User {{u|Huhshyeh}} has a single purpose account for [[Popular Front of India]], since 2011 he is exclusively or mainly editing this page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Huhshyeh&offset=&limit=500&target=Huhshyeh see his contribution]. Given article is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final_decision subject of discretionary sanctions by arbitration committee]. The organization is alleged to be militant organization but claimed to be social organization. User Huhshyeh is exclusively editing this article since 4 years and he adds only "social work" of organization that too from unreliable sources like "Muslim mirror" "two cirles" etc. He is probably activist of that organization or paid editor for that organization. He has been involved in edit wars on the page. --[[User:Human3015|'''<span style="color:Magenta ;">Human</span><span style="color:LawnGreen ;">3015</span>''']][[User talk:Human3015|<span style="color:#FA0"> <small>Call me maybe!!</small></span>]] • 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
User {{u|Huhshyeh}} has a single purpose account for [[Popular Front of India]], since 2011 he is exclusively or mainly editing this page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Huhshyeh&offset=&limit=500&target=Huhshyeh see his contribution]. Given article is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final_decision subject of discretionary sanctions by arbitration committee]. The organization is alleged to be militant organization but claimed to be social organization. User Huhshyeh is exclusively editing this article since 4 years and he adds only "social work" of organization that too from unreliable sources like "Muslim mirror" "two cirles" etc. He is probably activist of that organization or paid editor for that organization. He has been involved in edit wars on the page. --[[User:Human3015|'''<span style="color:Magenta ;">Human</span><span style="color:LawnGreen ;">3015</span>''']][[User talk:Human3015|<span style="color:#FA0"> <small>Call me maybe!!</small></span>]] • 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
== Self-recall for The Rambling Man ==
{{admin|The Rambling Man}}
Hello all. I'd like to request a self-recall, i.e. comments and opinions as to whether I should remain an admin just a touch more than eight years in the role. Recent events have demonstrated that there are serious question marks over my ability to conduct myself as an admin, and that I may be bringing the rest of the "admin corps" into disrespect; indeed I have often been cited as "one of the worst admins" and that I have "no credibility" on Wikipedia. While I fully accept my approach in many places and discussions has been abrasive and sometimes unnecessarily fighty, but I have never knowingly abused the tools afforded my by the admin bit. For openness, I have, in the past, been temporarily blocked for transgression of an IBAN and I was recently blocked by a fellow admin for a BLP violation (the outcome of which is discussed in some detail in sections above). The latter, and its subsequent fallout has determined this course of action.
The time has come that I do the right thing and submit myself to the community (well, ''this'' community) for scrutiny. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep the bit in order to continue to help out as and when necessary, and will endeavour to moderate my "snippiness" in either case. Naturally, I will stand by the result of the consensus as closed by an uninvolved admin. Thanks to all those who take the time to comment, pro or con or otherwise. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
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)
User:Packerfansam has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns.
Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims
New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism
Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject
Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state
I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See link. Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued:
Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.
I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue.
