...keep...digging. School 25 is a perfect example of that: you say that there is no school with that name, but that is demonstrably false with a very basic search. Your next contribution, the Political conflict RfD is also quite the opposite of helpful. If you had read the discussion that took place, or clicked the link you placed, it would tell you that the section you want the redirect retargeted to no longer exists. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying to compete better at RfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neel.arunabh: "per nom" is not a useful vote. In fact it is listed in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as an example of the exact kind of useless pile on voting that doesn't add anything to the discussion - WP:PERNOM. If you were putting time and effort into writing your votes why on earth did you vote
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)
- Support User was given chances for many years WP:CIR. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support and honestly if I'd come across this discussion as an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked already based on the discussion above the formal proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support per the huge amount of disruption and history of questionable edits detailed above. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support ~ i clicked many (not all, 'tis true) of the links above; on the basis of what i have seen there and, most especially, Neel.arunabh's behaviour in this very ANI section, i'm afraid that the English WP is not currently the place for them. There are lots of other places to practise the community editing desired and, who knows, maybe one day the required competence will be achieved and demonstrable and we can say, "Welcome back!". Till then, sorry. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: It's regrettable, and certainly I've seen far more combative behaviors at ANI than Neel.arunabh's, but what I was thinking earlier was that Neel.arunabh could use a mentor. And then I thought, wait, who's going to take on THAT hot mess? Me? Oh dear me no. Sooner or later, people need to learn how to edit here, where to find the rules, endeavor to follow the rules, and not make more work for other editors than their contributions are worth. Hundreds of thousands of editors manage not to be those hot messes, and never find themselves at ANI. (Never mind the extremely thin skin it takes to interpret "I suspect English is not his first language" as a PA, and to drop a Level 4 warning for it.) Six years is far more time than we should have had to wait. Ravenswing 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Even the "contrary" comment below shows a lack of understanding of the problems. Frankly, I do not care if an editor posts a question about Facebook at the Teahouse. That forum can handle it because it is designed for newbie questions. I'm also not sure how relevant the "I have never used talk pages as a forum" comment is. As far as I can tell, no one is accusing Neel of doing that? On the other hand, there are so many issues that are of substance that have not even begun to be addressed: misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, canvassing, bludgeoning discussions, filing excessive and/or irrelevant XfDs and RMs, ignorance of how consensus works, an inability to drop the stick, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tavix I do understand sources. I do not edit war anymore. I will not canvass random people. I will not bludgeon anymore discussions. I will propose only relevant XfDs and RMs. I know how consensus works. I can drop the stick. See my latest correction I made in Philosophy. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- In that edit you managed to completely break the formatting of the bottom half of the article because you moved the "Columns start" template to be after the "columns end" template. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also the "outline of philosophy" article isn't really about the history of philosophy, that link would be better placed in the "see also" section. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Which, as it turns out, is where it was before you started editing [54]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Finally per the documentation at Template:Portal#Location Portal links are supposed to be placed at the top of the "see also" section, not the external links section, so it was right before you moved it. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tavix I do understand sources. I do not edit war anymore. I will not canvass random people. I will not bludgeon anymore discussions. I will propose only relevant XfDs and RMs. I know how consensus works. I can drop the stick. See my latest correction I made in Philosophy. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I'd seen this thread earlier, and assumed that Neel.arunabh was a young, inexperienced contributor who needed time to learn how everything works around here. Having now seen that they have been editing since 2015 (my fault for not reading more carefully earlier) it is obvious that isn't the case, and that instead we are looking at someone who may have good intentions, but simply lacks the necessary skills to contribute in a positive manner. They've been given more than enough time to show evidence that they are capable of learning, and failed to do so. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- oppose somewhat because of Tamzin's comment above. I say we give rope to Neel.arunabh. I suggest a 30 days block, with a welcome note(s) containing links to all the policies/guidelines. That would give them plenty of time to familiarise themselves with guidelines. But if they do something after 30 days, it should be an indeff block without any discussion. Also, I took that Naina article to AfD. You guys were having quite a fuss over a non-notable article. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: I don't want to seem rude, but from what you've said above about welcomes and helpful links, you seem to believe that Neel.arunabh is new here? They've been here for 6 years and made several thousand edits, been blocked previously, given endless amounts of advice and even engaged in sockpuppetry. If you still think that WP:ROPE applies, I am open to your views on why that would be the case. Mako001 (C) (T) 05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Neel.arunabh clearly lacks the required competence, and if they haven't gained it after all thee years, they ain't going to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- PS The thing that really took the biscuit for me was Neel.arunabh's comment[55] here at ANI
I am trying to compete better at RfD
. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl I surely will gain competence. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neel.arunabh: on the contrary, the fact is that after six and half here years you wrote that utter nonsense while you know you are under scrutiny. If after all that time, you still have not grasped that XFD is not a competition, then you are learning far too slowly to ever gain sufficient competence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- PS The thing that really took the biscuit for me was Neel.arunabh's comment[55] here at ANI
- Keep watching every contribution I make. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: This has gone too long. At this point, even from the RfDs yesterday, it's quite clear, that we all must move on. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 07:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Contrary
I disagree with Mako001 above. I will be able to contribute here without causing major issues which take up excessive amounts of community time. So, I honestly think, I should be taken out of this thread next week. I asked the Facebook question at the Teahouse because I was not aware that the Teahouse is for Wikipedia related questions, but now I am aware. I have always been aware that Wikipedia Talk Pages are not forums and I have never used a talk page as a forum. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neel.arunabh Right at the top of the page WP:Teahouse, there is a big message box which says:
Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia- If you cannot read and understand that prominent and simple introduction, then you cannot possibly be anywhere near the level of competence required to edit an encyclopedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now I will remember that the TeaHouse is "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you had any trace of the skill required to productively edit an encyclopedia, then you would have been able to read and understand that simple notice first time, unaided. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Neel.arunabh posted at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia bots. GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Having trampled so many of Wikipedia's fair fields, Neel has just asked at Teahouse how to create a bot. Please, please, put an end to the horror that is Neel. David notMD (talk) 05:01, 20 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[56]. 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. - I was also contacted on 14 January, and the most annoying thing was the flattery towards me written in the e-mail. At this point, it is possible that every Italian who contributes here has received an email from him. Alex2006 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not Italian! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was not contacted! EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- You're not worthy. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have also received the same email with accompanying flattery. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that for the sake of transparency, I will only discuss the issues he raised in the email on his talk page and left it to him to initiate the discussion there. Note that he appears to have a second account Musicdiplomacy (talk · contribs). See here. Of interest also is Draft:Stauffer Center for Strings, a new conservatory of which Mr. Petrocelli is the director. The draft has been created by a paid editor, who after being challenged subsequently disclosed this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- DiploCult replied[57] to you at his talk page. I saw Musicdiplomacy too but didn't investigate too deeply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have since left him some advice there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: DiploCult is Paolo Petrocelli, They admitted so at the very beginning of their email to me. So WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI should apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: Yes I know who he is, he said so in his email to me and on-wiki. He also knows that I know. That's why I told him that if he tries to write a draft, he must declare his conflict of interest. Ditto adding to EMMA for Peace. He's already been warned multiple times by others about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All of that is implicit in my advice to him. But I'll add a link to that guideline in my message just in case. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the Cato the Elder anecdote will sink in. EEng 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I too received the same e-mail.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: Yes I know who he is, he said so in his email to me and on-wiki. He also knows that I know. That's why I told him that if he tries to write a draft, he must declare his conflict of interest. Ditto adding to EMMA for Peace. He's already been warned multiple times by others about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All of that is implicit in my advice to him. But I'll add a link to that guideline in my message just in case. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: DiploCult is Paolo Petrocelli, They admitted so at the very beginning of their email to me. So WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI should apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have since left him some advice there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- DiploCult replied[57] to you at his talk page. I saw Musicdiplomacy too but didn't investigate too deeply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 19 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)
Curbon7, my apologies for (temporarily?) removing your close: the editor has placed an unblock request. That they argue that a term used by "colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations" could still be used today in this encyclopedia is not the strongest argument, but hey, YMMV. I hope one of my fellow admins will look at the unblock request and take into account comments made here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: suggested on my talkpage that this user is likely to be a sock of DerekHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who they contend has incorrectly been conflated with WCF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I applied revdel to the edit summary as well. The Utari (the Ainu name for themselves, it does tell you something that Ainu is written in katakana...) are still viciously discriminated against, any disruption there needs to be tamped down fast. I won't handle the unblock request, since I know I'm too close to that subject to be objective about it (hell, I wrote a lot of the article on inau and I play the mukkuri), but to me it at least looks to be reasonably sincere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I just don't see how someone with such an archaic, 19th century scientific racism-esque view of race and ethnicity can ever appropriately edit anything related to ethnic groups, nevermind just the Ainu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I applied revdel to the edit summary as well. The Utari (the Ainu name for themselves, it does tell you something that Ainu is written in katakana...) are still viciously discriminated against, any disruption there needs to be tamped down fast. I won't handle the unblock request, since I know I'm too close to that subject to be objective about it (hell, I wrote a lot of the article on inau and I play the mukkuri), but to me it at least looks to be reasonably sincere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 22 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)
- There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed 37 most-recent edits and found problems with 10 of them. That's only 73%. You do need to slow down. ~Kvng (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 20 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)
- I already admitted that sometimes there were times I didn't review all my edits, but I will from now on.
- Technically, if we are following mathematical laws, it needs to be a complete random 37 edits you picked. You picked the last 37 edits I made regarding bare refs, so your method of sampling is flawed. That percentage may or may not reflective of my entire edits. Also, when I said I review 99% of edits, I didn't literally mean 99%. My response to the rest of the "problematic" edits is on the current version of the BRFA.
- However even if the percentage is low, it doesn't justify my mistakes. I always try to make sure I make the highest quality of edits. Out of those ten you linked, only one or two I think was a big enough problem that it shouldn't be put through while using AWB. For example, for some of those examples, you complained about generic titles, but the URL itself was also fairly generic. Also, if the link was dead, I saved anyway with a Wayback link, regardless of the title (because the link was dead, so it needed to be upgraded to a citation template for the archive anyway ).
- In one of the examples, you complained that I turned
<ref>http://www.pembina.com/about-us/our-operations/</ref>
into<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pembina.com/about-us/our-operations/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140929031141/http://www.pembina.com/About-Us/Our-Operations |archive-date=2014-09-29 |title=Pembina - Our Operations}}</ref>
. However, the title has the same information as the URL, and the link was dead anyway, so even if the title is wrong, now the article is pointing to a working link. Would you rather have a broken bare link or a link that works but maybe has a nondescriptive title (in this case, the title looks OK to me, but maybe there are other examples where it is not).
- In one of the examples, you complained that I turned
- One of the other diffs you complained was that I turned
<ref>http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place</ref>
into<ref>{cite web |url=http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129031902/http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place |archive-date=2014-11-29 |title=Pembina Place}}</ref>
. In this case, you have a stronger point that maybe the title is less informative than the original URL. But keep in mind the link was dead, and the Wayback link was there. A dead citation is basically the same as having no citation at all. Hence, that is a good reason to let it through even with the debatably generic title.
- One of the other diffs you complained was that I turned
- Here is an example of a good diff,
<ref>https://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa</ref>
into<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509224024/http://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa |archive-date=2015-05-09 |title=How We're Run - Our Governance {{!}} SSAFA}}</ref>
. Not only was the link dead, and rescued with Wayback, the title is more informative than the URL. Yeah, some people like Ssilvers will say the "website" parameter should be split, and I have been working that in, but as multiple other editors said, we must not let perfect be enemy of the good. Wikipedia is based on incremental improvement. Stubs don't become FAs in one edit, there is always room to improve the citation later on.
- Here is an example of a good diff,
- Off topic question but when is visual editor coming for the noticeboard? Someone here would know the answer to that. It can be hard to follow along in the text editor for a large page with lots of changes.
- 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)
- @Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @MJL: Thanks. I know it sounds maybe a bit hard to believe, but I have no relation to Rotlink or any other past editor. For those that want to believe other wise, all I can really say is that I am willing to stop any work with alternative archive sites if that is what you all want. I didn't have any plans with alternate archive link repair for a while, since my editing plans involved filling bare refs, and then filling in the titles for "Archived Copy" (see Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title) when that was done. Both of these efforts have nothing to do with any of the alternate archive sites, and would/is taking months of my time. If using other archive sites results in COI accusations and stressful ANI threads, it is not worth the time and effort for me to keep using them, to be honest. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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 [58] 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)
- Comment. I'm currently leaning towards revoke access per the issues brought up by trainsandotherthings. Adding {{Bare URL PDF}} to enough pages that it got semi-protected seems a bit irresponsible. This is the type of thing that should've been brought up at {{Bare URL inline}}'s talk page or WikiProject Inline Templates before it got added to 1,532 different pages.
This user certainly has potential though, so I am a bit torn. If access is revoked, I do think there should be a clear path for them to regain access. For the record, I have also not looked into the Rotlink connection at all. My comment is just a reflection on the AWB usage rather than socking accusations. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)- @MJL: I see nothing at all
irresposnible
about Rlink2's creation of {{Bare URL PDF}}. It is analogous to {{Bare URL inline}}, but helpfully provides a distinctive designator for PDF bare URLs, which pose a particular problem because there is no reliable way for tools to extract metadata from PDFs. It would have been better to complete the template before deploying it, but that oversight is a very minor issue, and easily remedied. - If you or any other editor actually discussed this with Rlink2, you would them open, attentive, and well-seized of the issues. This issue would have been resolved promptly.
- It is very sad to see something like this used as "evidence for the prosecution", when no effort has been made to have the usual discussions about whether it is actually a problem. (Hint: it's not a problem. It's a productive addition). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- PS: I have completed and documented {{Bare URL PDF}}. It may not be the perfect solution for PDF format WP:Bare URLs, but I thank @Rlink2 for taking this useful step forward.
- If editors want further discussion of how we can make progress on identifying and fixing the backlog of 47,887 untagged PDF-format bare URL refs (as he 20220101 database dump), this is not the appropriate venue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @MJL: I see nothing at all
- Comment As an editor who fired a rocket at Rlink2 at an early stage (for an error that turned out have been made by WorldCat), I too began by being suspicious of their motives. I also had a sharp intake of breath to see so many of the pages I watch come up with bare URL flags. It was annoying that I missed them being added in the first place but we should not shoot the messenger. Some editors have complained at talk:Rlink2 that just to add title= is inadequate and want to see a full set of metadata: it seems that they would rather have a bare URL than a basic one. Personally I have found it a useful prompt to go get the metadata since invariably the site needs to be deconstructed by human eye. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Blocking their AWB access is being an enemy of the good. Maybe they should be admonished for employing 'almost a bot' but let's not get on our high horse about it. Does Counsel for the Prosecution propose that CitationBot be shut down too? If not, why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Revoke AWB access as above, and launch SPI into possible sock puppetry/block evasion. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- If Rotlink was blocked in 2013, it seems unlikely there would be any technical evidence left for a CU inquiry. A gap of 7 years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit would also seem to make any other attempt at proving socking/block evasion pretty well impossible too. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulate Rlink2 for excellent work improving articles at a steady rate. Any bot-like process will leave imperfections behind due often to pre-existing and unpredictable errors in articles. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Oculi, I agree. Rlink2 is doing great work, and should be congratulated, not hounded.
- This thread is an depressingly good illustration of the principle that no good deed should go unpunished. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Woah there! This discussion is deeply unpleasant to read. It seems like a pile-on.
- The complaint is based on a supposition that @Rlink2 is a) a block-evading sock, and b) somehow in cahoots with archive sites. No actual evidence has been offered for either assertion other than a similarity of usernames. Rlink2 denies both, and nobody has added any further evidence.
- The choice of this venue for a socking allegation is very quite strange, because Izno is a checkuser, so should know that suspected sock cases should be brought to WP:SPI. Why has that not been done here?
- As to the alleged "collusion" with archive sites, no evidence has been offered of any such collusion. And what harm could be done by any such collaboration? Archive.is is an acceptable archive site, so why this rush to monster an editor who archives some pages there? If some editors want to re-open the debate about whether to use Archive.is, they should open an RFC rather than monstering an editor who archives refs.
- As the OP notes, Rlink2's AWB work is mostly uncontroversial, accurate filling of bare links, and issues which arise out of that being discussed openly and amicably on their talk page. Their edits have made a huge contribution to clearing the backlog of bare URL refs, and I am shocked to see that valuable work being brought to a halt on the basis of a set of wild accusations.
- Nobody seems to have identified any actual harm being done by Rlink2. So what is this drama actually about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to BRFA. My recent experiences there have been of very poor communication speed, poor assessment and being subjected to gratuitous personal attack and insults which no BAG member was wiling to challenge.
- Until BAG can reform itself by make it less of a hazing exercise and showing the maturity to genuinely review its bad decisions, editors are well-advised to stay clear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with BHG. I would like to see any sockpuppetry accusations handled at WP:SPI in accordance with the burden of evidence there, as it's usually done. As for the bot use, that's a separate issue. While personally I'm not too happy about meatbots, this noticeboard has time and time again failed to revoke AWB access for editors running actual meatbots. While I'd like to see a consistently harder stance on that, I do find it difficult to believe the tally above for revoking access is solely due to the editing behaviour. archive.today is a perfectly acceptable and popular archive site.
- All the OP has said is that
and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question
-- there is no evidence presented for the assertion, and I'm not going to go digging around for evidence myself. I'd like to see some evidence presented here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)- Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader took the words right out of my mouth, honestly. All this infighting could instead be used to advance progress on Rlink Bot Task 2. The description and the goals have been slightly changed (for example, the bot will find bare refs itself, it won't need submissions), but for the most part I think it is best for everyone if we focus on advancing the bot task. The goal was always to get the bot task approved. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: it seems to me that unless Izno can present some actual evidence to support their allegation that Rlink2 is the owner of an archive site, they should strike the allegation and apologise.
- Same with the allegation of sockpuppetry: Izno should take their case to SPI and accept the outcome of that established process, or strike it and apologise.
- Editors should not be subjected to unsupported allegations which are the taken by other editors as grounds for sanctions, which is what has happened here.
- And given that Ser Amantio di Nicolao remains unsanctioned for about 4 million edits with a very badly-run unauthorised bot (he's too lazy to even use meaningful edit summaries, and that's the least of the problems), it would be grossly unjust to sanction Rlink2 for a well-run AWB task on a scale several orders of magnitude smaller. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The archive wars/RFCs are long behind us and I think I speak for all of us that we don't need to restart those. The issue of if we should use archive.today is completely seperate from me, if that is a discussion you want to entertain that is fine, don't take it out on me like BHG said. Like I've said before, I will happily accept not being able to work with any archive site that isn't archive.org, if your issue is that I somehow own these archival websites, and the community says they do not value my work with those alternate archive sites. If I was the owner of any of these sites I would not be making that offer. So that alone invalidates the supposed allegation of ownership.
- Regarding name similarity and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I should note that some of these users with similar usernames also share the same interests (for example, two of the usernames just so happen to be 'crats, and two of other similar usernames belong to two different amazing admins who both are intrested in sports topics). It's not some crazy, out of the world, one time thing, for someone to have a similar name to another, and for them to have similar interests. I think that if you want to say I someone else, you should have more evidence than just a similar username and having similar interests. Rlink2 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).
- I am however willing to answer the question: I chose to bring this discussion here because I was prepared to block without consultation and wanted to give the party of interest and broader community an opportunity to respond to the issues presented before issuing the block, because a) SPI does not work that way these days (generally), and b) issues other than whether or not the user is block-evading were presented, namely, the user is clearly editing at high speed without review on his non-bot account, some edits of which cross into territory on their bot's unclosed BRFA.
- As for collusion:
- The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC.
- The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.
- As for behavior:
- Same exact topic area in which the former account was blocked: namely, archive URLs added by bot
- Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it.
- The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other area, which usually indicates a returning editor from the get go.
- Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites (to wit, several replacements of .is to .today in the early editing history of the Rlink2 account, something I believe the Rotlink account also was interested in)
- Basically the same name
- A CU I trust has checked the data from the last time Rotlink edited (there was some) versus Rlink 2 today (without my prompting) and while he didn't find that they matched, he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily. (Likely similar in behavior to the case listed in the RFC, though I haven't checked myself.)
- There is at least one item of offwiki material that links Rlink 2 to the website directly, which I am happy to send to my colleagues on ArbCom (it is not particularly damning, but it is yet another piece of a "this is a sock" puzzle).
- Same exact topic area in which the former account was blocked: namely, archive URLs added by bot
- Now, you are free to argue that this is a returning editor doing good work such that "time-served" is the appropriate response (NB our sockpuppetry and block evasion policies do not allow this when it was in the same area as the previous sanctions, but you may argue it), or you may argue that there is insufficient evidence to believe this is the same editor (I am convinced, but you may not be), both of which are part of the reason I invited discussion at ANI rather than at SPI. But even ignoring the socking angle:
- The editor has clearly edited in a high speed fashion without review of his changes and which cross over into an unapproved BRFA's scope.
- So at the very least, I would expect a followup on that aspect from this forum, which is the appropriate forum regardless. Izno (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them
We have people paid by the Internet Archive on Wikipedia. Why is that necessarily a problem?The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.
. Archive.today was approved for use on enwiki in RFC #4. If the site is approved by the community, I don't see the problem with doing link maintenance.The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other subject area
This is not true. I have done stuff like recent change patrol, and I am working on bare ref fixing. I have partcipated in village pump and citation bot discussions, multiple times. You have even tagged me in some of them. I have even done some small article work, which I plan on continuing. I can link to diffs of each of these.
Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites
is not true. I've done work with more than one archive website. For example, all the bare ref fixing was using web.archive.org. I did some edits that were related to filling in Trappist's "archived copy" category that had web.archive.org as an archive link. Even the BRFA that was approved has archive.org stuff in there in there.
- The archive.is to today thing was one thing I've done earlier in my edit history, but I've moved on from that since almost all the links have already been converted to ".today". If I was here only for converting the archive.today links why would I be still editing?
- Regarding
Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it
. I didn't think that 10 edits a minute was high speed. And I was going "high speed" because I was using AWB, there was an explination for that. There is a difference between AWB and unauthorized bot. And I did have a BRFA filed.