The edit summary shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. LizRead!Talk!12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to purge Wikipedia of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted).[1][2][3] I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. KateWishing (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. These edits account for vandalism in my opinion and given the particular topics of his dislike, I don't see the editor cheerfully avoiding them in the future. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank youRFD (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of this until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with Category:Mayors of places in Wisconsin, where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit [4] to Precursor (religion), where you removed sourced materiel regarding non-Christian religions. This type of POV edit, with no (in this case) or misleading (in other cases) is the heart of my concern, and perhaps others. Was it judgement impairment due to illness, as you suggested some of the unaddressed issues might be? Or, are you asserting that your account was WP:COMPROMISED? The key is to understand (a) which other edits your account may have made, like that, with no or misleading edit summaries, that still need to be fixed, and (b) can you offer an assurance that such editing will not happen again. An acknowledgement of why it really happened will help other editors have confidence in your continued participation. Otherwise, why should you not be topic-banned from editing articles about religion and politics? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks Packerfansam (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for being compromised, I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible. Packerfansam (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unpersuaded. That reasoning would maybe explain removing mention of Jews in Kansas (though it's 2%, not .015%) but it certainly is hard to square with editing out Jews in New York City or mention of the "largest gay and bisexual community in the United States" that is found there. That's just one counterexample - there are several others cited above, and below as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me point out that it was 0.15 not .015, there is a difference. In regards to NYC, there was a section about the city's many, many landmarks and none of the others were mentioned by name, except for I think it was Greenwich, as if it were special or more noteworthy than the others. Without getting into what's right or wrong even, it seems strange to me that one should be especially singled out and recognized apart from the others. Packerfansam (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but that is an inadequate if not disingenuous explanation for this [5] edit to NYC, where, as you did with many other edits, you removed all mention of non-Christian religions:
Christianity is the most prevalently practiced religion in New York, followed by Judaism, with approximately 1.1 million Jews (יהודי) in New York City,[1][2] over half living in Brooklyn.[3]Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren,[4] followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism or self-identifying with no organized religious affiliation.
Please let's don't go through these one by one, arguing whether ".15" or ".015" makes the edits any more defensible. A full-throated denial would be a good start - if Packerfansam doesn't want to go through her contribution history to identify the odious edits that were made by a hacker using her name, the examples here are sufficient to tell her in an instant whether she was responsible for them. Absent a straight-up denial, which we don't have, an acknowledgment or recognition that maybe, perhaps, it's problematic to remove references to, e.g., Jews in New York, Muslims in Michigan, gay marriage from the Republican Party, the Jewish ancestry and civil rights advocacy of a German lawyer, the sexual orientation of a the first gay Republican legislator in Wisconsin, or - by the IP a day ago - the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach. And that's before we even start on the misleading edit summaries that accompanied these changes (for which she offers a conditional apology). So far I see nothing to assure us that Packerfansam recognizes these edits as problematic or that she will not make similar edits going forward. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is what certain people seem to want to see - yes, I made updates that are causing this debacle. You can argue about my judgment and whether it's been altered. To me, in my judgment in what I recall, it seemed proper. I don't necessarily know if it was to the excess others believe it was, so I can't rule out a hack. I don't have plans to go out and make particularly controversial edits, my plan for the imminent future is to continue with legislator bios, creating and updating articles as would be appropriate with that. Packerfansam (talk), 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Response & comment - This is at best a grudging acknowledgment by Packerfansam of the problems she has caused with her POV edits and misleading summaries, not to mention (indeed not mentioned) the edit warring and sock puppetry. It isn't just "some people" who want to see an explanation and assurances, but nearly every single person who has participated in this discussion. I do not believe that Packerfansam appreciates that her edits contravened Wikipedia policy, or that that were in any way improper or disruptive. That being said I also believe that the foregoing is about all we are going to get out of her on the subject, and, as halfhearted as it is, it is something. She is, at least, speaking about it. Going forward, which I assume will take place without a block, I personally would like to see something a little more explicit about the ground rules, whether it comes from her, or from us, by rough agreement. Maybe something like, "no edits to remove content from articles re religion, sexual preference or other demographic characteristics" - I don't know. What I do know is that "no immediate plans" to make controversial edits is not reassuring, and isn't very helpful as a standard against which to measure future behavior. Thoughts and / or comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have no idea what can offend some people. To me, for instance, creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like that doesn't seem like it should bother anybody. But I can't be sure what somebody could have a problem with. Can I give 100% certainty that nobody will ever have a problem with something I write ever again? No. Do I want to go through this stress again when I already have enough in my life? Also no. Packerfansam (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If what you mean by that is that you intend henceforth to stick to creating stub articles for Wisconsin politicians, then you are much less likely to run into POV and bias problems. I would recommend including the political affiliation of the subjects, when it is in the sources, and ensuring that the sources you cite actually link to the subject of the article you are creating. I, we, are not asking you to promise you'll never offend anyone again; rather we are asking that you stop removing material from articles because something about it offends you. Thanks. Now let's see what some of the other editors have to say about this. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found your response to be very disappointing. I had thought you "got it", and were willing to move forward, but just didn't want to explicitly own up to your mistakes. But your answers, above, make me wonder. Do you really think the issue was a vague, hard to understand "some people" being "offend"ed? Do you really think the issue was anything to do with was "creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like "? If so, you have a serious problem of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and or a problem with competence. Examples were laid out for you very clearly here and on your talk page. You are ignoring those details here, and have repeatedly blanked them on your talk page. As a reminder, the problems include this list and many more:
Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims
New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism
Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject
Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.
[6][7][8] removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles
Time to close We do not know the full circumstances under which Packerfansam is editing. We know he has health issues and we should leave it at that. He is constructively engaging editors about issues they have, and although we may strongly disagree with some of the edits he has made, he clearly wants to edit constructively and with good faith. Could there be future problems? Sure, but we can deal with them should they arise. Let's assume good faith and encourage Packerfansam to continue editing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not too much to ask that Packerfansam state precisely what she intends to do, or not do, going forward; or that we collectively outline our expectations of her. Her POV and misleading edits were blockable and while she is now at least discussing them, she has given no indication at all that she appreciates what the problem is (apologizing if she has been misleading; confessing to having no idea which of her edits "might offend some people", as though unpredictably thin-skinned readers were the heart of it) and I would like just a bit of clarity about what is expected of her going forward so that if, three or four weeks - or 5 months - hence, we see a new run of POV purges, someone can point back and say, "that is not what you said you would do". If she does not understand the problem, then she can't exercise meaningful judgment in avoiding it in the future. Other than that - yes, I agree, we are done here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is too much at this point. Packerfansam has edited here, without issues, for years. If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them. If the edits in question were due to misunderstandings and/or lapses in judgement, then moving on means she moves on to continued constructive editing. If we continue to push this thing, maybe she says "The hell with this, I don't need this in my life.", she moves on, and we lose another editor. You have accomplished what is important: She is aware of the issues, acknowledged them, stated that she wants to contribute constructively. Now, let's assume good faith and deal with issues in the future if they occur. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't seem to quit - Promises notwithstanding, Packerfansam just this morning edited Omaha, Nebraska to remove mention of synagogues in the city. Diff here. She does not seem able to help herself. She has been systematically removing references in articles to non-Christians and non-traditional sexual orientations and despite the extensive discussion here - as well as her claim that she doesn't want any more headaches - she continues to do so. She does not understand the problem, and she is manifestly unable to stop. JohnInDC (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's getting ridiculous at this point. I am One of Many, I applaud your efforts to caution restraint, but I daresay that assuming good faith at this point at this point would be counterproductive and deleterious to the project. And to be honest, a bit silly. Editors are beginning to become exasperated cleaning up her POV edits, which she apparently has no intention of stopping. As of now, the editor has shown no actual remorse, has been generally avoidant and disingenuous, ignored several attempts to communicate, and is unrelenting in making their unabashedly POV edits (often coupled with misleading edit summaries). Whether they've contributed any significant content in the past is immaterial, and a point rendered moot considering the fact that this behaviour is continuing. For some time, the editor in question has been editing with an obvious political / religious agenda, and is completely unapologetic in doing so. This discussion has gone on for almost a week now, and extending them any good will is almost abetting the disruption, and appears to be only forestalling an inevitable indefinite block. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indefinite block, per above, and no efforts to alter their behaviour or even acknowledge that this is inappropriate. An unblock, of course, should be conditional on a promise to reach consensus regarding removal or wholesale alteration of material related to religion, race, and sexual orientation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of abating - Early this morning (June 23) she removed a reference to a "figure study of a nude young woman" painted by artist Clarence Holbrook Carter as "POV". A couple of editors recently weighed in on her Talk page, urging her to steer clear of religion, so it bears repeating that she has never confined her excisions to those matters, but has swept in sexuality as well - e.g., removing references to various subjects' sexual orientation, and LGBT political issues; edit warring at University of Wisconsin–Madison to remove "Playboy" as as reference on the ground that it is not reliable or a place for respected or credible journalism. Repeated admonitions don't seem to have had much effect, but if suasion is the path to be followed, it should at least be comprehensive. JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close