- Regarding
Basically the same name
I have addressed a rebuttal above. There are many Wikipedians with the same name and work in the same topic area. I don't think that means anything.
and while he didn't find that they matched
I'm glad we've cleared that up, so technically I am not Rotlink.he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily
yes I do use a VPN/proxy, its not some uncommon thing these days, the climate back then in 2013 and now are very different. People are more worried about their privacy. DuckDuckGo, Protonmail, etc.. are all doing well because there is a large section of the population who is becoming more aware of privacy in the digital world. An IP address is like a social security number. I wouldn't want to give out my SSN to everyone I meet, would you? IP privacy is become very important these days, the WMF is hiding unregistered IP addresses for a reason. The existance and usage of VPNs in 2021 is way bigger than the existence of VPNs in 2013, there are alot of people using them. So I don't think that's a big deal.
high speed fashion without review of his changes
I admitted that sometimes I don't review all of them (particualy, there were times where I didn't scroll down in the AWB window), but I never said I never reviewed any of the changes. I did, bascially almost all the time. And while the bare ref BRFA was unapproved, the very act of fixing bare refs had consensus.
same area as the previous sanctions
All this seems to be predicated on the fact that I supposedly only do work with one archive site, which is not the case like exlpained before. And I've already offered to drop any work with non archive.org sites, if that is what you and community want. Also, you seem to miss the fact that there can be a difference between owner and fan. Archive.today is a popular site, one of the top 100 sites on the internet, of course they will have fans. Any popular band, musician, thing etc. has fans that are overly interested in them and are fans of what they do. It is not implausible that there are other people that like archive.today.
- Like I said, my usage of an alternate archive site for just a few "non-Wayback" sites is not worth all the attention. I say this with honesty, that I am not Rotlink. The primary causes of all these "reasons" you give are simply due to overlapping intrests. For example, if I am intrested in fixing archive links, of which there are many, how else am I supposed to do it? Of course semi-automated or a bot approval tools are necessary. Note that other editors who are intrested in internet archival, and someone else also had a bot to convert .is to .today. However, some people, like you, may permanently think that I am Rotlink. Given the cirmustances, I would completely understand, and I respect your opinion and I see where you come from and why people would think I am Rotlink. I personally don't think it even matters if I'm the owner of archive.today (I'm not), seeing how archive.today is an approved archive website. To that, I can really only say if people are somehow convinced I own archive.today, I'll happily stop any linkwork with the site. I have other stuff to do here. Other than that, I really don't have much else to say.
- Here is some reasons to believe that I am not Rotlink.
- Different English proficiency - someone else also pointed this out. Don't CU's have some language tool that allows them to analyze people's tone and voice? Why don't you use it now?
- Engaging in other tasks - explained above, I do other stuff than just archiving. I did recent change patrol, and I have an article I'm intrested in developing in my draft space. Rotlink only did archived links, he seemingly shown no interest in content creation. I think the conerstone of ANY wiki is content. All of the archiving stuff, just supports the content creation. If there was some sort of community decision that said I couldn't do work with AWB or archiving until I have at least one GA article for nomination, I would follow that happily.
- Offered to stop work with archive.today - If i was the owner of archive.today, which is an approved site, why am I giving up my ability to work with it so easily? The owner of archive.today would instead push and probably still be sucessful in being able to work with his site, given the status of RFC 4.
- Ability to listen to the community - this ties in to what I was saying before, I am always open to consensus. If we did an archive.today RFC 5 and the result was to ban the site, I would still be around. When archive.today was banned the first time Rotlink left the WP communnity IIRC.
- Experimentation with way more than 2 or 3 archive sites - Early on in my tenure here you'll also notice I tried other archive sites then what I used, such as "etched.page" and "archive.st". However, I did not find those sites particularly helpful for my use case. If I am banned from doing archive.today work, may have to look into these sites, but seeing how "etched.page" is some cryptocurrency thing, and you need to pay to archive a webpage there, I think it would be even more controversial given the talk of crypto in the news recently. The point is, I have no real bias towards any of the archive sites. I just use what I think is right of the job.
- Do not edit 24/7 or exhbit the hallmarks of an unapproved bot Looking at Rotlinks time card, the account was editing 24/7. I was always exhibiting some sort of supervision with my edits, and it shows because I don't edit 24/7. No one can be awake for that long. With AWB, I always responded to people basically the instant they left a message on my talk page. That wouldn't be possible with an unapproved bot running unsupervised. I reverted erroneous edits all the time, meaning that there was some sort of supervision. The level of supervision is debatable. But it was certainly there in some sort.
- Failure to look at how the archving may benefit my wiki status - It could be argued that my work with archive sites actually has nothing to do with the sites, but to increase my position on enwiki. For example, converting all the links from .is to .today is a great way to get to 500/30 (EC protection) and inrease your edit count in general. Adding and fixing archive links is a simple and easy is a good way to get "reputation points", increase your edit count, gain trust and permissions at any wiki. It's equivelent to fixing spelling mistakes. It is then easy to branch out into other more pressing matters (like editng protected articles, creating new ones, etc.) You didn't consider this aspect of it though.
- I am not placing archive.today or any archive site other than archive.org on a higher pedestal. Here is this example: There are many fans of Olivia Rodrigo editing the Olivia Rodrigo article. There are people obseesed with Olivia Rodrigo, they wear her merch, buy all her music ticket concerts. However, it becomes a problem when they push biased points of views, or prefer their own opinion over others (POV). We have rules for that WP:NPOV. Why are COI editors asked to make a request on the talk page? Because if they edit directly, there is a high chance of POV pushing. Similarly, I am a fan of all the archive sites. I am not putting archive.today on a higher pedestal however. I don't treat it any higher than I do with archive.org. Archive.today is for sites where archive.org does not work. You have not addressed the issue of archive.org not dealing with certain sites.
- Here is some reasons to believe that I am not Rotlink.
- If you go ahead with a block, I'm not the one to beg and beg. I'll ask for WP:SO and maybe a community review of the block, and I hope it'll be offered to me, but if not, I'll just have to accept my unlucky fate. I wouldn't want to work in a community where everyone thinks I'm evil and bad just because I supposdedly own an approved archive website, which many enjoy and use. I did enjoy my work here, was wonderful to meet many new people. As Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 said,
I tried. In the end, I did.
Rlink2 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)- I will not be placing a block now given the contention here and the fact I was the original person bring the concern, but that does not mean you should not continue to be involved in this discussion, as another admin may do so without further warning. Izno (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have no plans to leave this discussion. I think it's good we keep everything in one place. And I'm glad you chose ANI to voice your concerns where everyone can speak. That way people can see the evidence and the whole story. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno: thank you for finally presenting some assertions of evidence in support of your claim. It's a pity that several of them are demonstrably false (such as "has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites" and "hasn't edited in any other area"), but at least you made your case as you saw it. That is what you should have done at the outset.
- However, this comment by you is shameful:
Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).
. As a checkuser, you should be very well aware that WP:SPI is the forum for examining claims of sockpuppetry. This explicitly stated as policy at WP:HSOCK: If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
- Note that the policy does not offer ANI (or any other forum) as alternative venue. So tell me: did you, as a checkuser, consciously choose to ignore the policy which you are entrusted to uphold? Or were you not even aware of the policy? Or is there some other reason for your breach policy? Given the tools available to a checkuser, I am very alarmed at the possibility that you may have been unaware of policy.
- This matters because a) WP:SPI has a structure for assessing claims of sockpuppetry, and b) WP:SPI is a centralised venue which is monitored by editors who have experience of assessing such claims. I cannot know your intentions in bringing the claim here, but it is clear that the effect of bringing your claims here is to evade proper scrutiny.
- Your dismissal as an
ad hominem
of my complaint about your misuse of procedure and breach of policy is disgraceful. WP:ADMINACCT applies here: you wanted an editor sanctioned, and in doing so you have a responsibility to follow policy and justify your actions. Here is the relevant section in full: Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.
- Instead of justifying or revising your policy-defiant choice to making an SPI complaint in the wrong venue and without any evidence, you chose to hide behind the shield of a wholly bogus allegation that criticism of your admin/checkuser actions is an ad hominem. That is not just an evasion of your responsibility to justify your actions; it is a nasty attempt to smear me for making legitimate, policy-based criticism. Such smear tactics are deeply uncivil in any editor, and unacceptable in an admin. Please behave much better.
- As to the substance of the evidence you have belatedly presented, some parts of it are demonstrably false, and most of it seems to me to be weak and circumstantial. I am particularly troubled that use of a VPN proxy is being held against an editor, because it seems to me to be a common and wholly reasonable practice. You may disagree about that, but if you want to pursue this complaint, then for goodness sake: follow policy, and take it to SPI, where it can be properly scrutinised.
- And are you really sure that publicly disclosing at ANI that fact of VPN proxy usage, without going through SPI processes, is compatible with the procedural policy Wikipedia:CheckUser? It seems to me to be a possible breach of WP:CUPRIVACY.
- I AGF that you honestly believe you have a reasonable complaint against Rlink2. But the way you have pursued that complaint is most unreasonable. I am minded to open an ANI thread about your own misconduct here, but I hope that you will reconsider and make that unnecessary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I actually discussed with multiple other administrators before bringing it here, so, no, I was decidedly not attempting to avoid scrutiny, never mind that ANI reaches more watchers than SPI, not fewer. I could as easily have filed at SPI (well, would have had to add the set of behaviors at the open rather than the close as you suggest) which, if I were a betting man, would have had to settle it on the merits of the behavior (the technical evidence was likely to be useless for making a direct connection to a decade-blocked account), and the usual SPI admins probably would have taken my connection and run with it. All of this even if
should
were language that indicates a requirement rather than (strong, as it is policy) suggestion. (must
is such requiring language.) - An ad hominem is the fallacy basing an argument on something about the person you are discussing with rather than on the statements provided by that person or the facts of the situation. A statement
Our policy says you should have taken this to SPI
is fine, a statementYou are a checkuser and you should have taken it to SPI as a result
is not. Hence, your comment was an ad hominem as a factual statement (rather than some attempt to smear you; I have no interest in such a thing). Now, I continued on to discuss why I had done it, so I actually fully answered your question rather than dismissed it out of hand, since the root question was reasonable. - I believe it was not a breach of CUPRIVACY as the statement was in sufficiently broad terms: nothing identifying the user and nothing about the specific IP addresses used (the details of which I have not seen in fact). Separately, the CU who ran the check verified that he thought this was an reasonable statement to make public. (Regardless, this generality is routinely seen in the context of SPI, so if there is an issue here, it is a broad rather than specific one.)
- Thanks for your comments. Izno (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno: thanks for the tone of most of your reply. But it is sad that you still sticking by your false claim that I made an ad hominem attack.
- Your policy error was that a) you offered no evidence in your initial post; b) you brought your complaint to ANI rather than SPI, as required by policy. That is a criticism of your actions, to which you should have responded in good grace rather. Your checkuser privileges are highly relevant, because as a holder of those privileges you are required to work within checkuser policies, so you have a duty to know and apply the policy. If noting the specific responsibilities of someone who has special privileges is labeled as an ad hominem attack, then accountability is impossible.
- I ask you again to withdraw that claim.
- As to the rest ... well if a bunch of weak circumstantial claims which include at least three demonstrable falsehoods would have led to a block at SPI, then gawd 'elp us. I had assumed that SPI worked to much higher standards than that.
- What I see in Rlink2 is a highly productive editor who is doing excellent work helping to resolve a long-standing problem of WP:Bare URLs, but is being hounded for it. Why on earth have you and that undisclosed group of other admins had these secret discussions to try to stop that good work? Why did you not attempt to discuss these issues with Rlink2 before coming to ANI, as requested at the top of this page?
- The only part of your complaint of misconduct (other than the tenuous claims of sockpuppetry) which has any substance is the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. But if you really concerned about that issue, why on earth pick on Rlink2 rather than Ser Amantio di Nicolao's vastly greater use of an unauthorised bot, with huge and long-standing quality problems? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding some of the other accusations, you could also claim I have a “direct link” (as in, lines of communication or “diplomatic cables”) to archive.org, there is on and off wiki evidence of this. One possibility that might come out of this ANI is that people are convinced I am "linked" to both archive.today (through your evidence) and archive.org (through my evidence) in terms of communication (not ownership). Which would basically prove that I am not the owner of any of them and that I do not prefer one archive site over the other.
- I actually discussed with multiple other administrators before bringing it here, so, no, I was decidedly not attempting to avoid scrutiny, never mind that ANI reaches more watchers than SPI, not fewer. I could as easily have filed at SPI (well, would have had to add the set of behaviors at the open rather than the close as you suggest) which, if I were a betting man, would have had to settle it on the merits of the behavior (the technical evidence was likely to be useless for making a direct connection to a decade-blocked account), and the usual SPI admins probably would have taken my connection and run with it. All of this even if
- If you go ahead with a block, I'm not the one to beg and beg. I'll ask for WP:SO and maybe a community review of the block, and I hope it'll be offered to me, but if not, I'll just have to accept my unlucky fate. I wouldn't want to work in a community where everyone thinks I'm evil and bad just because I supposdedly own an approved archive website, which many enjoy and use. I did enjoy my work here, was wonderful to meet many new people. As Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 said,
- Keep in mind owning a site versus merely talking with the owner or submitting feature and bug reports are two completely separate things. I know about Amazon and buy stuff from there all the time, and if there is an issue I call their support. Contacting AMZN support over a missing package doesn’t mean I own Amazon, nor does it mean I have a relationship with them, or I’m putting it over eBay or some other ecommerce website. Are you trying to claim I own an archive site, or you trying to claim I have merely communicated with employees/owner(s) of an archive site? Two very different things.
- And furthermore regarding the ".is" to ".today" changes, not only is IABot and GreenC bot converting all the .is to .today links, many of the people who voted support in RFC #4 were also involved in changing the links to ".today". They used AWB to do it, and they said that their relation to archive.today was that
we are just frequent visitors of the site
. Again, this supports the "fan theory", when you are popular enough, people will do stuff for you, give money to you, etc... It can be hard to tell the difference between overzelous fan and owner/strong COI in this case. Don't believe me? Go to any boy band's Wikipedia page and look at the edit history, both of the article itself, and the editors who wrote a huge chunk or maintain the article/keep it up to date. That's why WP:NPOV exists.
- And furthermore regarding the ".is" to ".today" changes, not only is IABot and GreenC bot converting all the .is to .today links, many of the people who voted support in RFC #4 were also involved in changing the links to ".today". They used AWB to do it, and they said that their relation to archive.today was that
- Anyway, you ignored my work with archive.org links, and you ignored the part in my first response I said I may have been working/communicatting with the Internet Archive, I think we all agree (even the starters of the thread) that the Internet Archive is a trusted and reputable organization. When making ANI decisions, aren’t we supposed to know all the information that is possible about the case and just not one side?
the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag.
This is a perfectly valid complaint, I have already admitted there are times I go too fast. I can work to change my behavior on that. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Rlink2: move to close
I think it's time to close this discussion. No evidence has presented to support the allegations of sockpuppetry and that Rlink2 is the owner of some archive site, and it is disappointing that those unevidenced claims have not been withdrawn.
The only other complaints are that a) Rlink2 created {{Bare URL PDF}} without prior discussion, which is in no way an ANI matter, and b) that their highly productive edits would be better done as a bot task (on which there seems to be complete agreement).
There is no ANI issue here, so all we need to do here is to ask WP:BAG and @Rlink2 to speed up WP:BRFA/Rlink2 Bot 2. There is no need for ongoing drama about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, i agree. Since the starters of the thread seem to be intrested in video games, let me use an analogy they can understand. Without any further evidence, mulling any more on this ANI thread is like when the AI controls USA and Japan and they go to war in Hearts of Iron 4. Anyone who has played that game knows that the AI doesn't make any headway. Or maybe it can be compared to the Far Harbor puzzle mission in Fallout 4- that mission is so much trouble, and there was literally no point to that one. I don't even know why Bethesda put it in the game.
- Jokes and video game comparisions aside, all the drama is truly unnecessary, and any possible (mis)use of AWB could have been discussed on my talk page before taking it to ANI. Let's get back to building a encylopedia. Rlink2 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree this should be closed. There are some minor issues, but it is entirely unfair to hang the specter of a sock allegation against Rlink2 without hard evidence. I am strongly opposed to any block of Rlink2 based solely on circumstantial evidence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree this should be closed. I have read this thread several times. (1) There is a possibility that Rlink2 is connected to an editor who last edited 9 years ago; (2) there is a possibility that Rlink2 in some unspecified way benefits from rescuing dead links and replacing them with live useful archived links; (3) there is irritation that watchlists are being affected. No-one has given a specific troublesome diff. Here is recent diff from Rlink2: Rosecrans Memorial Airport: a bare and dead link has been converted into a useful properly cited archived link. By what convoluted logic is this being turned into a negative? Perhaps Sue Gray should be asked to investigate. Oculi (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Additional input subsection
- I just want to note that although I didn't have much time to take it further yet, I was concerned with this user's promotion of certain archive sites and have expressed it once at the user's talk page (permalink). —PaleoNeonate – 03:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- How am I promoting archive sites? I just use them, when it comes to articles, I have some minor copyedits on the archive.today and Internet Archive article. That's about all. I have not written any article about any archive related topics and likely never will. And I explained my rationale for using non archive.org sites, both when you left a message on my talk page, and in this ANI thread.
- Like other editors said if you have a problem with an archive site, open up another RFC. I have a feeling this ANI thread is being derailed to a soapbox of people's personal opinions about archive websites, instead of the claims laid out against me in particular. Let's keep it focused. Rlink2 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The focus is your activity on WP. To answer about promotion, it's obvious: adding thousands of links to otherwise rather obscure websites about which there exists little scrutiny. You have admitted to me that they were controversial but simply persisted. I realize that this is ANI, that there was one call to close and that it may not be the last discussion about this, but since we're already here and that, like I almost did, others may have missed it, I decided to ping various editors. In case they want to comment or just take note of the event, these have helped or expressed concerns in the past. Some may have noticed an evolution, others are used to technical tasks or familiar with the use and rules of automated or semiautomated edits, etc. @Ssilvers, DeCausa, John Maynard Friedman, ElKevbo, Spinningspark, A876, Trappist the monk, Keith D, Geogene, Whywhenwhohow, GreenC, TheSandDoctor, Cameron11598, Mz7, Joeyconnick, Wallyfromdilbert, Ravensfire, Slywriter, JlACEer, Kailash29792, and Ymblanter:. —PaleoNeonate – 10:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I posted on Rlink2’s talk page a couple of weeks ago because I was highly suspicious of my watchlist being filled up with edits to citations linking to a web archive I’d never heard of by an editor who only started 4 months ago but had the confidence to make mass changes across WP, run a bot and accumulate 150k+ edits in that time. At that time my thoughts were (a) there must be a previous undisclosed history/account (b) if there are systemic problems with these mass edits, eg that web archive is unsuitable, it’s going to be horrendous to unpick. I’ve looked over this thread - but not in detail. It seems, IMHO, highly probable that Izno’s suspicious are correct and Rlink2 is Rotlink - and that explains much. I don’t really understand why this isn’t at SPI though for a proper behavioural analysis by those experienced in that sort of thing (I understand CU won’t work here). I can’t claim to have followed all the ins and outs - but it doesn’t smell right though. That’s all I can say and probably not a very helpful input. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Like i said before, if you have a problem with an archive site, take it to RFC. Do not take it out on me. If an archive site was banned I would follow that resolution. And I already offered to stop working with those alternate sites if people want that. Rlink2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- This ANI has been running for quite long enough for the original accusation of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry to have been investigated through the standard channels. Either that has not been done or has not supported the allegation. I thought that WP has higher standards than McCarthyite inferences based on nothing more than surmise and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sure it upsets some people to see twenty articles come up on their watch-list report that they'd even forgotten having put a watch on and haven't seen a change for years. Shooting the messenger is not the solution; just go bring the citations up to current standards – if it didn't bother you to have a link-rot citation before, why are you bothered by a less-than-perfect fix? As to which archive site to use, who cares so long as it actually works? It may all become moot [en-us] soon anyway because of copyright actions. The work that Rlink2 has been doing is not perfect, but there is no bot that is; most importantly it is an improvement on the status quo. Time to wp:drop the stick. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support John. Rlink2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Some of the editors you tagged in left questions on my talk page that have nothing to do with archive sites. Trappist the Monk has commented on 0 ANI threads in his WP history and this won't be the first one. Actually, I think there was one in 2013, where he just commented to clear something up (so he had no opinion on the matter). You should have read the whole ANI thread before tagging and making more accusations. I think its unlikely GreenC will comment on here, but he said that all the archive sites were OK on my talk page. Almost all of the editors you pinged left mesages that had nothing to do with archives. The only "anti-archivers" you pinged are DeCausa (responded already) and Whywhatwhenwho. And Whywhat just trout slapped me regarding missing citation info, I don't think he was against the alternate archive sites. Asking questions about something and being against something are different. Again, if you have a problem with an archive site, start another RFC. I meant controversial in the way that some don't like but some do, and that there was an RFC that settled the controversy.
- And you, Paleo, I resonded to your message, you never got back. If you don't respond to a message, I will assume that are OK with what I am doing, or your confusion cleared up.
- I have explained time and time again that my use of alternate sites is for sites Wayback can not handle. Wayback is already unsuitable for these links. If Wayback fixes the capaibility to archive those sites, and an RFC to replace any "alternate archive" sites with archive.org sites passes, I will follow that. And I also explained like 5 times in this thread that I am willing to stop any work with non archive.org sites if that's what people want, since I do way more than just archiving. The links that don't work with Wayback will just have to die because you don't like the solution. You say I persisted in archiving as if I ignored consensus, but you omitted the next part of that sentence where I said
I only use it for certain sites
. I think we all agree having an alternate archive link is better than letting the link die, that is not uncontroversial.
- I have explained time and time again that my use of alternate sites is for sites Wayback can not handle. Wayback is already unsuitable for these links. If Wayback fixes the capaibility to archive those sites, and an RFC to replace any "alternate archive" sites with archive.org sites passes, I will follow that. And I also explained like 5 times in this thread that I am willing to stop any work with non archive.org sites if that's what people want, since I do way more than just archiving. The links that don't work with Wayback will just have to die because you don't like the solution. You say I persisted in archiving as if I ignored consensus, but you omitted the next part of that sentence where I said
- And many like the other archive sites. I saw on the community wishlist someone wanted additional integration with archive.today. You may not like it, but others do. I have been thanked many times for my edits, and even though a "thank" could mean anything, it at the very least signals appreciation or a "good edit". People are more likely to complain out loud then to thank out loud, its human psychology.