Issues are now about content and not behavior. Behavior has been mis-characterized in above "Can't seem to quit" where the editor removed an uncited sentence as much about Christians as it was about Jews. Attempts to paint this as anti-semitic fall short. Subsequently, you removed cited material that she added in a blind revert. Uncool. The material under "No sign of abating" is unsourced and indeed has a POV because of striking which is opinion..."Carter's striking figure study...". Being unsourced she can remove it...personally, I would have just removed the adjective but her actions aren't egregious here. The other diffs are old rehash from May. It is beginning to look as if editors have an ax to grind. Defer to dispute resolution for content matters. — Berean Hunter(talk)15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree that it has become a kind of rolling content dispute, and I don't care for the suggestion that I've got an axe to grind. Packerfansam's editing focus and pattern (religion / sexuality / politics) beyond the creation of short articles in my view remains unchanged. And too I confess to being a bit mystified by the deference that is being shown to her given that she has failed to address any but one or two of her earlier, indefensible edits (and those, only in the most general of terms). But I do agree that this has become a huge time sink, and my own convictions notwithstanding, the issue seems to be finding no purchase here. I don't like seeing my credibility as an editor called into question, so I will let this go if that's the decision. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So she removed one reference to Christianity (that also removed more Jewish info) after this AfD began? (And again, that would be valid population info that she randomly stripped it out for no reason from an article about a major U.S. city, well after this AfD began). Yes, I see how that definitely proves she has no problems with Jews and there's no problem with behavior.... —МандичкаYO 😜 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Collapsing comments re proposed block and possible sock puppetry - discussion has moved to the middle of the posting]
Proposal to indef block Packerfansam for POV editing, misleading edit summaries and refusal to engage
Given the speed at which matters move up and out of ANI, I’m a bit worried that, a few editors having offered their views, the matter will languish without resolution. Several commenters have suggested an indef block, so I now formally propose it.
Support, as proposer and per above - repeated removal of content reflecting political / religious bias, misleading edit summaries, refusal to engage. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – given that this is apparently a long-term editor who did lots of good work before, but has maybe gone "off" lately, an indef block against a previously "clean" block record seems like overkill. I could support a relatively long block (e.g. months) here for Packerfansam, but even that seems like it might be overkill. It does seem clear that a block of some duration is probably in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This should surely be more of a cause for concern than an opportunity for a very punative block. I suggest further research is required- surely we also have a some responsibility to WP:ENGAGE...? FortunaImperatrix Mundi18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He has ignored my attempts at engagement (other than to blank the template warnings) and continues to make the same kinds of edits. If another editor can get his attention, that'd be great. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modify — A sanction of some type, not indef, and allowing for discussion at the user's talk page or here. But the nature of these edits is such that we need to put some immediate protections in place while we try to engage. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support - given this editor's long history of sound edits, I'm distressed to say that we have to do this: but something has gone wrong since early May or so, and we can no long rely on an edit by this account to be a sound one, the way we used to. If they refuse to communicate, a block of at least one month minimum seems called for. --Orange Mike | Talk20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support shorter block, given the editor's clean block log until now; it will get their attention as well as an indef, which is always an option if needed. On a block log, an indef (which I know isn't infinite) looks worse than a block of fixed duration, and this editor may be salvageable. Miniapolis22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've never seen what function an "attention-getting block" really serves. Either the account is compromised and an indef block is appropriate, or the editor is really an inveterate POV warrior who should not be editing as long as they think that such is appropriate. In the latter case an indef block is also appropriate--a block which can be lifted as soon as...well, fill in the blank, but it starts with "Packerfansam". Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef, we can use escalating blocks in an attempt to recover this editor. Something like a week for the first block would be sufficient. Chillum22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to explain my premise, you never seem to get it right. We have to weigh damage to the project against keeping the editor. Chillum03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually agree with Mr. Corbett, but I do here. As I said just above, I don't believe in attention-getting blocks, and the whole concept of escalating blocks--well, I spent a few years in a place where they believed in something like that, and it never increased my desire to live by their rules. Blocks piss people off, and they should be applied judiciously and appropriately. "Getting attention" is like keying someone's car because they parked it in the wrong place. If it's in the way, you tow it. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is not to get their attention, the goal is to prevent disruptive editing. I suggested escalating block instead of an indef because it give the user a chance to recover while preventing disruption. Remember that communication has already been tried. Chillum22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef Something has gone wrong since May and a user with a clean block log is up for an indef. Please do not hand out indefs so lightly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - Just - to be clear, I don't care particularly whether the editor is indef blocked or not. Anything that works is fine with me. As for the scope of the problem, I can add that, at least among the articles he has recently created, he reports the party affiliation of the subject when it is Republican or Independent, but omits it if it's Democratic. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme - these are legislators who served 120+ years ago - but these deliberate omissions are irresponsible at best, and make wholly unnecessary work for others. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef - I see no reason to suspect account compromise. Editor is STILL creating new articles for Wisconsin politicians. If any reason should be considered, editor can appeal the block and attempt to provide explanation. Regardless of reason, editor is no longer here to contribute. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am One of Many What do you mean by his behavior has been altered? He obviously saw the many warnings as he deleted them from his talk page. Then just today he removed the table about religion demographics from a town in Norway that was 1.5 percent Muslim. His edit summary for the removal of the demographics table was "bars were out of place." I really don't know what to make of that. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he didn't make that edit today, but on June 14. He also removed the whole box on religion, so we can't say he was targeting Muslims. Finally, I don't know how to interpret his edit summary, but it could just mean he didn't like how tables lined up, so he removed them. I'll also add that I see no evidence of edit waring when he is reverted. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That edit summary shows it was made on June 15, at least by Wikipedia time, and more importantly was after he had been warned. If he felt the table wasn't properly aligned, he could have moved it somewhere else. It's below another demographic table that was not deleted. Based on his other pattern of removal of information, this is highly suspicious. Additionally he was warned over and over and continued his behavior, as you can see by the activity on his page along with his contributions. If his behavior has truly been altered by being told to stop, this would never have come to ANI. Edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. He doesn't refuse to engage, he just hasn't engaged on this topic this time around. He uses talk pages:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 but typically blanks messages he receives and then goes to their talk page to reply. He responded here but that editor didn't reply back(!). He traded replies where he blanked and then replied here with another editor...that editor replied back to Packer's talk page so the thread gets lost in the shuffle. Packer is removing posts after he has read them as part of his norm. I would suggest that he isn't talk page savvy but that doesn't mean that he doesn't communicate at all. I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics. This change on his userpage may reflect a change in POV. He hasn't engaged JohnInDC; that shouldn't be taken that he doesn't engage with everyone. Calls for indef above seem extreme to me. The first warning might be construed as a nuisance as he may think his summary isn't off the mark and suggesting he has to play Mother may I and always use talk pages...well, I'd ignore that too. Being templated thereafter doesn't help but kind of has the ring of Don't template the regulars. Apart from John, the only other editor that has attempted to engage him on this is Ed. None of the supporters above bothered to try. This can be characterized as isolated between two editors. A more cordial approach may work. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I noted above, I don't care what's done as long as the unacceptable editing stops. (I am skeptical that his 36 hour editing pause is significant.) I would note further that his disinclination to explain or defend questionable edits is not limited to the immediate non-conversation with me - three times previously, on three separate occasions (beginning here), other editors asked him about and warned him against systematically removing party affiliations from Wisconsin legislator articles. As far as I can tell he did not respond to any of these messages. He did ultimately stop removing the material, but then switched over to selectively omitting the information from articles he was continuing to create. I get that this is a longstanding editor with a lot of good work to his credit, but - you know, so am I, and in all honesty if I started removing content reflecting a clear political bias, and camouflaged it with misleading edit summaries, and refused to discuss it - well, I'd expect to be blocked, at least until I evinced some willingness to acknowledge and discuss the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've got that a bit wrong. What you link to above was on his talk page but he responded on the other editor's talk page and the last sentence leads me to think that he may have thought that removal of party affiliation may have been trying to correct where he thought that he had "been overdoing it" when he had wrote those in before. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I missed that. Thanks. That being said, it is a "response" only in the most literal sense. He ignored the first Talk page message on May 12 (continuing to remove party affiliations), responded to a second (rather stern) May 13-14 Talk page message as you've noted, and then started right back up at it on another 20 or so articles (blanking Democrats only!) and didn't stop until a third Talk page message on May 15. I do not dispute that my messages to him were not the best for eliciting a response from him (I wish I'd done that better in retrospect) but: We've been talking here at ANI for a day and a half, and another editor has left a thoughtful narrative message on his page inviting a response, and so far we have nothing. The only thing that gives me pause is that he hasn't edited for 36 hours, so conceivably he hasn't seen Ed's message or the ANI notification. But I don't find his past level of engagement at all encouraging. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The response on Capitalismojo's page here (after Capitalismojo told him to stop being disruptive) was after he removed the Democratic Party from four politicians ([11], [12], [13], [14]) and oddly just removed the wikilink to the party from another one [15], in under 10 minutes. And he responds innocently "what did I do that was so disruptive?" Capitalismojo probably did not follow up out of exasperation. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that he was the one who wrote those articles as well as wrote the particular sentences of affiliation in the first place? Odd that he is called disruptive to edit on this one when no other editor had touched it. I believe that he saw himself as trying to correct perceived mistakes. He removed whole sentences about party affiliation when they stood alone to that fact but as you note with the delinking, he wasn't trying to obscure facts. Note that he didn't remove the categories of political affiliation? Being told that you are disruptive on an article that only you have edited is just a bit bizarre so yeah, I think his question was in good faith. He wasn't really edit warring or anything like that. He reverted oncein this history but he was trying to communicate also. He was misunderstood in this thread ("overdoing" wasn't in reference to the reverts he was doing that day but the inclusions in the past). The hard clamp down and admonishment in that light looks bizarre and I imagine frustrating. We should wait and put the pitchforks and torches up for the time being. He really isn't being that disruptive. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but he is being that disruptive. Removing political affiliations is, as I said above, small change. Beyond that little stuff he has been routinely, almost systematically, removing information from articles relating to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays & lesbians and other groups. I didn't provide an exhaustive list at the outset because I figured my examples were sufficiently representative, and distressing, that more would be perceived as piling on. But if there are questions about the impropriety of his edits, here are a few more (still not exhaustive - there are more still) examples from just the past six days:
Todd Novak - removed reference to the subject's sexual orientation (gay) and associated categories. No edit summary.
Madison, Wisconsin - removed text re Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and others with the edit summary of "simplified".
Argus (dab) - removed all dab links to Greek Mythology. No edit summary. I can't see anything particularly biased about this but it is plainly disruptive.