- If you haven't heard of an archive site, that is not my problem. I am not a PR agent for archive sites. Some on here didn't even know AWB exists, some still think all admins can edit CSS/JS (unaware of Interface Admin role). If there are editors unaware of everything ON wikipedia (which is fine), how can there be editors aware of everything off wikipedia that other editors use? Some support the archive sites that I used. Let's not turn this skrimish into Wiki Archive War 2. Archive War 1 was supposed to be the war to end all wars, we suffered alot of casualties. Some of the brave soldiers in first battle of the Marne didn't even make it into Battle of Megiddo. Many of the veterans aren't even as active on WP anymore. No one wants to fight another war. We already have a citation war going on too, isn't it wise wisdom to never fight a war on two fronts?
- I find it funny how PaleoNeonate and DeCausa are saying other archive sites are bad when archive.org employees say other archive sites are fine and integrate it into their Wikipedia bot. I am sure Cyberpower and IA could get away with the bot doing archive.org, but they added alternate archive sites as well. IABot will sometimes choose other archive sites over Wayback when adding archived links. There was a diff somewhere I would have to dig to find it. Rlink2 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I stated on Rlink2 talk page, I believe they should get clear community consensus for any activites that could be considered WP:MEATBOT if for not other reason than to avoid endless talk page messages (and repeated visits to ANI). They have also been responsive and polite on their talk page and have handled this lengthy discussion without losing their cool. If the community still feels their AWB should be revoked, it should be removed for only as long as it takes for them to get community consensus to resume specific activities.Slywriter (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Slywriter:. In a way, I do have "community consensus" - I link to policies that support my edits in my edit summaries. I am not doing anything completely new or out of the ordinary with AWB. Archiving links? Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations. Fixing bare references? Wikipedia:Bare_URLs. How are those policies made? Through community consensus and discussion. And if people have any issues I don't mind talk page discussions. That is one way of further developing and refining consensus.
- Complaints will never stop, because not everyone is aware of the policies, discussions, RFCs, etc.... Or some disagree with them but want "take it out" on me. We have an archive.today RFC and people are still complaining about the site. So I don't think a discussion anywhere will be the "silver bullet" necessary. Rlink2 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I was pinged here, and I don't have time to read all of this, so I'll just repeat what I said on Rlink2's talk page: I don't think it's a good idea for new editors to make high speed, automated edits. One thing I noted was that Rlink2 has been making numerous automated edits purporting to "fill out bare links", but instead their edits were simply to add a mash-up of the article's title and publisher/work, leaving a messy, incomplete citation, rather than filling in the citation with author name, publisher name, date of publication, as well as title, and other essentials of a good citation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, I upgraded the script to split and use publisher/work field after your concern. Second of all, there was lengthy discussion about this on my talk page with multiple editors, see User_talk:Rlink2#A_little_mindless The consensus is that we should not let "perfect be the enemy of the good" . Not all articles on Wikipedia are featured articles and need to have perfect citations. All I was doing is bringing the citations from bare to filled. Articles on Wikipedia don't become stubs to FAs in one edit, do they? I am working on the principles of incremental improvement. Rlink2 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Since Paleo has pinged in some of the critics, lets tag in some of the supports (have thanked me more than 3 times, all on edits from AWB runs) who may have something to add:
@Cat's Tuxedo: @Ahunt: @MarioSoulTruthFan: @Bigturtle:
For the people that were pinged, I know the thread might be long, and you don't want to read it, so I have one simple question for you: for the edits which you thanked me for, were there any problems with them? Would you say I am doing good work with AWB, or do you think I was making disruptive edits? Were my edits constructive, and did they improve the article? You thanked me, so I assume you liked the edit, and your response will help others know that I was working with some sort of consensus. Rlink2 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have checked hundreds of your edits and they have been useful. None needed fixing or reverting. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give a thank you if I wasn't sure an edit was an improvement, so I see no problem here. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I routinely thank constructive edits, including yours. Bigturtle (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- The editors I pinged were all that I easily saw in discussions in my above permalink. Some were also helpers. I didn't particularly select them, to avoid WP:CANVASS. —PaleoNeonate – 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I am currently working on an article that's being reviewed for GA status, and I went to expand a section... so I opened the URL to the source... to a PDF on a county government website... which was a 404. Egads! Thankfully, someone thought ahead and added an archive link some months ago -- I was able to read all several hundred pages (and that's far from the only article that PDF was a source for). Personally, I think anyone who is going through Wikipedia archiving references is doing God's work. Reading through this thread, I do not see a whole lot of cogent argumentation of how this guy is doing anything wrong, besides the fact that he is doing a bajillion edits at once. So, okay, I guess he should stop that, or get approval to run it as a bot task. It doesn't seem disruptive to create a template, or to fix a bunch of articles. If I am missing something here, let me know, and perhaps I will change my opinion -- but it seems fine to me. jp×g 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I just got a message about this; I'm not one to judge either party for whatever reason that this argument is about but just as jp×g said most of the same that was said can be applied to what I will say as well. There is an article that has made me fearful of citation deletion if it weren't for Rlink2 archiving these very citation, they would have been all for nothing! For the article where I've seen Rlink2 were not disruptive but extremely helpful, I have also learned how to use the very archiving website to do the very same Rlink2 has done. As far as how many on how disruptive for any article this would be... I am not the one to ask. Maybe the implementation of a bot? I have no experience in this matter either but whatever may have started this I hope something can get sorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.169.177 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Making 200k edits in the first 4 months of an account is ... for comparison, 10x what I've done in 3 years and I'm on here every day. Obviously Rlink2 isn't Rlink2's first account, but if they're not Rotlink (and the username is so close as to almost be trolling, but AGFing to the max...), I'm unclear on who they are. Normally I wouldn't ask an editor that question, it's none of my business if it's a clean start or whatever, but you kind of give up any pretense when you make 200k edits in 4 month of a new account. Also I'm unclear about whether they are or or are not in fact linking to one website. If they are, it's shameless promotion, and they ought to be site banned. If they're not, and it's good-faith editing, then the next question is what's the "error rate" (good edits v. bad edits). If it's not too high, then whatevs. If it is too high, then slow down/fix the errors. As for the socking concern, it should be pretty straightforward for Rlink2 to email some CU and disclose their prior account and thereby establish that they're not Rotlink. (They don't have to tell me, it's none of my business.) Levivich 02:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Making 200k edits in the first 4 months of an account
I used AWB, when you use AWB you can get alot done, depending on the task.the username is so close
Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused There are literally multiple editors on that list which "basically close" usernames.If it is too high, then slow down/fix the errors.
I agree.Also I'm unclear about whether they are or or are not in fact linking to one website.
I use multiple archive sites, and there are multiple diffs to back this up.- Thank you for your opinion, it is much welcome Rlink2 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: You think that's wild, wait till someone opens the SPI to unmask the shady character pulling the strings behind me, JFG, JzG, and Jpgordon. As for the amount of links added, well -- it's an archive site. A search in source for "archive.org" in mainspace returns a little under a million pages before the regex times out. jp×g 03:59, 23 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[59] |
---|---|
... 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" [60][61][62], "jealous [dogs]" [63], having a "poor mind" [64][65], "useless" [66], and "disgusting" [67]. 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)
Perhaps a copyright investigation needs to be started? I see e.g. Huang Tianhua, which they created in January, vs. this
Our article | The source[68] |
---|---|
... was sent away when he was three years old to be trained by the'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He wore golden armour and wielded the Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could take him anywhere in a matter of seconds. After Cheng Tong informed him of his father's death, he eventually abandoned his master's service. Given a flower basket by his master, he went to his father's camp and used the mystical tablets in the flower basket to bring him back to life. After formally introducing himself to his family, he inquired about his mother's whereabouts and, upon learning of her death at the hands of King Zhou, pledged to assist in the overthrow of King Zhou. He battled against the Shang dynasty in several engagements, dying at least once before being resurrected by his master. He was one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most competent generals, dying at the hands of Gao Jineng. His father avenged his death by killing Gao Jineng with a single blow. After his death, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies him as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. | ... was sent away at the age of three to be tutored under the 'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He was described as wearing golden armour and wielding the mystical Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could transport him to any location in mere seconds. He eventually left his master's service after hearing of his father's death by Cheng Tong. Given a flower basket by his master, he rushed to his father's camp, and brought him back to life with magical pills in the flower basket. Formally introducing himself to his family, he asked about his mother's whereabouts and after hearing of her death at the hands of King Zhou of Shang, swore to aid in bringing down King Zhou. He fought in many battles against the Shang Dynasty, dying at least once before being revived by his master. He died a permanent death at the hands of Gao Jineng, becoming one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most talented generals. His death was avenged by his father, who killed Gao Jineng with one blow. At the end of the novel, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies Huang Tianhua as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ... |
Opening a WP:CCI may be necessary. Fram (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.
- I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[69]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.
Hold Nickar | Source[70] |
---|---|
Hold Nickar is a Teutonic malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors. Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar. | It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar, a malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors, or even about Alte Hoerner [...] |
("Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs" is also copied from a source, but a different one).
Hold Nickar | Source[71] |
---|---|
Hold Nickar is a patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon, according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune. | In Russia he was Hold Nickar patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon or according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune; |
In addition, the first of those sources is shaky to say the least, and so are some of the other sources they proposed in the AfD – but that is a content issue, so not the important point here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah I just meant that it was originally soft deleted and he brought it to a !keep. I didn't actually look at the article. Curbon7 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It does not look like this editor is capable of editing productively here. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding Hold Nickar, I have asked Bloodofox for an evaluation of the sources, since they know more about folklore than I do, but the article as it currently is, after reduction almost entirely by VocalIndia themself, looks like a straightforward candidate for redirecting to Nixie (folklore). However, after originally being closed as soft delete, with only one !vote, delete on exactly those grounds but without mention of redirecting as an option, the AfD was ultimately closed as keep, so I hesitate to boldly override that decision all on my lonesome. After cutting out the non-waterspirit material, VocalIndia made mention at the AfD of foreign-language Wikipedia material; that led me to look at es:Hold Nickar, and I realized that it was similar in spirit to the long version of our article, and found that a passage only loosely supported by the cited source, this archived pagan essay (mainly the weird translation of the names of Thor's goats), was a close translation of the corresponding Spanish passage, which cites the same source. I then found that VocalIndia added a translation attribution template on the talk page back in May, although I can't see any attribution in the history of the article itself, including the April edits creating it. I think VocalIndia has been misled by trusting other Wikipedians too much to have done a good job on topics they themself are unfamiliar with, and has failed to check the sources to see whether they are reliable and support the statements being made (or hasn't known enough about the field to check what reliable sources say). This may relate to their over-close paraphrasing noted above; I think a root cause may be that they are working on topics where they lack the necessary knowledge to make good editorial choices. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support indef This kind of uncollaborative behavior even after the block show this editor is not capable to be productive here. TolWol56 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Gaming behavior at 3RR
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm getting repeatedly cast aspersions, having my comments removed from the comments section. And getting gamed and gaslighted by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at this 3RR report. I haven't done anything wrong and I'm tired of this gamester trying to deny his own culpability when he has clearly gone over the top in edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- What. You were annotating Kwamikagami's own notes, in their text; that's not OK. As for aspersions--you are calling them a "gamester". Kwamikagami, you like Roblox or Shellshockers? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You mean like this? Oh, but wait, that's them. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's comment Inception EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean or how it somehow incriminates the other editor--I do get the sarcasm! Anyway, I see you are not disputing my comment about the allegedly unwarranted removing of comments. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- That comment was put in the middle of the report section, above the Comments: line. Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Skyerise I'm not sure what you're referring to but Drmies seems to be referring to [72] which is in the middle of Kwamikagami's signed comment, a signed comment which inside the comment section (i.e. below the comments line), and completely inappropriate. Please don't do that again. If you need to to address or dispute something Kwamikagami said, then please add it below their signed comment, like everyone else does, not in the middle. You can use quotations, descriptions whatever to make it clear what you're referring to as needed. The fact that Kwamikagami initially replied to the comment you added in the middle of their signed comment also in the middle (of their own, not your signed comment) doesn't excuse your behaviour since it's always confusing when people create problems like you did. Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I apparently pasted the wrong diff. Here is where he added a comment inside the report section, the same thing he complained about me doing. [73]. Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- After you said it was okay to post responses inside each other's comments, I posted one (clearly marked) inside yours. So you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for acting the way you did and then said we should? No aspersions here, but I do find your behaviour amazing. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I apparently pasted the wrong diff. Here is where he added a comment inside the report section, the same thing he complained about me doing. [73]. Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Skyerise I'm not sure what you're referring to but Drmies seems to be referring to [72] which is in the middle of Kwamikagami's signed comment, a signed comment which inside the comment section (i.e. below the comments line), and completely inappropriate. Please don't do that again. If you need to to address or dispute something Kwamikagami said, then please add it below their signed comment, like everyone else does, not in the middle. You can use quotations, descriptions whatever to make it clear what you're referring to as needed. The fact that Kwamikagami initially replied to the comment you added in the middle of their signed comment also in the middle (of their own, not your signed comment) doesn't excuse your behaviour since it's always confusing when people create problems like you did. Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- That comment was put in the middle of the report section, above the Comments: line. Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You mean like this? Oh, but wait, that's them. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Abusive genre warrior from Greater Buenos Aires
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone from the outskirts of Buenos Aires has been busy genre warring in pop music articles, and leaving abusive edit summaries such as "DON'T ADD GENRES WITHOUT SOURCE, BITCH", "fuck the unsourced", "Put yo ass in a chair" and "Block me if you dare, Dog". I don't sense a positive net worth to the project. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fully support blocking. I'm not well-verses in range blocks though, so I'd rather have someone else take care of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- First thing that comes to mind when it comes to Argentinian (sorry, that's the Spanish pronunciation) music editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked for three months. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
How Hillsong Church garnered incivility and SPA edits
I noticed that Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) called an editor liar. Unfortunately, I deleted a bit too much of the URL when I changed it to a diff and added it to Damien Linnane's talk page. It was only later that I saw a second instance. I was called out for the poor edit and the interaction did not improve. While that transpired, the other editor, L32007 (talk · contribs), wrote that they felt attacked by Damien Linnane on that original talk page, and made it clear that they were discussing a separate topic. Back on Damien Linnane's talk page, the editor wrote, "Of course I called an editor a liar" and continued to explain why that was perfectly acceptable to have done so.
This is, unfortunately, a mess. L32007 is most clearly a WP:SPA and has edited primarily on the topic of Hillsong Church and associated articles. Do I expect the editor to attempt to minimize the church's (more like a denominiation's) problems? Of course! Do I think the editor is intentionally lying? No, I WP:AGF and assume an error. Do I think that there may be political spin? Probably.
Damien Linnane, on the other hand, is attacking, unrepentant, aggressive and treating editing like a battleground, at least with this subject, and two separate editors.
Am I perfect? Look at my block log, but I have attempted to stay cool on this topic. If no administrative action is taken on either of these editors, at least a nice discussion about WP:CIVILITY with Damien Linnane would be worthwhile and one about WP:COI with L32007, since my earlier comments on their talk page did not seem to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [74]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.
- I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [75]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [76]. As L32007 has just admitted today [77], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.
- L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [78]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [79]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [80]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [81]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.
- In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.
- Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.
- Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [82]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.
- Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.
- Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [83], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.
- In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page, citing several guidelines in the process he is clearly familiar with [84]. It should be noted that he appeared well-versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he had made previously, and continued to make afterwards. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. The reason I started this ANI is that it was clear to me, from our brief interaction on your talk page, that you did not understand that, and you still do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack if there is irrefutable proof they are lying, it's simply a statement of fact. I understand you disagree, however, as you've already stated on my talk page it's uncivil to call someone a liar even if they are lying, which is an absurd belief to hold. But that's my opinion, and unlike you, as I've already mentioned I'm happy to agree to disagree. I still can't believe you've felt the need to make a mountain out of a molehill with something I said in passing that was clearly true. Please just drop the stick and let the admins make a decision. I won't reply to anything further you add. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- How about we both stop writing and let an uninvolved editor or an admin weigh-in? And for the record, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but not when WP:NPA is being violated with no end to that behaviour in sight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack if there is irrefutable proof they are lying, it's simply a statement of fact. I understand you disagree, however, as you've already stated on my talk page it's uncivil to call someone a liar even if they are lying, which is an absurd belief to hold. But that's my opinion, and unlike you, as I've already mentioned I'm happy to agree to disagree. I still can't believe you've felt the need to make a mountain out of a molehill with something I said in passing that was clearly true. Please just drop the stick and let the admins make a decision. I won't reply to anything further you add. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. The reason I started this ANI is that it was clear to me, from our brief interaction on your talk page, that you did not understand that, and you still do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Uninvolved (occasional) editor here. Damien you need to cool your jets - one of the basic principles here is "assume good faith" - so even if you're sure someone is lying, don't just go around calling them a liar. You're better off working with Walter to improve the article. It doesn't need to have the minutiae of every little scandal gone into in great depth. Walter - it would probably be good for experienced editors and/or admins to keep an eye on this article for the next few months - Hillsong have got themselves involved in Australian politics at very high levels (e.g. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/09/23/hillsong-brian-houston-scott-morrison/) and there's an election coming up in the next few months, so no doubt there will be occasional bursts of politically-motivated editor-initiated shenanigans. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Daveosaurus: I did ping Walter to the talk page last year for the purpose of addressing concerns at the article, but he didn't reply. Nobody wanted to help fix the issue, which was a shame.
- I put a lot of effort into uncovering the lengths at which SPA editors had manipulated the article, and when one of them finally replied, they ignored all the criticism against them, and instead made a false claim. In retrospect, yes, I was quite triggered that the only reply I got to all my hard work was someone commenting directly underneath my evidence regarding a letter from a minister that I had quoted the wrong letter, which I can clearly prove I did not. Yes, I was very angry. If that person didn't have a several-year history of adding original research to the article, I would have assumed good faith, but considering their history, I could not.
- I completely agree the article should be watched by others, and would happily recuse myself if this happens as I actually have no interest in the Hillsong Church. The sole purpose of my talk page post in the first place was pointing out bias in the hopes others would get involved. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- The root issue, however, is not the article but you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change if you go to another article. You keep blaming other editors and refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The root issue is SPA's adding original research and making statements that are not true. It isn't wasted on me that nobody is doubting that untrue statements were made over a period of many years. You keep refusing to acknowledge the cause and instead only address my reaction.
- You and I have interacted once. You're making quite the leap (and are also not assuming good faith), when you say you expect me to call other editors liars in the future. To the best of my recollection, I've never called someone a liar before in 14 years of editing Wikipedia. Until this week, however, I'd never had to deal with an SPA with an editing history this questionable before.
- Rest assured it will not happen again though. I have learned something through this experience, and that is the next time I uncover someone with an editing history like this, instead of saying they lied, I'll say "you have a long history of making statements that are inaccurate". No I'm not being facetious; that's what I will say. Maybe then people will actually pay attention to their editing history, instead of my reaction to it. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never wrote that I expected you to call other editors liars. I posted a link to the article's talk page, and deleted too much of it, yet you know where I was referencing when I stated that you made a personal attack. The sarcasm was misplaced but you clearly did not see that calling an editor a liar because you believed it to be factually true. Whether it was based on fact or not, it is inappropriate to call an editor a liar. For the record, the editor has since written they were referencing a document different than the one you were and so this is a misunderstanding.
- The question is not whether you are or are not good at uncovering problems, it is how you choose to address other editors whom you dislike. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the editor's response, and as you already know I responded at the talk page in question indicating what's wrong with their explanation. L32007 choosing to post directly under me commenting about a letter from a minister and saying I got the letter wrong, and expecting me to read their mind and understand they're referring to a completely different letter that was mentioned several months earlier, is either just plain silly, or deliberate dishonesty and a poor attempt to back-pedal. Their explanation also neither addresses the fact that they have completely ignored and refused to discuss the criticism of their behaviour, nor does it change the fact they have made untrue statements elsewhere.
- You explicitly said "[The issue is] you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change ..."[85]. Now you're trying to say you never expected me to do it again. That appears to be gaslighting. I don't have the energy to keep up with how often you seem to change your story, so I'd very much prefer if we stopped talking. One editor has agreed with you that I'm over-reacting, though I note they've given no indication they even looked into the root issue of the SPA's behaviour. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that L32007 is an SPA, and us continuing to remonstrate over everything else is just bloating this section and making it less likely for anyone else to weigh in, so once again I won't reply to you again unless someone new comments. And just for the record, when I say I'm not going to reply again until someone else comments [86], you replying by suggesting the exact same thing[87] is redundant. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The root issue, however, is not the article but you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change if you go to another article. You keep blaming other editors and refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Notice to admins. WP:TLDR? I pointed out the behavior of L32007, an SPA editor, who had attributed inaccurate statements to references over a period of at least 3 years. He ignored my criticism and instead only accused me of linking to the wrong document in my argument. Because he has a history of inaccurate statements, because he would not discuss his behaviour, and because I did not make the error it appeared he had accused me of, I lost my temper and called him a liar. In 14 years of editing Wikipedia, to the best of my recollection I have not called someone a liar before. L32007 then stated the error he had accused me of was something different to what I thought; if this is true he did a very poor job of explaining what document he was initially referring to. It was difficult for me to AGF on this, due to his wording and his history of making untrue statements. However, I will accept this and move on. I emphatically reject many of the claims Walter Görlitz, the top contributor of the article, has made against me during this conversation. He was unwilling to discuss the issue of SPA edits on the article's talk page after I pinged him there, which was disappointing, and this inaction contrasted with how quickly he was willing to criticise me over this matter, exacerbating my already tense feelings on the situation. In saying this I am only trying to explain why I continued to lose my temper, which is regrettable. I do agree to not call someone a liar again, even if I am certain they are lying and they have a history of making inaccurate statements. L32007 has already stated he will "try" to broaden his editing outside his current narrow interest. His unwillingness to discuss his behaviour is problematic, though I do not believe he will continue to attribute false statements to references. I see no reason for this discussion to stay open and now hope this issue can be closed swiftly. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it should be closed with a block for Damien Linnane for incivility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Response for admins: As should be indicated by my 14 year editing history, and my last post, me calling someone a liar is an isolated incident with extenuating circumstances. I was willing to let this go and move on, but if you take action against me please also look into L32007's edits. Turns out I was wrong. Since my last comment here they have made another biased edit at the article in question: [88]. I note Walter originally asked for a polite warning against both of us. The fact he's now asking for a block against me when I've agreed to change my behaviour, and no specific action against the SPA COI editor whose behaviour has not changed, should not be wasted on you. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE by Walamba.kana
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Walamba.kana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
[89] [90] [91] - Removed 1,500 text, replacing the Arab background of the figure with that of an Afghan/Pashtun
[92] [93] Removed 6,472 text, added unsourced claim that the dynasty was Afghan/Pashtun
[94] Removed the probable Tajik background of the dynasty
Right after his block expired, he removed the Persian/Dari spelling of this article and replaced with Pashtun [95]
Moreover, he also earlier wrote this rather nasty comment to me in his edit summary because I reverted him; HistoryofIran koss madar Irani khar = HistoryofIran your mothers pussy you Iranian donkey
I think it's clear to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- HistoryofIran - I haven't looked at the diffs, because that insult alone should immediately lead to an indef. However, I haven't been able to verify your translation. You don't indicate what language it's written in, and Google Translate is giving me meaningless nonsense when set to 'detect language'. Can you point me at something that would confirm your translation? (Sorry for being a pain on this; I hope you can appreciate that I need to be certain about what somebody said before I indef an account.) Girth Summit (blether) 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Girth Summit I understand. It's Persian (and perhaps used in Pashto as well?), but as far as I'm aware Google Translate only translates Persian written in the Persian script. There are sites which show Persian insults, such as this one [96], which has the words "kos" and "khar". --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's seems clear enough - I've blocked for personal attacks/harassment. Girth Summit (blether) 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Girth Summit I understand. It's Persian (and perhaps used in Pashto as well?), but as far as I'm aware Google Translate only translates Persian written in the Persian script. There are sites which show Persian insults, such as this one [96], which has the words "kos" and "khar". --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please check my work on a revdel
Kyrsten Sinema was just the target of page move vandalism. I think I got all of the logs but one is still visible to me as if not revdel'd on my watchlist. Please make sure I got it all. It may need to be suppressed by someone at a higher pay grade than me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think logs have been properly revision deleted. I was able to find the target but I think iy is only because I can see deleted edits, and this is fine, we do not need an oversight here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk page harassment
I'm being continuously harassed on my talk page by a Denver, Colorado-based IP hopper. They're on the range 2607:FB91:1100:0:0:0:0:0/43 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and the IP 174.16.104.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd appreciate it if an admin could watch my talk page for any inappropriate behavior at the least or semi-lock my talk page at the best. wizzito | say hello! 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- IP has been blocked and talk has been semi-protected. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have another IP harassing me through edit summaries, 119.111.181.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can an admin please revdel this edit summary? wizzito | say hello! 11:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have another IP harassing me through edit summaries, 119.111.181.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
IP adding unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles
This IP has made unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles. [97][98][99][100][101] Please do something. Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- They continued after your warning that they must use sources, so I have blocked for 31 hours. It's possible they're trying to be helpful, but haven't seen the warning. If that's the case, the block should help them find their page. Thanks for reporting, Firestar464. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC).