What assurance - indeed even what indication do we have that he plans to discontinue these inappropriate edits, beyond the fact that he hasn't changed a page in a day and a half? Maybe the answer is, for now, leave him be and keep an eye on him and see if he continues his POV editing when he picks up the cursor again; fine. But I can't swallow describing these things as "not disruptive". JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it matters that he created those original articles, there is no WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't see why he would decide to strip them out now unless it's related to his edit that he only works on Republican articles now or he's losing his marbles. I'm rather surpised that anyone would think removing entire sections related to Jews and gays from articles is not really that disruptive, but I suppose it explains why you're defending him. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my oppose above I stated "I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics." I too, would like to hear an explanation about those edits. — Berean Hunter(talk)19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I agree with Dennis Brown that medication or some health issues may be involved with Packerfansam. Packerfansam mentioned about some health issues on the talk page. I agree with JohnInDC about keeping an eye on Packerfansam and see what happens. There is a possibility that Packerfansam may ceased editing again for a long time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SupportNeutral I am concerned that this editor's contribution history needs to be carefully reviewed for POV edits and unexplained removals with corrections made - I've made some over the past couple of days. Regarding the former, just a brief review of history shows many stub articles of Wisconsin politicians were created by this editor. For members of the Republican party, their party affiliation was included by the editor in the original article and remains to this day. For members of the Democratic party, no party affiliation was included by this editor at any time. Other editor(s) added the affiliation after this odd anti-Democrat etc. POV editing was noted. Regarding removal of content and tags, in addition to the misleading edit summaries noted earlier, most such edits have no edit summary at all. Both of these sets issues I mention come down to fundamental lack of trust regarding this editors contributions. I've looked at several pages of his contributions and found that these issues are consistent. How far back one must go to review and correct these clearly intentional dishonest edits? An indefinite block while such a review and correction takes place, such as what was done with Colonel Henry, is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Once corrected, and after the editor responds constructively in an unblock request, then the editor can hopefully begin editing in accordance with WP's policies. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am switching my !vote to Neutral based on the interactions here User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks- and here [16]. I believe the editor "gets it", and we're not going to get a point-by-point "mea culpa" - which we shouldn't need (but I admit a little more of an affirmative "I understand what the concerns are and will do better" would have been the best response. Nor do I think we're going to get help fixing old problems (everything from their IP is fixed, and going back a month on their contributions I don't see any serious issues that have not been fixed that are left - but there was plenty of fixing required". Those who work in Wisconsin articles should keep an eye on the editor - I'll periodically take a look, too. Future problems should lead to a very swift topic ban from "religion, sexuality and politics, in any namespace, broadly construed". Finally, perhaps the editor would like some coaching or mentoring if in doubt in the future, or just to informally ask some questions. If so, I volunteer to help. Best regards to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't edited in two days and no current disruption is occurring so you have time to review his contribs and make corrections if necessary. He has a clean block log, many articles to his credit and I believe he should be allowed to reply before any decisions are made. If he refuses to engage and starts editing in the same way then blocking may be called for. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he should not have a clean block log. This is very obvious NPOV editing, done in a way to hide his changes. Lacking a response soon, how can no action be a correct response? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it this way, if and when he begins to edit again he will need to address this issue within an hour or two - giving him plenty of time to respond after seeing the messages on his talk page and reading through this thread. If he makes more POV edits without responding or fails to respond entirely, my "oppose for now" above will likely be converted to "support indef blocking" and if consensus supports the action, I'll do the block myself. By the way, I attempted to email him but he does not have a specified email address. — Berean Hunter(talk)19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I edit-conflicted and was going to remove my comment when I realized that. :) I was reading my watchlist from bottom up. I haven't read the reply yet. — Berean Hunter(talk)20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As noted here User_talk:Packerfansam#Incorrect_citation_.2F_reference_in_several_articles[17], the editor is continuing with problematic creation of and edits to articles, yet has dissembled in response to questions about their edits and not, as of yet, either paused in their edits nor given any effort to identifying or correcting their problem edits to date. A block is designed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. One is needed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see any disruption here. The only issue is a content discussion that is ongoing, not disruptive in any way. Mentioning that the population of NYC is 1.5% Jewish is negligible, for example. --92slim (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's more like 15% and, as the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel, not "negligible" under any sensible meaning of the word. JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was starting to wonder if I'd been too harsh in recommending an indefinite block until she posted the excuses above, which are just another example of deceptive editing. Worst of all, 30 minutes after "apologizing" for her deceptive behavior, she logged out to continue it.[18][19]KateWishing (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up thus far:
By way of response from Packerfansam, we have:
Some of those edits might have been made by someone with access to my account, or not – I don’t know. (“I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible.”)