51.6.138.13 by Alexander Davronov
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [ANI NOTICE]
51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Is it WP:BKFIP having fun again by going after my edits? Can someone take a look?
- IGES
- 21:20, January 19, 2022 - «fixed style errors, removed badly-written recent addition»
- 19:53, January 17, 2022 - «tidy-up; source»
- ↑ Removed my small, but well sourced contribution under a pretext of minor issues
- ANGLE (software)
- 17:31, January 19, 2022 - «restored older text which was in good English»
- 17:27, January 19, 2022 - «Undid revision 1066555004 by Alexander Davronov talk) riddled with errors»
- 23:05, January 18, 2022 - «top: OpenGL ES»
- ↑ The same
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, that's them. Blocked for 3 months. Girth Summit (blether) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
IPs adding unsourced, ethnically-targeted edits to a page
Hello, for the past few days on the Adamawa State page, the users 2.25.21.231 (talk · contribs), 208.127.196.42 (talk · contribs), and 208.127.199.28 (talk · contribs) have continuously changed statistics without citing a source, contesting that the current source supports the edits, or even explaining the edits. There appears to be a concerted effort by these accounts to remove or diminish notes of the Fulani ethnic group and their language, Fulfulde along with unsourced religious "statistics" that literally do not add up. Their efforts seem to be focused on three parts of the page:
- The accounts are deleting mentions of the Fulani from the demographics paragraph in the page's summary: a credible source—that these accounts are not contesting or removing—states that between 10%-20% of the state population are Fulani, thus easily making the group one of the largest in the state and notable enough to be in the demographics paragraph. Before recently the users did not delete the entire group from the sentence, instead editing that the group is confined to certain LGAs; however, due to some Fulanis nomadic lifestyle and the groups long history in the area, they also live throughout the entire state as no single region encompasses the ethnicity's area.
- The accounts are changing religious statistics without explanation by dramatically reducing Muslim and traditionalist percentages: religious data in Nigeria is extremely hard to come by (I used a Afrobarometer survey from a few years ago along with recent maps that looked at additional data) but there is nowhere that comes close to suggesting that all Muslims are of the Izala sect or that Christians make up nearly 70% of the population. There could be arguments made that any one of the main religious groups have a higher or lower percentage than the 55-30-15 split I wrote but 25-67-7-1 is literally made up (especially considering their earlier edits had the numbers at a math-defying 30-67-7 split). I look forward to working with others to find better demographic data but the IPs "data" is absurd.
- Lastly, the accounts are deleting mentions of Fulfulde from the language section: I cannot access the current language source, however, the users have refused to cite a new source or say that the current source supports the edits. Just going based off my ok knowledge of the state, it would make logical sense for Fulfulde to be spoken in most LGAs, Fulanis live throughout the entire state and Fulfulde is a regional language that many non-Fulanis learn as a second or third language. There was even a study that I found that states that all Adamawa state LGAs have Fulfulde (and Hausa) speakers leading me to question the deletions.
- I'd appreciate admins looking into the issues—especially as all three IP address seem to have made disruptive edits on other pages before—and look forward to the response, thank you Watercheetah99 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I protected the page for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Alirwez061
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alirwez061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user seems to be on a mission to Arabicize certain Iran-related articles (mainly the ones to do with Khuzestan) with his own POV or/and non-WP:RS sources, rather than attempting to improve them. In fact, he has a long history of that.
17 April 2021 - Changed the name of "White Bridge (Iran)" to "Ahwaz White Bridge". "Ahwaz" is the Arabic variant of the city of Ahvaz, often used in a nationalistic/irredentist sense. It has no official status whatsoever.
25 April 2021 - Added the name "Arabian Gulf" to the Persian Gulf article, a politically motivated name used by a few Arab states.
5 September 2021 - Removed sourced mention of Persians being indigenous to Khuzestan, claiming that they are not "are not indigenous to this area"
6 December 2021 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added about this 'Persianization' section.
20 January 2022 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added. The cited page is literally a map of Iran and its provinces.
--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello dear HistoryofIran, first of all thanks a lot for naming a few of my contributions to wikipedia, and secondly, I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia, but my recent edits on Emirate_of_Arabistan are all sourced and verified, and I request admin support as some accounts (probably of the same person) tried to damage the quality and completeness of the article by continuously deleting resources, preventing the improvement of the article. thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- "I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia"
- Strongly disagree. Its apparent from the many diffs that were issued as warnings on your talk page[102]-[103]-[104]-[105] or through edit summaries that you are on a campaign in Wikipedia. That campaign is to promote an irredentist pro-Arab POV in Khuzestan-related articles of Iran, by deliberately misinterpreting sources and cherry-picking material. We call that WP:TENDENTIOUS editing to the point where its WP:NOTHERE. I can add many more diffs that attest to this, in addition to the ones posted by user:HistoryofIran. No, this campaign has never stopped and it is in fact the sole reason why are you being reported to ANI. The feigned assertion that it was somehow only when you "started your activity" is easily disproven by the fact that many disruptive diffs dating to December and September 2021 and Januari 2022 can be found. You've barely made 50 edits within the past 6 months, yet they are drenched in disruption. Here are two more:
- Tried to turn the non-Semitic Elamite Empire into a Semitic one, using a Biblical quote. Date September 2021.[106]
- Changed "Khuzestan Province" into "Emirate of Arabistan". Edit summary "Ahwaz is not part of the peninsula" (the WP:COMMONNAME is "Ahvaz"). Dated December 2021[107]
- The edits to White Bridge (Iran) and Persian Gulf don't appear to be inappropriate. Arabian Gulf shows enough use that it should be considered as an WP:ALTTITLE, while there is some reason to believe that "Ahwaz" is the common name for Ahvaz. BilledMammal (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- 'Ahwaz' is often used in sources about medieval Caliphate Iran or by some Arabic news sites yes, but certainly not (neutral) sources related to modern Iran. How is suddenly making such page move appropriate? With no discussion whatsoever? Likewise, the bit about Arabian Gulf (a politically motivated word with no historical basis) should be discussed first. Moreover, you did not address the other, more problematic behaviours of this user as well, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at recent news, while Ahvaz is slightly more common, there is significant use of Ahwaz, such as in The Australian - I've added it as an altname to that article. And the move was appropriate under WP:BOLD; while a more experienced editor would have understood that it was likely to be controversial and opened an RM, this was only their 30th edit. As for adding "Arabian Gulf" as a WP:ALTTITLE, I think most editors would follow WP:BRD. I haven't reviewed the other behaviours in depth as I don't intend to become too involved in this discussion, although I note that there is coverage of persianization in Khuzestan in reliable scholarly sources, possibly enough to warrant a mention in the relevant articles - and issues understanding sourcing requirements are not uncommon among new editors. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- How was it appropriate under WP:BOLD? Ahwaz is still a far cry from WP:COMMON NAME. If you don't want to become too involved, then why are you still here? You ignored the most blatant parts of his behaviour, and are now making excuses for him which he didn't even make himself - this is concerning. Sure, there might have been done Persianization in Khuzestan, but that is still not mentioned in the 'source' he cited, which he keeps claiming there is. The user literally admits on his userpage that he 'Supports the independence of Ahwaz' - something which he clearly projects into his edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Editors can make mistakes, as long as they don't amount to a WP:CIR issue, and Ahwaz is close enough to the common name that it is a reasonable mistake. And you're right, I don't want to become involved, so I will leave the discussion now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Imagine using retroactive WP:CRUSH to justify long-term disruptive editing. What about the attempt at labeling the Elamite Empire as Semitic, as demonstrated above?[108] Is that related to supposed Persianization in Khuzestan, or irredentism related to the Persian Gulf, i.e. the internationally recognized name of the body of water? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Editors can make mistakes, as long as they don't amount to a WP:CIR issue, and Ahwaz is close enough to the common name that it is a reasonable mistake. And you're right, I don't want to become involved, so I will leave the discussion now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- How was it appropriate under WP:BOLD? Ahwaz is still a far cry from WP:COMMON NAME. If you don't want to become too involved, then why are you still here? You ignored the most blatant parts of his behaviour, and are now making excuses for him which he didn't even make himself - this is concerning. Sure, there might have been done Persianization in Khuzestan, but that is still not mentioned in the 'source' he cited, which he keeps claiming there is. The user literally admits on his userpage that he 'Supports the independence of Ahwaz' - something which he clearly projects into his edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at recent news, while Ahvaz is slightly more common, there is significant use of Ahwaz, such as in The Australian - I've added it as an altname to that article. And the move was appropriate under WP:BOLD; while a more experienced editor would have understood that it was likely to be controversial and opened an RM, this was only their 30th edit. As for adding "Arabian Gulf" as a WP:ALTTITLE, I think most editors would follow WP:BRD. I haven't reviewed the other behaviours in depth as I don't intend to become too involved in this discussion, although I note that there is coverage of persianization in Khuzestan in reliable scholarly sources, possibly enough to warrant a mention in the relevant articles - and issues understanding sourcing requirements are not uncommon among new editors. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- 'Ahwaz' is often used in sources about medieval Caliphate Iran or by some Arabic news sites yes, but certainly not (neutral) sources related to modern Iran. How is suddenly making such page move appropriate? With no discussion whatsoever? Likewise, the bit about Arabian Gulf (a politically motivated word with no historical basis) should be discussed first. Moreover, you did not address the other, more problematic behaviours of this user as well, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) SPI CU comment: Alirwez061 filed a SPI saying HistoryofIran and LouisAragon are the same person. The evidence presented did not lead me to see these users as the same person and I did not find any evidence to suggest this either. This was probably made in good faith, but wanted to provide this context. The SPI page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Alirwez061 just tried to start an SPI against LouisAragon and HistoryofIran which was dismissed with prejudice: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban / indefinite block proposal
Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. I propose either an indefinite topic ban from all Arab and Iran-related topics, broadly construed. OR, an indefinite block. The community has wasted enough time with this disruption--time which could be used more fruitfully. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Dear user LouisAragon, I really appreciate your time with us, but your recent edit at Emirate of Arabistan is obviously unconstructive as you are continuously deleting resources and edit-warring and I recommend you to refrain from vandalizing the article furthermore. Thanks and regards. Alirwez061 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- An accusation of vandalism without supporting evidence is a personal attack. I see you have made the same accusation in an edit summary at the article you reference. You would be well-advised to withdraw both of those accusations in your next edit. Girth Summit (blether) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Having looked at the edits in question, that's not vandalism. That's a content dispute, and furthermore it certainly seems to be POV-pushing on Alirwez061's part. New regimes make name changes all the time, and there's nothing unusual, sinister or particularly noteworthy about these century-old changes. Ravenswing 22:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello dear wikipedians, first of all, resource removal is obvious vandalism and itself is an evidence, and secondly, dear user Ravenswing, I don't think it is neceasary for us to get in particular details of the content inself. Content/Resource removal is as obvious as it is. I immediately request admin assistance. Thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- You mean that you prefer we don't examine it too closely, so that others see it as simply another content dispute that may also run against WP:UNDUE. Sorry to puncture your bubble, but as it happens, we make such value judgments all the time, which is why such reversions do not constitute prima facie vandalism. Seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages for such edits, and if consensus doesn't go your way, accept the result. Ravenswing 06:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello dear wikipedians, first of all, resource removal is obvious vandalism and itself is an evidence, and secondly, dear user Ravenswing, I don't think it is neceasary for us to get in particular details of the content inself. Content/Resource removal is as obvious as it is. I immediately request admin assistance. Thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban. There are millions of topics in the encyclopedia that a given editor can work on without running into this kind of issue. If this editor can contribute productively in other areas for a year or so without problems arising, the community can decide at that time let them work in their preferred area again. BD2412 T 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Millions of topics, how tropical! Anyway, I'm fine with rescinding the block in favour of a TBAN, though I have reservations even about that. But I'll go with da flow. El_C 07:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I said what I said. I'm not categorically opposed to a block, but I believe in last chances. BD2412 T 07:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tautology is a topic! I also believe in final chances, but there's been multiple warnings (though they've been removing em from their talk page). El_C 07:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Alirwez061 blocked indef
User_talk:Alirwez061#Indefinite_block. El_C 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Unresponsive editor Taolabomay
- Taolabomay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is attempting to force text into Vietnamese language while ignoring attempts to direct him/her to the relevant discussion on the talk page. Could someone have a word? Kanguole 15:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- The editor name's with diacritics is "tao là bố mày". My suggestion is to redirect him to Vietnamese Wikipedia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Taolabomay was blocked from viwiki last June because of the user name.[109] In any case, this editor does not respond to any communication. It is very frustrating. Kanguole 08:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Kbrose
The editor User:Kbrose is edit warring and showing aggressive displays of wp:own over the Original North American area codes page, claims "I wrote the whole article to begin with". They have been repeatedly adding a factually inaccurate edit which was reverted numerous times by more than one editor. They refuse to use the talk page on the issue despite countless requests. Refused other editors attempts to communicate through editors talk page. A proposal to have a third party review was also refused and the conversation deleted by kbrose. This is a clear example of edit warring, article ownership, and general aggressive/rude treatment of other editors. When I went to report them for their confrontational edits and refusal to use talk page, I was mysteriously reported for my reverts of their bold edits. The page was then semi protected and the User:Kbrose immediately returned to edit warring. I'm not sure if this suspicious and timely semi-protect was a simple case of WP:IPHUMAN, or if this is WP:TAGTEAM behaviour.
- [110] 16:42, 11 January 2022
- [111] 17:43, 14 January 2022
- [112] 15:56, 17 January 2022
- [113] 17:54, 17 January 2022
- [114] 19:17, 19 January 2022
- [115] 23:48, 19 January 2022
As you can see above User:Kbrose bold edit was reverted and they continuously reinstated it, refused to use the talk page, refused a third party review, acted in a hostile manner towards other editors, and claimed ownership of the article. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- All that needs to be pointed out is that this is just retaliatory behavior based on the previous rejections of the user's unfounded accusations. This all started when I reverted his modification on the page that was contradictory (impossible) in itself at DIFF. Not being able to swallow that and correct his edit, he just latched onto another editor's concern, and started reverting wholesale new content I added later, which is duly referenced and well developed. He never cited specific concerns (or anything else) on the talk page, as noted by the reviewing administrator. Then the other user fell into the same habit of wholesale reverting content that had nothing to do with the original concern and has since been discussed on the talk page. kbrose (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone is wrong but you. Even the administrator who requested that you revert your edits yet you still refuse. Such a blatant disregard for wikipedia policies, respect of follow editors, and opposition to wikipedia administrators. It is baffling why there is such a reluctancy to discuss the proposed bold edits and come to a consensus. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- You get respect when you do respectful things. You don't demand it. Writing good articles can generate that. You have not even once engaged and raised any kind of specific concern about the article. You made a change once, that was objectively wrong, impossible, and you couldn't stand being reverted. The same happened on other of the few articles you ever worked on in WP under this IP address, and you were warned about it by admins on your talk page. You have only obstructed here. Not a single contribution, not a single objection, not a single issue discussed on the talk page. Nada. Nothing but accusations. Don't lecture others. You have probably edited previously with other IP addresses, what happened? kbrose (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. You're doing a lot of projecting here. Please refrain from personal attacks here as you are now also doing on the articles page. It won't help your case and proves my point of your very uncivil behaviour. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- You get respect when you do respectful things. You don't demand it. Writing good articles can generate that. You have not even once engaged and raised any kind of specific concern about the article. You made a change once, that was objectively wrong, impossible, and you couldn't stand being reverted. The same happened on other of the few articles you ever worked on in WP under this IP address, and you were warned about it by admins on your talk page. You have only obstructed here. Not a single contribution, not a single objection, not a single issue discussed on the talk page. Nada. Nothing but accusations. Don't lecture others. You have probably edited previously with other IP addresses, what happened? kbrose (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone is wrong but you. Even the administrator who requested that you revert your edits yet you still refuse. Such a blatant disregard for wikipedia policies, respect of follow editors, and opposition to wikipedia administrators. It is baffling why there is such a reluctancy to discuss the proposed bold edits and come to a consensus. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:CIR and Vitopavlovivit
- Vitopavlovivit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have some concerns about competency with regards to Vitopavlovivit's edits, namely on List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. They have repeatedly made edits that broke the formatting for tables used in the article:
No attempt has been made to learn about proper table formatting. I have also noticed some poor grammar within the user's talk page messages, such as not using apostrophes in words like "don't", as well as some odd messages like "have you watched it last night" and "i edited for reliable source and go watch cartoon network commercials from 10-2-1992 on youtube". Is a block in order? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, looking at this user's talkpage I don't see much chance of improvement here. Blocked, hard to believe it took this long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- As much as I want to argue WP:BITE in support of our more inexperienced users, this sadly looks like a good block. Four years of editing, not a single reply on their own talk page, and I can't find a single contribution that survived to the current revision on any article. My only concern is that
gross incompetence
strikes me as unnecessarily uncivil, The Blade of the Northern Lights. We're here to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, but we don't need to insult people to accomplish those aims. It is surely upsetting enough just to be blocked without also being told that you've exhibited gross incompetence.AlexEng(TALK) 10:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- As much as I want to argue WP:BITE in support of our more inexperienced users, this sadly looks like a good block. Four years of editing, not a single reply on their own talk page, and I can't find a single contribution that survived to the current revision on any article. My only concern is that
Solidarityandfreedom's violations of WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:EW and WP:COMPETENCE
Solidarityandfreedom created their account with their first edits attempting to make a Wikipedia page for the chairman of the American Solidarity Party, Draft:Patrick Harris (Party Leader). They then used their account to spam the article for the American Solidarity Party with Twitter links to the American Solidarity Party's "Liberation Caucus". Solidarityandfreedom has been cautioned and reverted by many veteran Wikipedia editors for promotion and the deletion of cited material as can be seen here by Avatar317, here by Rediculizer42, here by Goodone121, and here by Anupam. Solidarityandfreedom's conflict of interest agenda is clear here and their misrepresentation of citations has been noted. They have done the same at related political and religious articles too, with others such as Litawor reversing their edits here and Pbritti reverting their edits here where Solidarityandfreedom is citing primary citations. Solidarityandfreedom's talk page is plastered with warnings from users such as ValtteriLahti12 and others who are tired of wasting their time with this editor who clearly does not have the competence to edit here. Goodone121 has noted that they use misleading edit summaries to blank large amounts of content from articles [121][122]. A topic ban from all articles related to religion and politics is the next best step here, but since these are the only topics that they edit, a site ban could only help him now. TolWol56 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Having monitored Solidarityandfreedom's edits from time to time, I agree with TolWol56 insofar as action appears necessary but disagree with a site ban, as the edits are innocuous enough. A topic ban, even a temporary one, seems proportional. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've only seen Solidarityandfreedom's edits on the American Solidarity Party article, but I would classify EVERY edit I saw by that editor as promotional and poorly sourced, with a clear bias of trying to write what they want and then finding "sources" to stick behind their statement (often SELF-sourced to the party itsself - As an easy extreme example, we don't allow white-supremecist groups to characterize their own organizations, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.) Addditionally, Solidarityandfreedom often deleted SOURCED info that doesn't align with what they want the article to say.
- The username seemed to me like a redflag for a potential COI on at least the ASP article, and because of their repeated tendentious editing on that article, I support a topic ban for the ASP article. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Solidarityandfreedom has started to sock as 72.28.3.68 and is pushing their same POV COI cruft.[123][124] Would anyone oppose a site ban at this point? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I have indefinitely pageblocked Solidarityandfreedom from American Solidarity Party, although the editor is still able to make their case at Talk: American Solidarity Party. I have warned the editor that taking their disruptive style of editing to other parts of the encyclopedia may result in a broader block. Cullen328 (talk)
- In response to the IP editing, I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please inform me if the disruption resumes, and I will semi-protect for a longer period. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[125][126] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, 1990'sguy, I have already semi-protected the article. I am not going to completely block the editor unless they continue their disruption after my page block. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[125][126] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban for Solidarityandfreedom on politics and religion articles, broadly construed
- Support: This editor is only here to promote their COI views and they have dug a hole for themselves by not taking warnings seriously. Instead, they are still edit warring to push their POV across a range of articles. After this ANI discussion was made, Solidarityandfreedom has resorted to socking under 72.28.3.68.[127][128] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- (other comment) In my opinion there doesn’t necessarily need to be an entire ban, however I would support a block on the Girolamo Savonarola article as he constantly adds information that contradicts the sources that were already used, seemingly to go against the common claim that he was a proto-Protestant (like Philip Schaff and even Britannica 1911 mentioned). ValtteriLahti12 (talk)
- Support topic ban per my original post and the proposal. TolWol56 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:LouisaCatherineAdams ongoing WP:BLP issues
User:LouisaCatherineAdams. WP:BLP violations and other edits putting statements into articles that are not supported by the refs given. As in: Special:Diff/1066244586 and Special:Diff/1066809492. Editor has been blocked before. - Special-T (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Special-T: IMO, the next block should be indefinite, reviewing the edits that this editor has made, regardless of any good edits. This user has been blocked two times and the third?– Indefinite. Severestorm28 22:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Between the blocks and the number of different editors telling them to slow down, use WP:RS etc., an indef is warranted and I've done so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's a sock account. Now tagged and a couple of sleepers blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Between the blocks and the number of different editors telling them to slow down, use WP:RS etc., an indef is warranted and I've done so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
What's wrong with copying information from French and Quebecois animated series on French Wikipedia.
For some who don't know, I copied information about the original French voice cast that gave life to the characters of such a French or Canadian Quebecois series on the French Wikipedia and pasted them here, I've had more or less several incidents of two users because I received more than four warnings that I allegedly removed the blank content of some articles that I have recently edited if my edits are constructive and I surely left three edit summaries reasons for correctly adding the cast information in infoboxes, so no I know, suddenly two users, including a bot, reverted all my edits without leaving edit summaries. See: [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- The translation to french, makes it difficult for the project's english-only readers to understand. This being english-language Wikipedia, it's like many of our readers are english-only readers. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- You see, the user just did it, my edit was just reverted on Mark Ronson's article having reported through the protection page requests saying in the summary here non-constructive imagine. The same thing happened with Manuel Tadros, he or she reverted my edit just before I added the categories below the section. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @152.0.138.36: your edits are very difficult to parse, so I'm going to respond to a couple of the several edits that I read. In your first example, you have not just
copied information about the original French voice cast
as you said. In fact, you deleted the entire Italian and English cast and replaced it with only the French cast. That is presumably why ClueBotNG, which is an automated process, automatically flagged your edit as suspected "vandalism". Moving on to your Mark Ronson example... my assumption is that there is something weird going on with whatever device you are using to edit Wikipedia. The Wikimedia software has generated a nearly incomprehensible diff that took me a few minutes to visually process. You appear to have done three things:- Changed the subject's (Ronson's) nationality information from "English-American" to merely "British," which does not comply with Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons.
- Reordered some of the categories, for some reason. It looks like you alphabetized some of them, but at least one was moved out of the correct order and into an incorrect order by your edit, so I don't understand the point of this action.
- Modified the subject's occupational information from "DJ, songwriter, record producer, and record executive" to merely "musician" in the short description block for the article. In the lead sentence, you also removed "singer" from the list of occupations. This is an unwarranted correction and requires discussion.
- In all cases, your edits are causing disruption from multiple angles. Even if this is not intentional, you must take great care not to continue to degrade the quality of articles with the changes that you make. Please consider your subsequent edits more carefully and try to start off with making extremely simple changes one revision at a time, rather than large changes that affect markup and drastically change the meaning of the text. If you need assistance with ensuring that your edits are helpful, you will be welcomed at the WP:Teahouse, and you can additionally ask technical questions at the WP:Help desk. Best of luck. AlexEng(TALK) 10:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @152.0.138.36: your edits are very difficult to parse, so I'm going to respond to a couple of the several edits that I read. In your first example, you have not just
- You see, the user just did it, my edit was just reverted on Mark Ronson's article having reported through the protection page requests saying in the summary here non-constructive imagine. The same thing happened with Manuel Tadros, he or she reverted my edit just before I added the categories below the section. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Riverside High School Jacksonville FL Wiki Site Information Errors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Riverside High School's information is wrong. This high school was renamed last year and has absolutely NO affiliation with its former name (Robert E. Lee High School, alumni, awards/accolades) whatsoever. I ask for assistance to have these articles removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellbucket (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is a bizarre request. Riverside High School is Robert E. Lee High School; they are the same institution, the only thing that changed is the name. The alumni of Robert E. Lee High School are alumni of Riverside High School, the sports team from Robert E. Lee High School is the sports team from Riverside High School. It makes no sense to remove these details simply because the school's name changed. Mlb96 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Did they tear the building down and construct a new one? No, it seems. All they did was rename it. No doubt the great majority of alumni still identify with the prior name (in the same way that even though the town in which I grew up left the regional district nearly 20 years ago, and the building in which I attended HS has been torn down, I remain an alum of Silver Lake RHS), but that's neither here nor there. It's completely and unjustifiably revisionist to act as if the school never had been called anything else ... never mind that this is a content dispute having nothing to do with ANI. It should be resolved on the article's talk page, and I suggest that Bellbucket follow the advice other editors have given and take the opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. Ravenswing 13:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I reported problems with citations made by User:Cltjames and their response was to delete the report without comment. This is the first interaction we have had. Given the scale of the problem, it took a fair amount of bot programming to clean up - it impacted nearly a thousand articles all to the same commercial website https://debretts.com/ which is not an appropriate URL for a {{cite book}}
dated 1921 with a page number, much less double loading an Internet Archive book into the archive-url field, or using the quote field for the publisher name (whew). It is part of a pattern of citation oddities, some worse than others, such as embedding a google book template inside a cite book template for two different books. I'm happy to work with User:Cltjames to educate about citations, if that's the problem, but the deletion of the user page post leaves no option but to ask for help to reach them. -- GreenC 06:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Cordial discussions have resumed so I am withdrawing this as an open issue. -- GreenC 22:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Reaver55
The user Reaver55 has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. They are quick to assume bad faith and seem to be generally uncivil with most people they engage with. They make generous use of "you" when addressing the actions of editors, and otherwise try to personally engage in one form or another with the editors they're taking issue with (as can be seen here and elsewhere). They are drawn towards controversial subjects and use talk pages as a means of airing their own rants related to the subjects. (Just check their contribs to see.) They have disruptively edited their own talk page as well, which is currently almost entirely struck through (and many topics have been deleted from the page, including notices of discretionary sanctions). I could go on but I don't care to. Mewnst (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You "don't care to go" on yet you made this report, this just seems out spite and anger that your edits are being removed for being irrelevant to the topic Cracker (term). I could say the same thing for your own editing history and you even have a notice for "Transgenderism" which is a controversial topic which you were corrected on due to Transgender being the correct term versus Transgenderism, not to mention you have a habit of NOT using the talk page and forcing blanks like you did with the bored apes yacht club article which you were given a notice about, The Notices are old and I could of deleted them but I prefer to keep it? Is there something wrong with that? Regarding my opinion(s) I was hoping to bring further clarification on why Chadwick Seagraves was important to include so I did some research outside of wikipedia since theres no information on him here which I was why I specified it was my opinion, just like it was their opinion that that paragraph was relevant so to keep the article as it was BEFORE the editing by Mewnst and encouraged Mewnst via the edit summary to use the talk page, they then decided to blank the entire story, which I then wrote a reminder to use the talk page, I never put that story there I just kept it how it was before the disruptive edits by Mewnst without using the talk pages to discuss its relevancy to the article about the term. Cracker I could go on but I don't care to.Reaver55 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not going to take a side in this particular content dispute, but Reaver calling other editors "biased" is concerning. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Again who are you, are you relating to ANY of these incidents/pages about this discussion? Its the same situation as Sly. Another commentary from an editor which seems to me adding further to the "dog pile" to put me in a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reaver55 wasn't at all involved in the matter regarding my updating of some of the language used in gender-related pages. This is a toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history over something that was never an issue or edit war. I don't care about having my edits stick in the Seagraves stuff either, I am here because of this needless confrontation from this person. They continue to behave uncivilly here. Mewnst (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history" You did the EXACT same thing, its a sign of repeated disruptive editing behaviors that editors such as myself did not report, but I'm beginning to rethink that decision as a possible vandalism attempt and not a mere mistake of what agreed upon consensus is. Reaver55 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Reaver55's discussion style is rather too confrontational and personalised, and it is a general pattern.
- They have about 80 edits in total. Back in May 2021 there's this edit summary, this user TP section, this TP post, this edit summary, and several other similar edits leading to a short block for disruption and personal attacks, and then to a longer block for edit warring. In June, there's this. In November, this. On 1 December this, later in December this, and in January this and this... and it's not like these are isolated incidents, either.
- They have had warnings about personal attacks and posting inappropriate warning templates, and gave this response; that was right before this block. The second block in May, for edit warring, came with a note that further edit warring might lead to an indef block, so their revert warring a couple of days ago, seen in this edit history, is not impressive. (In addition, they have returned to a couple of other articles where their preferred wording had previously been challenged, and reverted back to "their" version without discussing it first, but that hasn't led to actual edit wars.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- So what your saying is you know these disputes are old yet you bring it up to I guess add fuel to your argument? Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, a general pattern of disruptive behaviour and (based on their numerous accusations of bias) a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopaedia. Theknightwho (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mewnst seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, such as blanking a bored apes yacht club article, changing Transgender terms to non-scholarly accepted terms, adding massive unrelated stories to unrelated articles then blanking the entire story because theyre edit was undid, an act of vandalism. All without notice or even a thought of starting a discussion on the talk page. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- He is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia imho. Talk:Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition#"We_are_a_Black_militia... shows just one example of bad faith assumptions and personal attacks then claiming others are editors are biased. MartinezMD (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yikes, not good at all. Taking on everyone and anyone. Concur with WP:NOTHERE.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Useless commentary giving their opinion about a dispute/page theyre not involved in.
- Yikes, not good at all. Taking on everyone and anyone. Concur with WP:NOTHERE.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- He is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia imho. Talk:Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition#"We_are_a_Black_militia... shows just one example of bad faith assumptions and personal attacks then claiming others are editors are biased. MartinezMD (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- You were constantly going AGAINST the agreed upon consensus and kept injecting your own opinion, it wasn't until you saw the American Militia movement with NFAC listed as #2 did you finally accept that it was part of the American militia movement and its a talk page specifically about how you are not maintaining a level of neutrality for NFAC since you constantly disagreeing on it 1. being a BLACK militia and 2. That it is a militia. So by asking you to remain unbiased and maintain a level of neutrality is not a overstep but rather apart of the Wikipedia rules on neutrality.
- And if you really wanna go on about rules Mewnst, didn't you blank two sections of two different articles without using the talk pages then getting two notices about how you should utilize the talk page, could be considered "Treating editing as a battleground" or "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" such as Trying to put a whole paragraph about a proud boy member AFTER the misidentification incident, his story was not important only that he was a proud boy member, it would be more appropriate to put his story after that misidentification on the proud boys page. Again if you wanna talk about disruptive behaviour how about not utilizing the talk page and having to receive two notices for it or just complete blanking of certain stories without even making a single comment about if it should. Reaver55 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not at all trying to invoke a resolution in my favor regarding that page or the discussion, there are merits to keeping it as you prefer and it's not worth arguing like a lawyer over. I am here because of how you've behaved through it all. Mewnst (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like a lawyer? Like defending myself? How dare I defend myself indeed. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if Reaver55 should be blocked as NOTHERE or maybe for TEND instead, but they clearly lack the temperament for consensus building. I saw this removal of Slywriter's comment which drew me to this thread. I figured the removal was a mistake, but after seeing diffs of removing other comments on article Talk pages and using del tags at their own User Talk page, I don't think it was. The full thread at Talk:Not Fucking Around Coalition#"We are a Black militia... is what makes me support a block. That's a checklist of tendentious editing: refusing to listen, assuming bad faith, and getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not to mention forgetting to indent and sign their comments. I also see plenty of that here, in this very thread. Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would love to see your evidence on how my edits on wikipedia articles are NOT from a neutral point of view, do you care to say China uncensored is an "right wing" organization like the vandal earlier today? That I reverted, or that NFAC isn't a black militia part of the Militia movement in the United States? Please provide some evidence. His comment should of been removed so I instead crossed it out and specified why. user is not involved and is giving their opinion "imho" which urban dictionary defines as "In my humble opinion", so it's an opinion, unrelated to a page or dispute that person is involved in. So why should it stay Woodroar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- MelanieMD, the user in dispute about NFAC being apart of the Militia undid my revision despite it being the Agreed upon consensus of the American militia page, so I started a discussion page on why it's a miltia based on the definition of a militia from Wikipedia and since they are based in the US it was part of the American Militia movement not to mention they are listed on that page by someone else a long time ago but the edit has remained since, but I believe the disagreement was a misunderstanding of including the word "movement" instead of militia linking to the "American Militia Movement", but either way it was resolved. However we ran into another misunderstanding
regarding the "We are a black militia' it seemed to me the user was trying to advocate deleting the Black Nationalist part of the initial sentence.
- Regarding the "getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not" please provide that edit! And regarding the indents and signing before, I was new and just figuring it all out. Regarding the indenting... your comment about indenting isn't indented... So maybe cut some people some slack or maybe be a good editor and fix it. along with a note on what they did wrong and how to fix it, like the person who told me how to sign comments. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd support a block for tendentious editing, personal attacks, and/or edit warring. Continuing the reported behaviour in this thread isn't a good sign. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just like to point out The user reporting me that constantly like to bring up past reports, has two notices for blanking without using the discussion page, a form of edit waring. Continuing the reported behavior wikipedia isn't a good sign for the site as a whole on maintaining an informative neutral Wikipedia. Also kind of odd how we just run into a minor dispute and here you are advocating for a blockage suddenly, but I didn't delete your comment because you are relating to page/edit dispute I'm involved in. Sly was not. It was nothing more than an opinion/commentary unrelated to any of the disputes. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Removal of unrelated commentary is not against the rules. For the NFAC, take it up with the America Militia editors, its labeled as part of the American militia and I had to defend tooth and nail to ensure the agreed upon consensus that NFAC is a Militia, (Some mild debates about it being a black only/predominately black militia which primary sources contradicted that.), I did listen and I did debate their specific points, MelanieMD even agreed with me after much debate, even though I'm not the one who put them on The American militia movement page. It's the agreed upon consensus. I've even dealt with a staff member "Asartea" (The notice striked out in December 2020 because its over and done with) who agreed with me on maintaining a level of neutrality and that The American militia page has listed NFAC as a active militia in the United States, if you look on their page around the same time youll see my edits about disputing their notice, which they agreed and let the edit remain. Mewnst edits regarding Seagraves will have to remain on the talk page until we can get more opinions on whether or not we should add that specific paragraph and if it adds information relating to the pejorative usage of the racial epithet "Cracker", nor should you be randomly deleting and "blanks" stories without even so much of a notice or starting a discussion on the talk page. "Like a lawyer" You mean defending myself...? How dare I indeed. Regarding Sly's deletion, he is completely 100% uninvolved in any of the pages listed here, such as "China Uncensored" "Not Fucking Around Coalition" "Cracker(Term)" I didn't delete Bonadea, because they are involved in a minor dispute about grammatical correction vs "Stylistic choice" but because theres a dispute going on with Mewnst and seems like a bunch of people out of the wood works coming to "dog pile" on this report because they are mad at me for undoing/disagreeing with their points along with bringing counter evidence usually primary evidence, to dispute these points.
- But as my profile says I'm trying to maintain a level of neutrality and blocking disruptive editors, without mentioning specific users since that enrages them, from destroying that neutrality. My edits are far more constructive and add to this Wikipedia than a certain user blanking numerous articles without warning or discussion.
- As for my "behaviour" what? How dare I defend myself? How dare I delete random commentary from editors not even relating to this specific incident or any of the pages I have edited ever on Wikipedia. Just useless comment to further and seems to me trying to put me into a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - could an admin please assist? This user has added so many edits in so many different places that the section is becoming impossible to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- You mean my edits are constructive and I spend a significant amount of time writing on Wikipedia maintaing a level of neutrality, almost like I'm not actually a troll/Vandal which seems to me like you are all trying to paint me out to be? Shocker. Reaver55 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I’m too tired to do anything tonight but to say the personal attacks at Talk:Cracker (term)#Issues, incomplete data regarding the North Carolina vandalism/"cracker" use and the edit summary here reverting a final warning by User:Bonadea do strongly suggest a block is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- You mean my edits are constructive and I spend a significant amount of time writing on Wikipedia maintaing a level of neutrality, almost like I'm not actually a troll/Vandal which seems to me like you are all trying to paint me out to be? Shocker. Reaver55 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression that only people marked as administrator were allowed to give out warnings as you can tell from my notice board I was given a notice about "improper usage" yet my warnings were very much valid. Not even to mention editors have problems with me lining it out and now theres a problem with me deleting it. Please make up your minds on this. Regarding Unfair undids if my threads are to be removed because they're not "commenting on content not editors" then so should the others, essentially wiping out/removing those specific sentences/sections in the "Cracker(Term)" talk page and maintain neutrality Reaver55 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller and Bonadea: you both reference personal attacks, but I don't know what these are because... walls of text. So, maybe quote the thing...? Just throwing it out there. Also, this thread is long yo! El_C 00:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Reaver55: anyone can give you a warning. @El C: at the talk page there's "it wasn't until I undid their revision did they act in spite and blank the whole thing," and "Frankly its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits about a specific no-body proud boy member whos not even involved in this story other than being a proud boy member which was already established and now you made a report because you didn't get what you wanted. Literally just shows more bias". That was aimed at [[User:Grayfell who he accuses of personal attacks, maybe that refers to Grayfell's comment "You came out swinging with a lot of inappropriate accusations. It's far too late to play coy. Insinuations and aspersions are also personal attacks. "So What editor?" won't fool anyone, and more importantly, it's not an excuse for casting aspersions in the first place." The edit summary was "Undid revision 1067121859 by Bonadea (talk) Undid Harassment and misuse of warning system." Doug Weller talk 07:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I don't want to make this too nuanced, because I think there may well be WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems that'll need to be addressed regardless, but I don't see a personal attack there. The tone is hostile and combative (WP:CIVIL), sure, but failing to assume good faith isn't automatically a personal attack (WP:NPA). Ditto for calling someone "biased," or telling them not "to play coy," or falsely complaining of harassment — none of these are personal attacks. El_C 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @El C: Surely saying that User:Bonadea is a harasser is a personal attack? The "misuse" bit may be just confusion. Certainly both show a lack of good faith. And I still think accusing someone of acting out in anger isn't civil. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, where was the word
harasser
used? I see you quotedharassment
, but they are not necessarily interchangeable. El_C 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- @El C: that's too subtle for me. Harassment means a harasser surely? Doug Weller talk 12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, in the same way that "trolling" isn't necessarily interchangeable with troll. Anyway, g'luck, I'm gonna do something else now. El_C 13:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @El C: that's too subtle for me. Harassment means a harasser surely? Doug Weller talk 12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, where was the word
- @El C: Surely saying that User:Bonadea is a harasser is a personal attack? The "misuse" bit may be just confusion. Certainly both show a lack of good faith. And I still think accusing someone of acting out in anger isn't civil. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I don't want to make this too nuanced, because I think there may well be WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems that'll need to be addressed regardless, but I don't see a personal attack there. The tone is hostile and combative (WP:CIVIL), sure, but failing to assume good faith isn't automatically a personal attack (WP:NPA). Ditto for calling someone "biased," or telling them not "to play coy," or falsely complaining of harassment — none of these are personal attacks. El_C 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 13:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC).
- (edit conflict with the message about the block – thank you, Bish.) Hmm. I do think the edit summary "Dealing with a extremely biased editor" is a personal attack, especially coupled with phrasing like "I will [...] not allow you to further wash away the truth"). Similarly, "Stop spouting CCP Propaganda China bot. You live in West Taiwan." when removing a 7-month-old 3RR warning. Since this thread was started, there's "its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits" and " Replying to a beg for admin based on malicious bad faith lies." (in the edit summary). Going through their contributions is sapping my will to live a little, but those are some recent instances. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Those are indeed personal attacks. Had you did the thing, where the NPA warning also contains a diff of the attack, I'd have blocked for that. Oh well, live and learn. El_C 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict with the message about the block – thank you, Bish.) Hmm. I do think the edit summary "Dealing with a extremely biased editor" is a personal attack, especially coupled with phrasing like "I will [...] not allow you to further wash away the truth"). Similarly, "Stop spouting CCP Propaganda China bot. You live in West Taiwan." when removing a 7-month-old 3RR warning. Since this thread was started, there's "its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits" and " Replying to a beg for admin based on malicious bad faith lies." (in the edit summary). Going through their contributions is sapping my will to live a little, but those are some recent instances. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Anonymxx00 persistently uploading copyright materials
Anonymxx00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been persistenly uploading copyright materials while falsely claiming as licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 or 4.0 licensing and removing warnings from talk page twice[139][140], which I assumed user has read it and understood it. User also was previously blocked on Commons for 1 week (January 12–19) for doing the same stuff as seen in this report. However, I does seem like User couldn't be bothered and has continue the same behavior but this time on English Wikipedia with File:Kim Hyun-soo.png and File:Park Hyung-sik.png which was uploaded today with the same issues of falsely claiming as licensed under CC 3.0. I believe actions such 1 week block should be taken against this user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:CRS-20 repeatedly changing date formats
CRS-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user CRS-20 has repeatedly been changing the date formats from "mdy" to "dmy", and the associated templates, for articles related to US spaceflight, which goes against the guidance in MOS:DATETIES. This user has been asked multiple times by multiple users to use US date formatting for US-centric articles, but has continued to make these edits.
Diffs showing changes from "mdy" to "dmy"
Space Shuttle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Crew Dragon Demo-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requests to not change date formats
- Talk:Space_Shuttle#Clarifying_appropriate_date_format_for_this_page
- Talk:Space_Shuttle#Stop_changing_date_format
- User_talk:CRS-20#Please_don't_change_date_format_of_American_Spaceflight_articles_from_MDY_to_DMY
- User_talk:CRS-20#Date_format_changes
- User_talk:CRS-20#January_2022
- User_talk:CRS-20#Please_revert_your_date_format_changes_on_all_US_Spaceflight_pages
-Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- If an admin looks into this, I would request that they also do something (such as a final warning, ideally) about how CRS-20 simply does not communicate. I have been annoyed off-and-on for over a year by how CRS-20 rarely replies on their talk page. A few times they have replied in French (1, 2, 3), so there might be a language barrier. Here's one particularly bad example of them never replying, even though I feel consider the issue I brought up to be severe. Here's a more recent case with no reply or change of behavior. Sometimes there is a minimal reply, such as these five sections on the talk page (e.g. see here for a minimal reply that doesn't really address the question). Here's the most recent. Here are the unsorted miscellaneous examples with me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, links copied from here. Just to be fair and present the whole story, a few times, such as here, I have actually gotten an interaction. Leijurv (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Lugnuts and revenge AfDs
User:Lugnuts has received some attention here and some restrictions, I guess I don't need to rehash this here. He is now disrupting AfD, on the one hand by accusing User:Cbl62 of being a proxy for User:Johnpacklambert at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnolds Krūkliņš, and on the other hand by starting revenge AfDs against Johnpacklambert, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conners Creek, Michigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, on the latter even claiming that it fails WP:V even though it was very easy to confirm its existence and find multiple sources. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramdasa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, ...
Can please something be done to make it clear that taking articles on viable topics to AfD as a revenge for having your own articles at AfD is very poor practice and should stop? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, not informing JohnpackLambert of these AfDs was a rather poor decision as well, but fits the pattern I guess. Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Interestingly I was informed of the 2 later mentione AfDs, and 1 other that is not named above, but the 2 on places that are now part of the city of Detroit I was given no notice on. So it is not that Lugnuts does not know how to inform editors of AfDs, he just chose not to place notice of the 2 on places in Michigan on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- For pity's sake, at what point is Lugnuts' manifest and ongoing bad faith going to stop? Quite aside from that it's a horrible look for the Wikipedia champion of creating SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs sourced only to databases, how many disruptive bites of the apple does this guy get to have? I'd be entirely comfortable with Lugnuts getting an indefinite topic ban from the AfD process (except for commenting in defense of his own article creations), to add to his mounting block and tban tally.
And the further question is this: at what point will we be forced to conclude that Lugnuts is not here to build an encyclopedia so much as he views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground of combats to be won and enemies to be thwarted? Ravenswing 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- He did it again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff, Michigan]. This may in fact be a valid AfD nomination, but he has again failed to notify me as the article creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, "he did it again" could be misconstrued as "he did it again after this ANI report was opened", but it was started at the same time as the other AFDs. So it's more a case of "he did it another place that hasn't previously been mentioned". I was initially confused, so wanted to prevent others from being confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your point is well taken. His failure to post notice on my talk page about these nominations made it harder to keep track of when they were occuring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, "he did it again" could be misconstrued as "he did it again after this ANI report was opened", but it was started at the same time as the other AFDs. So it's more a case of "he did it another place that hasn't previously been mentioned". I was initially confused, so wanted to prevent others from being confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, where Lugnuts took a gratuitous dig at Johnpacklambert's religion, knowing that he is unable to respond. Unseemly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, as Speedy Keeps. These are NAC's done under WP:SKCRIT #2B:
nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption
. They could also be equally considered to qualify as criterion #2a:obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations
. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Ravenswing's suggestion is a good one. Let's make it a formal proposal.
- Proposal
Lugnuts is banned from the AfD process, except in defence of articles he has created.
If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment/oppose Looking at the most recent AfD noms by JPL, I see that half of the most recent ones (from 5th Jan) have targeted articles I created. Being somewhat vexed by this (and no, that's not an excuse), I picked some of JPL's creations at random. Many of them are fine. The ones I came upon were not/are not in the best shape, and would come under the comment of "SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs", above, sans the sourcing bit, such as this, this and this, for example. I did look for sourcing for all of these, and then logged the AfDs. I think other editors who found those stubs in those states might have done the same. However, I understand the tit-for-tat aproach this could be viewed as, for which I apologise, and for the spam comment too. Infact - @Johnpacklambert: I apologise for that comment about the spam/CoLDS and any offesene it may have caused.
- My AfD data is pretty good overall (if that counts for anything). Good faith works both ways, and I'm happy to not log AfDs for articles created by JPL that would be viewed by any reasonable editor as a "revenge AfD". As for the bit about not letting the article creator know about the AfD, WP:AFD states "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page" (my emp.) - it's not a requirement. Maybe that needs its own discussion/RfC. The outcome of this proposal may already be a fait accompli, but I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support: And so here we are, yet again. From another editor, I would credit Lugnuts' professing contrition, but he's done that before. Over, and over, and over again. He promised back at ANI in April that he had learned his lesson, and would stop creating sketchy sub-stubs to bolster his creation count; he broke his word there the next day. His block log is studded with exhortations of good faith going forward, apologies, atonements ... leading right into subsequent blocks. After being tbanned from new stub creation, he's turned his attention to new redirect creation, dozens in the last month. JPL's slowly working through the many thousands of unsourced sub-stubs Lugnuts has created, and so all of a sudden Lugnuts is on the one hand screeching BEFORE! at JPL while taking JPL's own article creations to AfD, with such threadbare evidence and rationales that they're being speedy-kept en masse.
Enough. Lugnuts has been around a long time now. He has over a MILLION edits, and I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable that after all the blocks, after all the ANI threads, after all the edit warring, after all the disruptions, after the bans, we not only expect the civil and collegial behavior that we would out of a newbie with a couple hundred edits, but we hold him as accountable as we would that newbie for willful defiance of those standards, and that he'd have just enough common sense to recognize that he's on very thin ice and ought not go out of his way to lash out at other editors. At some point, to paraphrase Anne of Green Gables, we need to see adherence to civil behavior more than fulsome apologies after the fact. If Lugnuts is incapable by playing by the rules, if after all this time he still doesn't get it, then what the hell, people? Ravenswing 20:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support tban from AFD, except to defend own creations - This is clearly beyond the pale. Between the aspersions of proxying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin, these (fairly clear) revenge AFDs, and all of the past history with problems in this area, it's clearly time to nip the problem in the bud and stop the disruption in this area. Past attempts to deal with this have not worked, so in order to stop the disruptive behavior, this looks necessary. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Commentpersonal attacks and well poisoning removedIt is also clear that Lugnuts' AfD's were, as he admits, a "tit-for-tat." We could just ban all three of them from AfD, but I think it would be more productive for all three of them to simply agree to cease the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place, with sanctions to be involved only if they don't. I would strongly oppose any sanctions that don't address all three users involved in this mess, but frankly don't see the need for anything at all if people just move on and don't repeat the behavior that got us here. If they show an unwillingness to do that, so be it, we'll do what we need to to make it stop. But hopefully cooler heads can prevail. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I removed it for you. Don’t restore it, if you have an allegation open a separate thread. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- For what it is worth I am not trying to work through Lugnuts creations at all. I am working through 1912 births, and have been going backwards through the years from 1927 or so. I have since the end of December in part focused on the state of Olympian articles I come across. The fact that a large percentage of those that do not meet our inclusions criteria that I end up taking to AfD are from one creator is a function of who created what percentage of those articles, not from any actual attempt to target the work of one person on my part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never mentioned either of the articles I was alleged to have been proxying in my post. I mentioned a totally different person. That I have to even point that out is very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support I'm convinced that Lugnuts, unfortunately, has become a net negative at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Commemt — Unfortunately the trio of Fram, Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are all editors I have high regards for, thus I’d recusing myself from either supporting or opposing this, but I’d make a few statements (off topic) prior addressing anything else. I see that editors time and time again are irate about Lugnuts's article creation to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace. Now to the issue on ground, I’d like to state definitively that revenge nom's are tasteless and in the past I have “speedy kept” AFD's I believe were created in bad faith. Infact i speak about this on my Userpage, see; User:Celestina007#True Editor Growth, thus I applaud Eggishorn for doing the needful, In my experience Revenge Noms are disruptive because more often than not they are without merit. Furthermore it is improper to swear at AFD's thus i do not appreciate Lugnuts's choice of words at the AFD. It is also improper to say an editor acts as a proxy without cogent proof & that is seriously an egregious accusation to make if it can’t be corroborated, Having said I appreciate Lugnuts because they are an archetypal example of a “serial article creator” stub or not. it is unfortunate that this has spiraled into this, if there is a possible manner Lugnuts can be warned without any formal community enforced sanctions I’d be happy but as earlier stated I wouldn’t be supporting nor opposing this, I however fully understand the frustration on the part of Fram, JPL, RW & Buidhe. Hopefully this can resolved (amicably) without enforced sanctions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The creator of an article should not have to be contacted, when that article is being nominated for deletion. Such a contact-requirement hints of acknowledging a type of ownership. I wouldn't favour such a requirement. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Contacting the article creator makes sense when the article is new. Perhaps the creator was in the process of adding relevant information regarding notability or knew more about the subject that he/she did not include. The contact will act as a spur to improve the article. Once the article has been around awhile, contacting the creator doesn't seem a necessity. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's acknowledging a kind of ownership so much as acknowledging that there's a good chance they have an opinion on whether the article should be retained. Acknowledging ownership would be to give that opinion additional weight because they're the creator, which we don't do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Notifying the creator of something when it is sent to deletion seems fair IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- From the WP:AfD page - While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. -Indy beetle (talk)
- Meh. What concerns me is counting article creations (95,525, 95,926, 95,545), being tbanned from making articles under 500 words, and then switching to counting category creations (7,871, 7,872, 7,873). This, combined with the "revenge AFDs", makes me question whether Lugnuts sees Wikipedia as a game, with a PvP component, and is trying to hit the high score. But he's apologized for the AFDs and said he won't do it again, so I don't see why we can't just accept that as resolving the issue; I don't see this AFD problem as so longstanding or widespread that we need a sanction to prevent further disruption. Levivich 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. An AFD topic ban does not really focus on, or address, the problem identified here; and allowing Lugnuts to participate in discussions involving their own articles (where much of the problematic behaviour seems to occur) seems to undermine the intent. Lugnuts appears to understand why their actions in targeting JPL's creations were unacceptable, even if it should not have needed pointing out to them, so it's probably best to accept their assertion that it will not happen again. Most concerning are the personal attacks and casting aspersions, which absolutely must stop. Given the volume of database entry-type stubs Lugnuts has created, it should have come as no surprise to them that cleanup efforts included a significant proportion of their creations. It would also be helpful if Lugnuts did not hamper such efforts by reverting bold redirects without appropriate rationale or article improvement, resulting in avoidable AFDs. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support at what point do we notice a user disrupting every area they turn to and realize that it's the user that is the problem here, not the specific area they're popping up in? Since there doesn't seem to be much stomach for the simpler solution, sure, let's keep going and adding more restrictions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, either, and maybe you're right about doing something. The way I process this is like this: if I'm at the point where I no longer believe that if Lugnuts says "I won't do it again," he won't actually do it again, then I should support (or maybe even propose) a siteban. Personally I'm not at that point. I've made plenty of criticisms of Lugnuts's editing, but breaking promises isn't among them. So I figure he should be treated like anyone else in this situation: you mess up, you say sorry won't happen again, you're given the chance to make good on it. I fear that editors already under sanctions will feel like they can't afford to make a mistake or else they'll get in serious trouble, and that's a tough way to edit, it's tough to expect reform from someone who feels they're under a microscope. I do see your point of view, though. To each their own? Levivich 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I rarely frequent AFDs, as I'm not an overly good judge of what article should or shouldn't exist. Just wasn't one to learn many of Wikipedia's alphabet soup article status rules. I figured leaving AFDs in the hands of those who are familiar with that area of the project, was best. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpytalk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for using a bullet point. Levivich 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpytalk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - When you look at all the long-term WP:CRIC members who have either driven themselves crazy, gone AWOL, completely raged against the machine, or just given up, it's not really a coincidence. One can name half-a-dozen long-term expanders of the project who have given up over the years. Lugnuts, this isn't just about you, and JPL, this isn't about you, either. Please know, JPL, that I empathize with you over some issues more than anyone here would understand. Use your frustrations that I know you have, to achieve good. Not for raging against the machine. Take a step back just for a while and focus on another area you enjoy. Or just do some Wiki-gnoming, or something that will keep your mind busy.
- At the end of the day, how do you salvage a broken project for the sake of what has become Frankenstein's monster? It's impossible because Frankenstein's monster will come back. Bobo. 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support with a hope this will end the disruptive editing.--Darwinek (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
help
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended content
|
---|
i do not know if this is the right place to post this here but someone made the wikitable election results colours more bleak, the former version was better because it more clear to distinguish beetween the notices colours and text thickness (for example: extra parliamentary and opposion colours and text thickness) can someone please change back to how it was before, thanks. ![]() ![]()
|
IP editor disruptively adding trivial casting information to film articles
160.2.211.63 (talk · contribs) has been disruptively adding trivial casting information to multiple film articles since at least mid-October of last year, when I first notified them[141] of my concerns regarding their edits, many of which are as vague as "X was considered for the role of Y." While the IP does provide sources, a discussion at WikiProject Film concluded that such edits generally weren't constructive. The IP did not contribute to that discussion and has continued on blissfully unaware, despite further notices left at their Talk page.[142] [143] [144] [145]. As the IP is not communicating regarding edits that have been found to be troublesome, despite multiple warnings, I would ask that they be blocked until they engage with the community.
Recent examples of such edits: [146] [147] [148] [149].
It should perhaps be noted that most if not all of their edits are mobile web edits, which raises the frustrating possibility that they're not even aware that there are messages at their Talk page. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Stonewalling on Talk:Julian_Assange
Talk:Julian_Assange#RfC: Should Assange's involvement in the release of unredacted cables in Cablegate be included? is an RfC I raised but abandoned rapidly. It has been bad enough in previous discussions but never so blatant. What can be done if the talk page of an article degenerates to that extent? NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Operation Samsonite.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- A short but good example of the sort of stuff there stopping progress. NadVolum (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I would also like the general level of incivility, assumptions if bad faith, and snipping looked at as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Third-party edit interpolates pejorative content to my post
User:Newimpartial edited a discussion page section from what I had initially titled as "Sorry" [150] so that the title now reads "Sorry, not sorry" [151]. The section title now imputes sarcasm and WP:INCIVILITY that I didn't author and gives the equivocal impression, contrary to WP:REFACTORING guidelines (i.e. absent links to the original to clarify what I actually said and without a summary of the changes on a different page), that I titled the section as it now stands. Please offer assistance to ensure no one is misled into thinking the current title is my doing rather than Newimpartial's. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I noted on their talk page, these edits imply that Kent Dominic states "Sorry, not sorry", rather than "Sorry" - while refactoring headings can be uncontroversial, particularly on a users talk page, this is only the case when it doesn't result in a different meaning being ascribed to the author. I also noted that there is a pattern of this in Newimpartial's talk page edits; they made this ghost edit, which corrected a typo that confused Kent Dominic, and then responded to his confusion as if the typo had never existed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, having reread the exchange, I still don't see any evidence that it was my typo that
confused
Kent, much less that any kind ofpattern
on my part was involved. I initially typednonminary
fornonbinary
; in their reply, Kent referred to mysentence that includes “nominary identity”
, which was neither what I typed nor what I meant. None of the subsequent discussion, visible, e.g. in this diff, leads me to think that the typo played any role in Kent's reaction to my comment. So I have no reason to think I did anything untoward in correcting the typo, much less that it is part of some (nefarious?) "pattern". Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- The confusion appears where they say
Sorry again, but I can’t make heads or tails of your sentence that includes “nominary identity.”
, which is clearly a misreading of the typo "nonminary identity", a confusion that you address in the reply made with your ghost edit. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- If you understand what Kent's confusion there actually was, and what gave rise to it, you are reading that exchange more successfully than I was then or than I am now. I didn't (and don't) know what had him confused, so I just restated my understanding of things, in my inimitable way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The confusion appears where they say
- BilledMammal, having reread the exchange, I still don't see any evidence that it was my typo that
- Kent, this really sucks. Is there anything I can do to convince you to withdraw? Firefangledfeathers 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Technically, Newimpartial was wrong to change your heading. However, I gotta say they were provoked by the lengthy, circular, but spiraling downward discussion. You should have put a lid on it way earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Provocation? No. Lengthy posts? Yes. Circular? I wish. From where I stood, the goalposts weren't moving, just the rhetoric. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: I would have wished, but the point of the discussion is moot now that Newimpartial has taken remedial action --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Bbb23, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN reads
Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided
- which is what I believe my edit (to my own Talk page) achieved. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- No, Newimpartial, you should not be adjusting for tone like that. I doubt that's what SECTIONHEADINGOWN suggests. El_C 03:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I have already edited the section heading one more time, to achieve what I for one find to be a truly painful level of clarity and transparency. The current heading cannot reasonably be mistaken for what the editor originally posted and does accurately describe the content of the discussion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Like. Sorry you were subjected to that nonsense. El_C 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I have already edited the section heading one more time, to achieve what I for one find to be a truly painful level of clarity and transparency. The current heading cannot reasonably be mistaken for what the editor originally posted and does accurately describe the content of the discussion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, Newimpartial, you should not be adjusting for tone like that. I doubt that's what SECTIONHEADINGOWN suggests. El_C 03:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Bbb23, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN reads
- Honestly having read that discussion, I've never seen anyone (Kent) use as many words to try and justify why they will not use a singular they, despite being repeatedly informed that they is the correct pronoun to use for the other party. Frankly, NewImpartial's change to the section header kinda fits the tone of the conversation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that there is Template:They, which if the editor has specified in their preferences a gender will automatically fill in that preference, avoiding cases of accidental misgendering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Is it accurate to write "if the editor has specified"? It appears that a specification will be listed regardless of whether the editor has set one. How is it possible to avoid specifying? Or maybe more specifically, how do I specify in my preferences that I'm fine with either gender-neutral or gendered language? I only see options for "prefer gender-neutral", "prefer masculine", or "prefer feminine", not "don't care what you call me". —David Eppstein (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that there is Template:They, which if the editor has specified in their preferences a gender will automatically fill in that preference, avoiding cases of accidental misgendering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Very easy to avoid using the singular "they" (which is what I do), when conversing with an editor. Just use the editor's name. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah, we remember. ;) El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Was that comment really necessary GoodDay? JCW555 talk ♠ 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's sage advice. Best to look at every editor as having no gender. Don't bring the town down, over pronouns. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Unless you are conversing with They, of course. (Unfortunately you cannot because they are apparently a banned sockpuppet.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic, RE:
However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal?
And:If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me.
Use singular they, not complicated. You risk a WP:BOOMERANG with these antics. El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC) - @GoodDay: I offered to use that same strategy, among numerous others, which Newimpartial graciously accepted. Subsequent argument was wholly unrelated to specific instances of co-referencing editors but rather the manners in which pronouns tend to be construed by various speech participants. It seemed (and still seems) to me that Newimpartial simply didn't want to acknowledge how people in various quarters interpret certain pronouns in ways that depart considerably from ways that comport with sensibilities to the contrary. Long and short: Denying evidenced dynamics doesn't make the dynamics disappear. I don't mind being shot as the messenger, but it became apparent that the message contained historically archaic and linguistic protologisms outside Newimmpartials's comfort range to withstand. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would point out that Kent began to edit war over the heading after I told him to remove himself from my Talk page. I don't think he should have been doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's very clear that you're a writer, Kent Dominic, and more broadly an explainer. Both are generally good traits (to the extent that any trait can be good or bad) and both are traits that I believe the two of us share. I've found that in my case, I'm sometimes so eager to explain my point of view in a conversation that I overlook things the other party has said which render what I'm about to say to them incorrect, irrelevant, unnecessary, or otherwise not worth saying. My advice to you, if you're willing to take it, would be to take advantage of the opportunity Newimpartial has given you by ending the conversation on their talk page. It's a chance to reread what they've said to you, not with the intent to respond, but with the goal of understanding and considering. There are some important points in there that I think I might have missed if I was on your side of the screen. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sentiment, User:Ezlev. I really had intended merely to apologize in the "Sorry" thread. In hindsight, I shouldn't have used what I thought would be obvious self-effacement with my "
If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me
" remark, which apparently caused the ensuing fallout. Or, perhaps I should have formatted it as nonbinary singular third-person pronoun to better signal that I was referring to nonbinary as part of a lexical category, not gender identity. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- How about everyone tries to be excellent to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Heeding my edit summaries' requests would have obviated the need to go on record here, right? No need to reply since I'm glad you've subsequently relented and remedied the situation. In the most charitable way I can put this, in case you missed it:
It seems that you persist in associating me with rationale that's not part of my thinking
. Moreover, it seems you feel more comfortable simply denying rationale that doesn't comport with your own. Obviously, I'm not asserting that as being amenable to objective proof one way or the other, only as how you come off to me. I truly hope I can be proved wrong on both accounts. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's request for excellent behavior. But I feel that something a bit more direct is called for in this situation. I was neutral about this thread until I read the appalling thing that Kent Dominic wrote. Kent Dominic, condider this a formal warning. If you ever refer to a human as "it", I will block you. If you ever deliberately misgender another editor, I will block you. You must read Singular they and all of its references and fully understand the long history of its usage in the English language before you comment again about this issue. If, after reading all of that, you freely choose to engage in disruptive and insulting edits about this issue, then I will block you. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry User:Cullen328, can you clarify where you are seeing the use of "it" in reference to another human, as I cannot see it? If you're referring to the comment you are responding to, I don't believe either of the two uses of "it" are in reference to a person. Obviously, if Kent Dominic has used the word in such a manner then it is unacceptable, but I am not seeing the reference. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: My best guess is that User:Cullen328 skimmed the first part of the "Sorry" thread and misinterpreted my initial reference to "it," and that the separate discussion of "it" further down (the part you're likely referring to) didn't get read. Rereading the initial part now, I can see how one might interpolate a disrespectful intention. So far, however, no one except Cullen328 has inferred anything untoward. I can only speculate that Cullen328 read, "
If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me
" and mistakenly presumed I was advocating "it" as a substitute for a singular "they" as a disparagement. Whether construed as a bona fide disparagement or as a joke, I hope continued reading here would clear it up: What does one typically ask when there's a knock at the door? What does one usually say after getting tagged in a game of Tag? (I've never heard, "Tag! You're they.") How do we reply to "who's that in the picture?" More cogently, according to the Oxford English entry for "it" - PRONOUN
- @BilledMammal: My best guess is that User:Cullen328 skimmed the first part of the "Sorry" thread and misinterpreted my initial reference to "it," and that the separate discussion of "it" further down (the part you're likely referring to) didn't get read. Rereading the initial part now, I can see how one might interpolate a disrespectful intention. So far, however, no one except Cullen328 has inferred anything untoward. I can only speculate that Cullen328 read, "
- Sorry User:Cullen328, can you clarify where you are seeing the use of "it" in reference to another human, as I cannot see it? If you're referring to the comment you are responding to, I don't believe either of the two uses of "it" are in reference to a person. Obviously, if Kent Dominic has used the word in such a manner then it is unacceptable, but I am not seeing the reference. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's request for excellent behavior. But I feel that something a bit more direct is called for in this situation. I was neutral about this thread until I read the appalling thing that Kent Dominic wrote. Kent Dominic, condider this a formal warning. If you ever refer to a human as "it", I will block you. If you ever deliberately misgender another editor, I will block you. You must read Singular they and all of its references and fully understand the long history of its usage in the English language before you comment again about this issue. If, after reading all of that, you freely choose to engage in disruptive and insulting edits about this issue, then I will block you. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- 1. [third person singular] Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. // ‘a room with two beds in it’
- 1.1 Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex. // ‘she was holding the baby, cradling it and smiling into its face’ (italics not in original)
- 2. [third person singular] Used to identify a person. // ‘it's me’ (italics not in original)
- I can also understand how that huge wall of text in the "Sorry" thread might dissuade a reader from reading every single item. Accordingly, if anyone read the teal comment (i.e., as just reposted above) and construed it quite literally rather than tongue-in-cheek self-effacement re. my familiarity with the topic as presented in excruciating detail later on in the thread, and without knowing all the linguistic (incl semantics, syntax, lexicology, etymology, and phrase structure) work that consumes me during my time offline as well as online, then shame on me for not including a smiley face and a "LMAO" disclaimer. I guess my reputation as linguistics nerd hasn't preceded me as far as I'd imagined. But please, everyone, don't quiz me on phonology or morphology - esp. Old English. And I'm not really up on that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kent Dominic, I'll be blunt: it was disrespectful and inappropriate. And if it wasn't clear, mine was also a formal warning. If you do something like that again, I will also block you. And might I also suggest you just speak plainly on this matter, without "excruciating detail" that might come across as filibustering...? It probably has little utility, anyway. El_C 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, BilledMammal, I think there could be some justification in reading all references to "it" as a pronoun for persons, in the context of nonbinary people, as potential dogwhistle rhetoric even when - as in this instance - the user is not explicitly referring to any nonbinary person as "it". After all, that is the way dog whistles work, and any sufficiently oblique comment is susceptible to multiple, layered interpretations as to its meaning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Aliffaizul13
Aliffaizul13 (talk · contribs)
Recently blocked for adding unsourced content to BLPs - now back doing the same. Never uses edit summaries, never response to talk page posts, and from a quick glance through contribs never uses references... GiantSnowman 07:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Aliffaizul13#Indefinite block. El_C 11:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! GiantSnowman 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Alleged interference in RfC by DePiep
I regret the need to be here but this matter concerns a currently open RfC.
I recently initiated an RfC.[152] After the RfC statement section itself, there is a subsection for Votes and a subsection for Talk, notes, questions, suggestions.
User:DePiep then posted a question to the RfC statement section itself.[153]
I effectively boldly reverted DePeip’s edit by moving his question to the RfC Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection, and added my answer to his question.[154] I also asked DePiep to, “Please do not edit my rfc statement” adding that the place for questions is the RfC Talk etc. sub-section.
DePiep has now reverted my revert[155] and added a “serious warning” to my talk page,[156] saying he is surprised to have to tell me, once more, on how to behave in a discussion; that my revert of his edit was unacceptable, including my “misleading” edit summary; that I’ll understand this is tearing his patience with me and my editing behaviour; that there are other paths for me to walk if I have questions or issues “(but not me is gonna point them out to you any more)”. Further, "I will not accept you breaking or spoiling a discussion. So best consider this as a serious warning."
DePiep has also added a Glossary to the RfC statement section itself, without consulting me as the initiator of the RfC, and ignoring my previous request to please not edit my RfC statement.
In bringing my allegations here I am only looking to run the RfC free from interference of this kind by DePiep, and to be free from incivil postings to my talk page.
If this is an inappropriate forum to raise allegations and concerns of this nature I will be happy to raise them via another avenue.
Thank you. I’ve tried to be polite. If I’m at fault I am happy to be corrected. Sandbh (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will reply later on. Most clarifying diffs will be from the RfCs history. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- DePiep, RE:
why ask for "votes" instead of comments, in an RfC?
Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes. RfC's are structured that way sometimes, which I suppose aims to reduce threaded discussion in the !vote list, largely relegating these to a 'discussion' subsection (personally, I'm not a fan of that format). But that isn't even the point. You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text. I'm a bit surprised that I even need to tell an experienced editor not to do that, yet here we are. Anyway, I have removed the "question." El_C 11:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- @El C:
- (1) Sandbh initially, with the RfC opening post, named the section
==Votes==
[157], no negating exclamation mark. So I asked "why?" [158]. Then a third editor changed the section title, noting WP:NOVOTE in their editsummary [159]. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC) - (2) From WP:RFC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template" (italics added).
- So, El_C, could you check these two statements, and reply approprately (ie, I expect some form of withdrawal/correction in both). Since this is ANI, I may expect & request carefulness. Your writing, including the quotes, reads like undue reproach. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, prefacing "vote" with an exclamation mark isn't really that decisive, even if I might have started my warning to you with that (as that is what's being displayed atm). The point is that you're not allowed to intrude right onto the middle of an RfC's opening text. That you try to sidestep this crux rather than acknowledge it, is a problem, I find. El_C 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- "right in the middle of"? It was straight after their signature, and before the "Vote" section [160]. Well, you may differ on the importance of a Vote-On-RfC setup, but I reject your repeated notion of bad faith or disruption. Adding scare-quotes around my question is not appropriate. After my clarifications, you still have not expained what trespassing happened. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, right in the middle of it. The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below. You broke the cohesion of the RfC opening text with your "question." Please don't do that again. If you want to challenge the RfC's formatting, you can create your own subsection, without otherwise hijacking the flow of RfC opening. El_C 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pls check the edit. Now, I asked questions re your statements (about my edits) here, but did not find answers. And also since you keep using so-called-quotes re my posts ie assuming bad faith, I cannot help you any further. Your conclusions are incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Even still, it is inside the RfC opening (above the !votes), which isn't really the place for a threaded discussion. That's where the RfC author can elaborate a bit or leave as is. And I don't need your help. I've warned you against inappropriately intruding onto the RfC opening field and I've warned Sandbh against clerking the RfC. There's not much else to say. Yes, I used quotes for "question," because what does it even have to do with the RfC opening (its substance)? You can get the same emphasis from a subsection, without interrupting its flow, remains my point. El_C 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pls check the edit. Now, I asked questions re your statements (about my edits) here, but did not find answers. And also since you keep using so-called-quotes re my posts ie assuming bad faith, I cannot help you any further. Your conclusions are incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, right in the middle of it. The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below. You broke the cohesion of the RfC opening text with your "question." Please don't do that again. If you want to challenge the RfC's formatting, you can create your own subsection, without otherwise hijacking the flow of RfC opening. El_C 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- "right in the middle of"? It was straight after their signature, and before the "Vote" section [160]. Well, you may differ on the importance of a Vote-On-RfC setup, but I reject your repeated notion of bad faith or disruption. Adding scare-quotes around my question is not appropriate. After my clarifications, you still have not expained what trespassing happened. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, prefacing "vote" with an exclamation mark isn't really that decisive, even if I might have started my warning to you with that (as that is what's being displayed atm). The point is that you're not allowed to intrude right onto the middle of an RfC's opening text. That you try to sidestep this crux rather than acknowledge it, is a problem, I find. El_C 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- DePiep, RE:
Update: DePiep has now added commentary immediately after my vote, rather than adding such comments to the Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection.[161]. I thanked him for this edit and then boldly reverted it, saying, “Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section”.[162] DePiep reverted my revert, commenting, “"it is a discussion. Read WP:RFC. Do not change my edits. Stop tit-for-tat."[163]. While I stand ready to be corrected, I regard these alleged actions by DePiep as a form of vandalism, misguided as it may be. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, Sandbh, you don't get to clerk an RfC you launched like this. You don't get to compel folks against engaging in threaded discussion in the !vote section. It's a recommendation which is ultimately at the discretion of individual contributors. El_C 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @El C: Thank you.
- I acknowledge your advice that an RfC nominator does not have a clerking role in the running of the RfC.
- I was following the example at Separate votes from discussion. In this case I recorded my vote along with a 90-word summary of my reasons. DePeip adds a 240-word commentary[164] to my vote, setting out his multiple disagreements with my vote reasoning as opposed to doing so in the Discussion sub-section of the Rfc. In closing his commentary to my vote, DePiep refers to what "we should choose" and asks people to also see his own vote. I feel this represents less-than-civil, disruptive behaviour on his part. How do you see it?
- Please be further advised El_C that I intend to boldly remove (effectively via reversion) the Glossary that DePiep unilaterally added to the RfC[165], since I allege that it is biased, in breach of WP:RFC Responding_to_an_RfC, and adds content not germane to the RfC. My reversion edit summary will ask DePiep to please follow BRD however I expect he will revert my revert rather than follow WP:BRD (but I live in hope). Respectfully, Sandbh (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sandbh, as the filer, the RfC opening is your domain (within reason) and any further additions or adjustments to it should enjoy a rough consensus. So set it as you've originally intended. There really shouldn't be any further issues with the RfC structure. About Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion: I don't really know what that page is. It isn't labeled as a policy or guideline or even an information page or even even an essay. Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is all we get. Was it just split from the main RFC page? Who knows. Regardless, it opens with
All of these formats are optional and voluntary
(bold in the original), which I think is pretty key.
- Sandbh, as the filer, the RfC opening is your domain (within reason) and any further additions or adjustments to it should enjoy a rough consensus. So set it as you've originally intended. There really shouldn't be any further issues with the RfC structure. About Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion: I don't really know what that page is. It isn't labeled as a policy or guideline or even an information page or even even an essay. Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is all we get. Was it just split from the main RFC page? Who knows. Regardless, it opens with
- To that: my main point was that outside the opening, RfCs are generally free-flowing. In some instances, they'd also have an extended discussion subsection (the Survery/Discussion model), and additional subsections as needed. Also, sometime these will end up being conducted with clearly-defined constraints on what's allowed to be said on what section, even strict constraints. Which tends to be either the product of agreement among those not knowing that that is optional, or those who do know it's optional but still agree to run it this way.
- Either way, as mentioned, I'm not a fan of strict constraints, mysef, which no one participant can decree by fiat. If there's a rough consensus to do anything like that, then, sure, I guess. I still think it's a generally bad idea, but to each their own. Anyway, hope that makes sense and hope it's gonna be smooth sailing from now on. El_C 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not Again – It appeared that the community might have seen a break from the fights between User:Sandbh and User:DePiep and others over the periodic table. There were at least seven trips to WP:ANI in 2020 (as listed by CaptainEek):
- First ANI thread in August
- Second ANI thread, about ELEM in general More trouble with Sandbh and also User:DePiep. I am not making DePiep a party to the case at time of filing, but I do wonder if more than just Sandbh and Double Sharp are the problem here
- The third and almost productive trip to ANI
- The fourth time at ANI
- A fifth! journey to ANI. If only you got free airline miles for that many trips
- One of several threads where EdChem gallantly tried to mediate
Then User:CaptainEek (not an arb at the time) filed a Request for Arbitration: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=990863692#Elements
I recommended at the time that ArbCom accept the case, and consider whether any of the regular combatants should be topic-banned, and whether DePiep was a net negative to the encyclopedia, but the case was declined. Things then have been quiet for about a year. Now we have this. It appears that DePiep is complicating an effort by Sandbh to address the continuing controversy over the periodic table. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Topic-Ban DePiep
I propose that User:DePiep be topic-banned from chemistry-related topics.
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Airports
I recently started manual adding tags to airport articles in order to improve the sourcing of the - often horrendously bad - articles. This was earlier discussed here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#editing_thousands_of_articles_to_enforce_a_rule_that_does_not_actually_exist without action. Now User:Mako001 is removing the tags under the WP:BRD-excuse, but without discussion and clearly done by a bot. These removals are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 11:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) They seem to be reverting these edits now (i.e. restoring your hidden notes). Can this be closed?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've actually noticed (and removed) one of those tags; in this case, primary sources would appear to be allowed by WP:PRIMARY #3, as they are being used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". That is not to say there isn't a significant issue with those tables, both in terms of their existence in those articles (See this ongoing RFC, which is how I encountered your tag) and in terms of their sourcing, which is often non-existent or not verifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, my apologies, I didn't realise that the issue was discussed fully prior to this, I am reverting my removals, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mako001 (C) (T) 11:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted all, if I've missed any please let me know. Is any further action needed? Mako001 (C) (T) 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- To make it clear, whilst I was aware of the previous discussion listed above, I hadn't actually read it through, or at all in fact. Mako001 (C) (T) 11:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted all, if I've missed any please let me know. Is any further action needed? Mako001 (C) (T) 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, my apologies, I didn't realise that the issue was discussed fully prior to this, I am reverting my removals, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mako001 (C) (T) 11:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Adding independent sources?
- But I have noted that the big airports and airlines are fairly well maintained but poorly sourced. Smaller airlines and airports not so much. I have seen many cases of sources dating from 2007 and 2012, which in this pandemic time are not really up to date. And I have many cases where airline QQ states that is flying on airport CC, where the airport replies wit:"huh, what?".The Banner talk 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Adding independent sources?
- I think the issue is solved by now, so this can be closed as solved. The Banner talk 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Republic of Crimea
Please have a review of the page on Republic of Crimea, which is incorrectly consistently marked as a subject of russia by russian bots. This violates international law and many national laws as well. There is no reason to have this kind of illegal marking in the the article. Crimea was, is and always will be part of Ukraine, illegally temporarily occupied by Russia and should be marked as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Really? 331dot is a Russian bot?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- If I am, I'm not getting paid enough for it. (that's a joke) This doesn't require admin action as the user has not attempted to discuss it with me. The article summarizes independent sources which state that Crimea is administered as part of Russia and others consider it to be under occupation. There is nothing "illegal" about this content. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) This happens on a regular basis, many Ukrainian users are incapable of understanding the difference between the Republic of Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and consider any mention that Crimea is de-facto administered by Russia as POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- If I am, I'm not getting paid enough for it. (that's a joke) This doesn't require admin action as the user has not attempted to discuss it with me. The article summarizes independent sources which state that Crimea is administered as part of Russia and others consider it to be under occupation. There is nothing "illegal" about this content. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is no need to duplicate the discussion at Talk:Republic of Crimea here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
We actually have a discussion on this on the talk page and you have suggested for me to gather troops and attack Crimea to make sure Wikipedia has correct status for Crimea. Without even commenting on this, I am no expert on how Wikipedia works, but I don't think that 331dot gets to decide how the status of Crimea should be marked on the Wikipedia page, so this requires admin input. 331dot have repeteadly changed my edits to have it marked the way hejust stated - part of Ukraine, temporarily occupied and administered by Russia. This is the status of this territory and should be marked as such. Marking this as part of Russia breaks international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- For sure, you are not to decide this either. Certainly not before you become an expert on how Wikipedia works.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- We do say it, but the article is not about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea it is about the Republic of Crimea. A separate entity, in the sense that we have an article on both claims. At this stage you appear to be a POV pushing wp:spa who is wp:nothere. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
that's a joke
— said every bot ever. El_C 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
So why exactly he is deciding this and not me? On which ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS requires you to get wp:consensus to make such a major change.You did not have it, as such it was down to your to stop reverting and win them over. Now at least two other users have told you you are wrong over this. As such it is now time for you to drop this and accept you do not have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
how can I have consensus with 332dot if he seriously suggested for me to start a war so that he could change this status on Wikipedia? Another his idea was to have a UN resolution on how this should be marked on WIkipedia. Are you guys serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- You were the one that said under international law the Republic of Crimea was not Russian, he just asked for proof of that claim. It may well be that the UN has said the crimea is not Russian, that is not what the article is about. It is about the Russian crated puppet state.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Well no, he specifically requested UN resolution on what it should be named in WIkipedia and edited it later to look like he asks for the law you are talking about. And yes, there are resolutions marking that Crimea is occupied by Russia, everyone knows that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- But this article is not about the Crimea, are you even reading what you are being told? At this stage, you are heading into wp:tenditious territory and are becoming a time sink (and learn to wp:sign and wp:indent as well).Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Block the IP. This is a waste of valuable editors time. When someone starts from a position of "Illegal under international law", the likelihood of a rational discussion ending with the gain of a new productive wikipedia editor is near zero.Slywriter (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Wow if you don't like what you are told, you are trying to call someone a time sink or to even block his IP? If you don't know it, then I will tell you, that everyone in Ukraine and Russia calls Autonomous Republic of Crimea (UA) or Republic of Crimea (a puppet state created by Russia to administer occupied Crimean peninsula - yes, as you can see I know the distinction, don't you even have doubts I don't) simply as Crimea. To avoid you using this against me, I will in future use the correct term - if this actually adds anything to the topic of discussion - namely that the discussed statement, does not clearly specify that this was entity created to administer occupied territory and is only recognized by Russia and only a few other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
And when someone starts by saying block the person providing argument cause it wastes his valuable time, something is wrong with such statements in my opinion and should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is now clear this is a wp:nothere account, I am unsure a block is needed a TBAN is, then maybe they might learn how to act by editing in a less contentious topic area more conducive to learning how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will repeat myself because this hasn't been addressed, but why is this being discussed here when the OP started a discussion at the correct place, Talk:Republic of Crimea, moments before creating this one? This should have been closed immediately in favour of that discussion, but now a behavioural issue has been raised so we are left with a train-wreck. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
While the substance of this particular issue shall be indeed discussed at RoC talkpage, the broad issue of long-term country misplacing by IPs might still be worthy of consideration, because similar things also happen, from time to time, on Ukrainian counterpart's page, Autonomous Republic of Crimea: users fail (or don't bother at all) to read and/or understand {{About}} headers on these two pages and repeatedly try to put wrong country/subdivision pair on one or these pages: pro-Russian IPs try to label AR Crimea a Russian subdivision, and pro-Ukrainian IPs try to label Republic of Crimea a Ukrainian subdivision. I'm afraid, that we end up in either putting these "do not confuse" notices in editnotices of these pages (perhaps in big font, so editors will surely notice that when editing one of these pages) or, if that won't help, the time might come to semiprotect these pages indefinitely. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Non-agreeable and unresponsive user
PlanespotterA320 has been reverting people without edit summaries and refusing to discuss a disagreement that arose between this user and me at here [166]. The conflict started when I found about the page De-Tatarization of Crimea created by this user. I was interested and noticed this ethnic group also had a navigation template (Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era) created by the same user. This article was listed on it but as "Detatarization of Crimea" instead of "De-Tatarization of Crimea". I did some changes which included using the latter form because the article was already titled that way so it just seemed logical to me [167]. This user manually reverted this change [168]. I manually reverted back, with the edit summary "per article title" as the user could have not realized (I hadn't realized they had created that article yet) [169] and I was reverted again without an edit summary [170].
Afterwards, I left a message on the template's talk page, but it wasn't responded. I then searched a bit more to see if this had been disputed before or something just to get some context and saw that this user had created that page and that a conflict over the article's title had already ocurred back in 2020 [171]. Notice that the user had already been reverting without edit summaries by then. Later in March 2020 there was a formal RM which passed and the article, originally created under "Detatarization of Crimea", was moved to "De-Tatarization of Crimea". I read some arguments and it appears that "De-Tatarization" is more common in the academic world, better as per English grammar, and recommended by Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes ('Hyphens [...] are used: [...] when prefixing a capitalized word, such as "un-Christian"'; the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea). Apart of all of this, when this dispute happened, the article was already titled that way.
At this point this situation seemed illogical to me so I reverted back [172]; the user did the same but this time with an edit summary stating "I'm the one that MADE this template and the article in question, stop making petty useless edits" (WP:OWN, already noted by another user in the talk page) [173]. I requested a WP:3O but it was declined and I was recommended to follow WP:DISCFAIL instead, which I believe I did properly. From now on I believe it is better for anyone to read the talk page instead, but basically, the user did mention some arguments as to why defend "Detatarization", to which I replied with some arguments as to why we shouldn't use this form, which again went unreplied.
This situation is so absurd to me that I've decided to go ahead and take measures to enforce this simply valid change. PlanespotterA320 has rejected to talk about the issue and stated they will not participate in any discussion anymore. Note the tone of the last message sent by them on the talk page. Please take measures so this situation is clarified. I will note that today this user, after two years, decided to try and unilaterally move the mainspace article De-Tatarization of Crimea back to "Detatarization" without any discussion and overruling the RM that approved this title [174]. This was reverted by another user [175]. Super Ψ Dro 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- By the way, I will note that I manually reverted once again after this user sent their last message so far on the template talk page becuase I thought they had decided to leave the issue ("You can revert on the template if you feel like being a grammar nazi that badly, but I will NOT self-revert and I will NOT contribute to the prolonging of this discussion that should not ever exist. I am OUT and do not care to listen to this pettyness any further.") [176]. I was reverted again by the same user [177]. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Users who are not part of the Crimea Wikiproject taskforce has also been the subject of editwars on Russian Wikipedia) with no knowledge of the hyphenation controversy shouldn't be dictating how Crimea articles are titled. Those who come looking to start edit wars and pick and pick to interfere with actual content developers are not helpful to the goals of Wikipedia. There shouldn't even be such prolonged, drawn-out discussions over such pedantic tiny things in templates. The only reason I can imagine why the user bringing this up (Super Dromaeosaurus) is choosing to push for having such long and drawn-out process is to obstruct development of the remaining needed content on Crimean history (wasting my time by dragging me into such "discussions" again and again instead of sticking to their realm of Romanian history and letting me do my thing, ie, finish the redlinked articles in the template list). This is a longstanding problem on Wikipedia that has been exacerbated over the years - more time spent on petty talkpage arguments with people woh aren't even members of the respective wikiproject, less time writing and improving actual articles. Less respect to subject-matter experts, more subject-matter experts leave, more articles left unfinished/redlinks remain. If they at least bothered to be aware of the hypenation and capitalization controversy surrounding the word "tatar" or attempted to reach out to the people at crh wikipedia it would be one thing. But they haven't done that, the outsider decided that the Crimean template should be their way and decided to impose a burecratic process to push it nonstop. I will not discussion this further with people who are not project members, and I will revert below the limits of the editwar defintion (2 per 24 hours). But I will not respond to pings, or further calls for "discussion" with these blatant obstructionists impeeding my ability to MEANINGFULLY contribute to Wikipedia, and I once AGAIN call on them to either familiarize themselves with key parts of Crimean history before attempting to take sides or go be productive in a different part of the encyclopedia where they can make meaningful, productive contributions to the project that increase the availability of quality content instead of going around and picking fights with good editors. I should not have to reiterate that Crimean Tatars are NOT a subgroup of the ACTUAL Tatar people, but a completely separate, CRIMEAN people (more closely relted to the Gagauz or Azerbaijanis than actual Tatars or Bashkirs) who got CALLED TATAR by RUSSIANS (as a slur) and the name stuck (and has been a huge burden ever since, like with Ukaz 493. (Russians used to call all Muslims, from actual Tatars, to Bashkirs, to even Azerbaijanis "Tatars", but the name obviously didn't stick for all) In Crimean Tatar and Russian languages, there is strong opposition to capitalization of the tatar part of the defacto ethnonym, which is properly written as Qırımtatar, NOT Qırım-Tatar, not Qırım Tatar, not Qırım-Tatar). Of course, the user in question who actually wrote out "the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea" (which made my jaw drop) would know about the controversy over the very word tatar itself if they were a good-standing member of a Crimean task force wikiproject and bothered to read the available articles and materials about this very issue. The very use of the word "subgroup" in reference to the Crimean Tatar people here (and not a part of it, say, the mountain or coast dwellers) just goes to show just how little they know about Crimeanness and how they have no business attempting to make calls on how things related to Crimeanness are written. I doubt he/she would be very positive, responseful, or even respectful if I said that Romanians are a subgroup of Moldovans and insisted on having long petty discussions about Romanian matters based on my minimal/non-existance knowledge of Romanians.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- We're in English-language Wikipedia, where English-language standards and not Russian ones apply. In Wikipedia, these types of controversies are usually disregarded as ugly as it might sound. "Transnistria" is not a very liked name in Transnistria, but Wikipedia still uses this name per WP:COMMONNAME, and so per WP:COMMONNAME is "de-Tatarization" seen as a better title than "detatarization" as it is more commonly used in sources. But I will admit on having poor knowledge on the Crimean Tatars and I apologize for referring to them as a Tatar subgroup. And I don't gain everything from stripping Wikipedia away from info about the Crimean Tatars. I've been here in Wikipedia for a while now, and I've met a diverse group of people with whom I've had many absurd disputes. The first time is okay, I can move on, but the tenth? Sorry, but no. I am pretty convinced my stance is supported by English Wikipedia policies, and I plan to act upon that. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the place for content disputes. But as Super Ψ Dro said, what goes on in other projects and actually even the Simple English Wikipedia or English Wiktionary doesn't generally concern us. There's no requirement that anyone must be part of any wikiproject to participate in discussions about any thing that affects Wikipedia as a whole including stuff in general templates. Actually such a requirement in strongly against fundamental wikipedia policy. Nor is there any requirement that only content creators can participate in discussions. Any editor in good standing can participate in discussions on improving pages and being them more in line with our policies and guidelines. Expert participation is always welcome, but they will generally need to bring sources etc to demonstrate whatever they are saying rather than just expect others to trust them. I'd note that if something is a pedantic tiny thing then there is probably no reason to oppose a change that another editors brings a page more in line with our policies and guidelines. But if there is a reason then ultimately the editor opposing will need to adequately explain their reasoning. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I was told, I followed WP:DISCFAIL, precisely step 9, because before I made this report, the other user had stated they would not participate anymore in any discussion. Is this really a content dispute at this point? By the way, whether "detatarization" or "de-Tatarization" is correct or not was already decided at the 2020 RM on the article's talk page in question. Where else am I supposed to take this issue? To WP:AE, where the outcome will be the same as in the RM (because, why wouldn't it)? This issue was already decided, and "de-Tatarization" was shown to be a better title. I don't think we need reports and requests to change every single link to this article, because one user opposes this and refuses to explain their reasoning until an ANI report is filed. Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the place for content disputes. But as Super Ψ Dro said, what goes on in other projects and actually even the Simple English Wikipedia or English Wiktionary doesn't generally concern us. There's no requirement that anyone must be part of any wikiproject to participate in discussions about any thing that affects Wikipedia as a whole including stuff in general templates. Actually such a requirement in strongly against fundamental wikipedia policy. Nor is there any requirement that only content creators can participate in discussions. Any editor in good standing can participate in discussions on improving pages and being them more in line with our policies and guidelines. Expert participation is always welcome, but they will generally need to bring sources etc to demonstrate whatever they are saying rather than just expect others to trust them. I'd note that if something is a pedantic tiny thing then there is probably no reason to oppose a change that another editors brings a page more in line with our policies and guidelines. But if there is a reason then ultimately the editor opposing will need to adequately explain their reasoning. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- You shouldn't take the issue ANYWHERE, or attempt to get further discussion AT ALL. You should DROP THE STICK and stick to your matters within your own purveiw. PERIOD. Stick to articles on things you have at least an elementary understanding of. Like other users pointed out, this place isn't even a good place for content disputes. So be on your merry way and stick to some Romania related articles instead of obstructing Crimean content (I have wasted over an hour that could have been spent writing the missing articles to address your comments, and have made it very clear that I do not wish to waste any more)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually you are the editor who is out of line here, not Super Dromaeosaurus. You are being argumentative, exclusionist, ignoring consensus, and being belligerent not to mention what at this point can only be willful WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT around the capitalization and hyphenation. At this point I’m rather close to blocking you right not for not being willing to edit in a collaborative environment and throwing around wording that makes it clear you are uninterested in cooperating with other editors. You are very clearly unaware of what wikipedias policies and guidelines are and unless you step back and look at what you are saying, apologize and do a 180 turn on this approach, you are going to be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just self-revert then. If you don't wanna waste more time into this, just do that. As you said on my talk page, you could expand the scope of the article. You could also rename it. But opposing a link (not even the article title, just a link), which contradicts the title of the article it is linking to, has not taken you anywhere. So just back off and self-revert. I don't even need apologies. My intention is not to make anyone feel humilliated. Plus, you'll save yourself from a block. I believe it's the most sensible action you can do right now. Super Ψ Dro 21:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- How about simply changing the label to "Toponym renaming" in the template as a compromise? (and being by far the most prominent/obvious aspect of detatarization that lingers today)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- We're in English-language Wikipedia, where English-language standards and not Russian ones apply. In Wikipedia, these types of controversies are usually disregarded as ugly as it might sound. "Transnistria" is not a very liked name in Transnistria, but Wikipedia still uses this name per WP:COMMONNAME, and so per WP:COMMONNAME is "de-Tatarization" seen as a better title than "detatarization" as it is more commonly used in sources. But I will admit on having poor knowledge on the Crimean Tatars and I apologize for referring to them as a Tatar subgroup. And I don't gain everything from stripping Wikipedia away from info about the Crimean Tatars. I've been here in Wikipedia for a while now, and I've met a diverse group of people with whom I've had many absurd disputes. The first time is okay, I can move on, but the tenth? Sorry, but no. I am pretty convinced my stance is supported by English Wikipedia policies, and I plan to act upon that. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Users who are not part of the Crimea Wikiproject taskforce has also been the subject of editwars on Russian Wikipedia) with no knowledge of the hyphenation controversy shouldn't be dictating how Crimea articles are titled. Those who come looking to start edit wars and pick and pick to interfere with actual content developers are not helpful to the goals of Wikipedia. There shouldn't even be such prolonged, drawn-out discussions over such pedantic tiny things in templates. The only reason I can imagine why the user bringing this up (Super Dromaeosaurus) is choosing to push for having such long and drawn-out process is to obstruct development of the remaining needed content on Crimean history (wasting my time by dragging me into such "discussions" again and again instead of sticking to their realm of Romanian history and letting me do my thing, ie, finish the redlinked articles in the template list). This is a longstanding problem on Wikipedia that has been exacerbated over the years - more time spent on petty talkpage arguments with people woh aren't even members of the respective wikiproject, less time writing and improving actual articles. Less respect to subject-matter experts, more subject-matter experts leave, more articles left unfinished/redlinks remain. If they at least bothered to be aware of the hypenation and capitalization controversy surrounding the word "tatar" or attempted to reach out to the people at crh wikipedia it would be one thing. But they haven't done that, the outsider decided that the Crimean template should be their way and decided to impose a burecratic process to push it nonstop. I will not discussion this further with people who are not project members, and I will revert below the limits of the editwar defintion (2 per 24 hours). But I will not respond to pings, or further calls for "discussion" with these blatant obstructionists impeeding my ability to MEANINGFULLY contribute to Wikipedia, and I once AGAIN call on them to either familiarize themselves with key parts of Crimean history before attempting to take sides or go be productive in a different part of the encyclopedia where they can make meaningful, productive contributions to the project that increase the availability of quality content instead of going around and picking fights with good editors. I should not have to reiterate that Crimean Tatars are NOT a subgroup of the ACTUAL Tatar people, but a completely separate, CRIMEAN people (more closely relted to the Gagauz or Azerbaijanis than actual Tatars or Bashkirs) who got CALLED TATAR by RUSSIANS (as a slur) and the name stuck (and has been a huge burden ever since, like with Ukaz 493. (Russians used to call all Muslims, from actual Tatars, to Bashkirs, to even Azerbaijanis "Tatars", but the name obviously didn't stick for all) In Crimean Tatar and Russian languages, there is strong opposition to capitalization of the tatar part of the defacto ethnonym, which is properly written as Qırımtatar, NOT Qırım-Tatar, not Qırım Tatar, not Qırım-Tatar). Of course, the user in question who actually wrote out "the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea" (which made my jaw drop) would know about the controversy over the very word tatar itself if they were a good-standing member of a Crimean task force wikiproject and bothered to read the available articles and materials about this very issue. The very use of the word "subgroup" in reference to the Crimean Tatar people here (and not a part of it, say, the mountain or coast dwellers) just goes to show just how little they know about Crimeanness and how they have no business attempting to make calls on how things related to Crimeanness are written. I doubt he/she would be very positive, responseful, or even respectful if I said that Romanians are a subgroup of Moldovans and insisted on having long petty discussions about Romanian matters based on my minimal/non-existance knowledge of Romanians.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Director Neeraj Singh and Bikrookanpurgangster
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but would appreciate someone taking a look at Draft:Director Neeraj Singh. This was created by Bikrookanpurgangster who I believe is also editing it as IP2402:3a80:b42:ec57:0:63:9c5c:3c01 (I'm not complaining about the logged-off editing). The second edit summary on creating the page was "i am an indian writer and director i want to have a wikipedia page so that i can connect among my fans". The article had already been created as Draft:Neeraj_Singh, which was declined by Idoghor Melody and rejected by TheWikiholic. Based on the poor referencing, the fact the article obviously existed to connect with fans, i.e. was promotional, and had already been rejected under a different name, I tagged it for speedy deletion. The IP editor removed the tag. I replaced it with an explanation in the edit summary that they could contest it, but not remove the tag [178]. I also put a note on the IP's talk page [179], and on the draft's talk page. They have removed the tag for a second time. This is clearly going nowhere. I suspect they're going to continue to create drafts and remove tags. I don't know if I'm over-reacting, or whether my original tag was justified. But there's no point in getting drafts rejected and declined if they're just going to get recreated with different names, and WP isn't a social media site. I've tried to explain, but I don't think the editor gets it. Elemimele (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- To make the COI even more obvious, user Bikrookanpurgangster is named after the film in the article: "... the film titled Bikroo Kanpur Gangster is based on..." rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I Speedy Deleted it as another draft on the topic already exists. We don't actually have a CSD criteria for that regarding drafts, but I think it will pass muster. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
78.190.1.136
This user is so.n of a b.it.ch and spread fake Poorsian propaganda. One day he will be remove from wikipedia for using site as gaysian propaganda. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. Let us know if they return after or ip hop. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Invalid vandalism warning.
Please look at this edit by bbb23. I was warned for vandalizing wikipedia. Is that a joke? I didn't vandalize anything. Look at the history of helpful edits from my IP address. No vandalism.
I tried to tag an article for deletion, but then I cannot because I don't have a username. So I flagged the article as db-album. I think it's a pretty easy decision to delete that album under the speedy criteria because there's nothing notable about it.
So explain why I'm given a harsh warning like this. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Further, that admin has a locked talk page so I cannot leave her a notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since you are supposed to notify any user that you discuss here on their talk page, but you are unable to because their talk page is protected, I will alert Bbb23 for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- bbb23 will likely delete this discussion entirely without discussion. I have seen it before. Again I ask everyone to look at my edits to see no vandalism. Further, look at the page I flagged for deletion. I'm sure it meets speedy criteria and it would fail AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it had just been the bogus tagging of the Michael Jones album, I would not have left a vandalism warning. However, the IP had also edited the Michael Jones article to state that Jones had died. This was sourced to an unverified Facebook page. It was reverted by others. Based on the IP's comments here, it looks like they have a chip on their shoulder ("I have seen it before"). Moreover, they could just have asked me on their Talk page the basis for the warning rather than bringing this to ANI, and I would have responded.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your talk page is locked. I cannot contact you. If you LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MY EDITS you will see I am not a vandal. Giving me the warning you did is completely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) They probably could have been a bit more cautious in their wording (I wouldn't have leaped straight to the level 4im "blatant vandalism, only warning" template in a situation like this), but a few of your recent edits have had very basic problems, so I could see how they could leap to assuming it's vandalism. First of all, this nomination (in addition to the malformatted template) is plainly invalid because Michael Jones has an article and, as it says in the template, {{db-album}} only applies when the artist doesn't. It's right in the first sentence, so it's hard to miss, and the fact that you went from trying AFD to that template (and knew enough to invoke a CSD) makes it reasonable to conclude that you were intentionally using a CSD inappropriately to get around not being able to AFD it. Second, you cited a random facebook post here (in the edit summary, not the text), which is completely unacceptable as a source to establish that a BLP subject is dead - and at least at a first glance I can't find any reliable sources at all saying he is dead yet (though admittedly it's a hard name to search due to how common it is), which makes it reasonable for people to be leery that it could be a hoax. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have made no vandalism edits. None. Look at the history. Michael Jones, someone with whom I have corresponded, is dead. His own Facebook page and other pages verify it. There's a memorial video link on his own YouTube channel with a countdown as to when it will be. Why don't you do the right thing, apologize for mistaking me as a vandal, and then put his album page (which is not notable) up for AFD? Can you please do the right thing? Isn't there a WP:AGF rule? You don't seem to follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't think the {{uw-vandalism4im}} template you got was quite the right one to go with - it's more for completely unambiguous "replaces an entire page with cocks cocks cocks cocks" sort of vandalism, not for dubious edits that could be deliberate vandalism or could just be an inexperienced or confused editor. There's a reason the lower-severity templates are worded more ambiguously. But I don't think a {{uw-vandalism1}} "your unhelpful edit has been reverted" warning would have been inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, then we could have had a discussion. I only removed the AFD template because I don't have a username and I cannot do it. I wasn't trying to "circumvent" anything. The warning I got is just wrong. Someone kindly add AFD to that album. As much as I like Michael, that's not even his best album and there's nothing at all notable about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- If he has died we still have to wait for an WP:RS to cover that before we can reflect it on Wikipedia - it should not take too long. Just set up a Google News alert or the like, wait for something to appear, and cite that when it does. And if you want to list a page at AFD despite being unregistered, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion explains how -
If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.
--Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- If he has died we still have to wait for an WP:RS to cover that before we can reflect it on Wikipedia - it should not take too long. Just set up a Google News alert or the like, wait for something to appear, and cite that when it does. And if you want to list a page at AFD despite being unregistered, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion explains how -
- Fine, then we could have had a discussion. I only removed the AFD template because I don't have a username and I cannot do it. I wasn't trying to "circumvent" anything. The warning I got is just wrong. Someone kindly add AFD to that album. As much as I like Michael, that's not even his best album and there's nothing at all notable about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't think the {{uw-vandalism4im}} template you got was quite the right one to go with - it's more for completely unambiguous "replaces an entire page with cocks cocks cocks cocks" sort of vandalism, not for dubious edits that could be deliberate vandalism or could just be an inexperienced or confused editor. There's a reason the lower-severity templates are worded more ambiguously. But I don't think a {{uw-vandalism1}} "your unhelpful edit has been reverted" warning would have been inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have made no vandalism edits. None. Look at the history. Michael Jones, someone with whom I have corresponded, is dead. His own Facebook page and other pages verify it. There's a memorial video link on his own YouTube channel with a countdown as to when it will be. Why don't you do the right thing, apologize for mistaking me as a vandal, and then put his album page (which is not notable) up for AFD? Can you please do the right thing? Isn't there a WP:AGF rule? You don't seem to follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In retrospect, I agree with Aquillion that my warning was too harsh. Unfortunately, I originally thought that the death material was completely unsourced, but that was my error. I'll remove the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because of the discussion at the IP's Talk page, instead of removing the warning, I struck it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Unilateral reopening of a contentious closed RfC by an involved participant.
See recent edits to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, where Nug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has arbitrarily reopened a closed RfC [180] without the slightest attempt to gain consensus to do so. [181] This article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and it should be entirely self-evident that such an action, by one of the major participants in the discussion, without any prior discussion whatsoever, cannot possibly achieve anything but further disruption. And frankly, I don't have the slightest doubt that disruption was the objective, given that the RfC didn't go Nug's way.
I suggest that an uninvolved admin revert Nug's out-of-process arbitrary action, and inform Nug that any further disruption will lead to DS sanctions. Either that, or someone should take this whole mess to ArbCom, where they can look at the broader context, the gaming of the system (from multiple contributors, on both sides of the debate), and the broader failures of the 'community' to prevent these endless cycles of nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC says anyone can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed. I think given the topic a bit more time is certainly warranted given recent history. If an admin thinks otherwise then no problem. --Nug (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- That response is exactly what I mean by 'gaming the system'. Nug is fully aware that a request for closure of the RfC was submitted 5 days ago. Waiting until now without raising the slightest objection to the proposal, and then acting unilaterally, is intentionally disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- The closure was requested 5 days ago and nothing has happened, so I'd imagine many admins would be relieved that the RFC has been extended to allow a bit more time to see if clearer consensus develops. Last thing we need is another closure with "no consensus" for any option. --Nug (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- So why did you act unilaterally? After five days. Without the slightest attempt to gain 'consensus' for your actions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC doesn't require consensus, and there are people still !voting after the first rfc tag expired, so a bit extra time is justified. The RFC is now closed, so this discussion is now moot.--Nug (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- There have been nearly 100 votes cast over the course of a month. Exactly what are you expecting to happen that will suddenly cause a clear consensus to emerge from this discussion? Sometimes RfCs end with no consensus. In this case, I think it would be better to close it as no consensus, study the results, take a break for a month or two, and then perhaps consider starting a new RfC that attacks the problem from a different angle, presents different options to the reader, and builds off of the discussion that took place at this RfC. Nothing is going to be changed by leaving this one open longer. —ScottyWong— 01:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I guess that's an outcome. At least we finally got some movement. --Nug (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Violation of Talk Page Guidelines
There was another violation of talk page guidelines concerning this RFC. User:My very best wishes changed their !vote, which was permitted, and then changed my signed tabulation of !votes.
The talk page guidelines list a limited number of situations in which the comments of another editor may be edited, at Editing Others Comments, and this was not one of them. In particular, the guideline says: " Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". The meaning was that the count of !votes that I had tabulated was, to the best of my knowledge, correct as of the time of the signature timestamp. I see that the RFC is being closed. I object to having my tabulation changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the closer User:Wugapodes knows how to assess !votes. --Nug (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I wasn't concerned that the closer would be misled. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Use of ISIS propaganda twitter sources
Islamiyyatstate (talk · contribs) A user by the name of Islamiyyatstate (A reference to an islamic state?) has recently started editing Battle of al-Hasakah with twitter sources. More specifically twitter sources that are ISIS propaganda, he was warned about this here. Moreover this does not seem to be this editor's first use of ISIS propaganda sources, previously on the Kabul Bombing attack committed by ISIS this user also put in Pro-ISIS twitter sources into the article which can be seen as POV pushing, see here. They have been told not to use a pro-ISIS twitter account as a source multiple times, but keeps choosing to not get the point 1, 2, 3, the twitter account being used a source here is this account a pro-ISIS account spouting ISIS propaganda created recently. Warnings and explanations towards not using twitter on talk has failed as they insist that twitter can be used as source. I am putting this here as I do not they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Also Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) is under the Syrian Civil War community sanctions, so shouldn't it be extended proctored, or at the very least semi-protected to avoid cases like this? Des Vallee (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
User joining only to stalk a living person
Horang2022 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I am Reiro, one of the administrators in Korean Wikipedia. I know I have ongoing discussion with this user, but he seems some IPs in Korean Wikipedia, urging to reveal the personal information related someone since 2020, just editing once and twice. Please look at below in talk:lilka:
- Horang2022: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied.
IPs :And how funny is it to erase the real name that can be confirmed from the secondary source and the primary source when Lilka has revealed his face, voice, job, birthday, and academic background?[182] - Horang2022: Because Lilka intends to make other merchandise under her controversial trademarks, her real name should be public information to track the decision about her trademarks.
IPs: In addition to the registration of intellectual property rights, the official registered media called influencer Dot com and Daily e-sports reporters from corporations such as Daily e-Sports have their real names directly on articles written by other officially registered media, and there are more than one independent article.[183] - Horang2022: Not only United states but also South Korean laws distinguishes high-profile individuals and low-profile individual. She is not private individual under US laws or South Korean laws because she made many self-promotional activities.
IPs:Is it an infringement of personal information that South Korea, which has a resident registration system unlike the United States, does not need to hide its real name to prevent identity theft?[184]
- Horang2022: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied.
Lilka does already noticed that she has been suffering some stalkers for 3 years, and does not want to reveal her personal information on the internet. Also, questioned sources are not appropriate to treat to them. However, Horang2022 bring unreliable Korean sources to justify his edit, which are same things that IPs had displayed. I am from South Korea, but I have never been heard Shinmoongo News and UTAgate Naver, Daum. They have less reliability and less boundary than WhatCulture.
Nevertheless, the IPs once revealed her information on the Korean ko:릴카 article, I deleted the revision and rejected their request to allow write it at January 2, 2022. This user suddenly joined 10 days ago, making her article with the information rejected by Korean Wikipedia, due to poor resources and violation of WP:BLP. and ToBeFree checked that they stated very inappropriate and malicious will in deleted edits, throughout e-mail. (Those revisions was deleted, so I cannot describe in detail here).
Horang2022 seems Single-purpose account, for the leakage of a streamer's information. In above, he/she has too many "coincidences" with IPs, just editing once or twice in Korean Wikipedia. It is sure that they chose to detour to English Wikipedia, for self-satisfying to leak inappropriate information.
Please block this account indefinitely. Thank you.--Reiro (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)