I apologize if any of my edits were misleading.
There was nothing wrong with removing mention of non-dominant religions from various articles, nor with my edit to New York City.
She has neither denied making, nor offered to explain, any of the several other examples set forth here.
Whatever happened between August 2014 and May 2015, as of now, someone with access to the Packerfansam account believes (again, just by way of example) that mention of non-mainstream Christian religions makes Wikipedia articles too long; that references to a subject’s homosexuality or Judaism are best omitted; that “Playboy” is not a reliable source and that material sourced to it should be removed (from the University of Wisconsin–Madison edit war) – and appears to see nothing wrong with any of this.
Since returning from her 48 hour absence, Packerfansam has made 37 edits, including 6 new articles and 2 new categories. She has had ample opportunity to consider the comments here and respond thoughtfully but has commented here only four times and offered no meaningful explanation. She has a clear history of disruptive and POV editing, and I do not understand why, absent clear statements from her that she 1) understands that the edits are unacceptable and 2) pledges to make no more of them, ever, a block of at least some duration should not be forthcoming. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After again blanking their talk page, the editor is engaging in a discussion at my talk page User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks-. I would like to be able to convince the editor to do something to regain our trust. Answering some questions I posed is one way. Perhaps there are other ways. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and the medical issue suggests that we should block until she is able to explain that she understands what was wrong with the edits, whether or not she remembers making them. Few argue against her edits being disruptive. We have blocked an editor who we believe is medically unable to contribute constructively. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. But it yields several more examples of biased editing, we can add edit warring to the list of problems (odd that I hadn't noticed it before, even Packerfansam alone), and it calls into question Packerfansam's assertion above that she had been away from the computer for two and a half days inasmuch as one of the IP's edits comes in the middle of that period. JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the UW-Madison edit war JohninDC referred to, Packerfansam's POV edits were reverted 4 times, then 24.178.45.221 took over, making the same edits. (See last 6 edits listed above.) That's classic sockpuppetry - using an alternate account to deceive or mislead other editors or to avoid sanctions. The most recent example involved Packerfansam making an innocuous edit at 21:02, then 24.178.45.221 returning almost an hour later (3 minutes after Packerfansam's last edit and after commenting on this board), to make a questionable edit that was reverted by JohninDC. That's a clear attempt to evade detection. 32.218.32.164 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is good idea to stop the mind reading for now. There are good possible explanations for everything that we just don't know right now. First, if he is concerned about others using his account, he may log off every time he leaves the computer and sometimes forgets to log on when he returns. It may be that he removed minority religions based on a good faith assumption, but he will come to see that it is not a good idea. Let's see if we can get this resolved peacefully so that everyone can get back to constructing an encyclopedia and retaining productive editors. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, please look at these edits, clear examples of WP:EVADE, made after these issues have been raised at the editor's talk page and WP:ANI and after the editor responded here:
Revision as of 17:53, 2015 June 17[35] Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as 24.178.45.221(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RBLs·http·block user·block log), removes referenced information about other than Christianity (in this case, Atheism, but as documened elsewhere, she has been similarly removing Judaism, etc.) 42.7% of Fond du Lac residents do not affiliate with any [[religion]].<ref>[http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/city/wisconsin/fond_du_lac Fond du Lac, Wisconsin Religion Data]</ref>
HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE. I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make me care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to bring another issue to your attention here, so not sure if it is appropriate for me to comment, but a 64 bit prefix is the minimum fully functional subnet that can be allocated. So it is probably a very good fit to block BFG (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies and Samwalton9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--Jasper Deng(talk)16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper, I appreciate the note, but I'm just not going to venture there. I wish we had a button we could push that would pull up a list of admins willing and able to make rangeblocks. I'm not one of them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a technical note, while a /64 should be, and appears here to be a single user akin to an IPv4 address, the protocol is new enough that we should keep in mind the possibility that it may not always be, with either rapidly changing /64s from one user, or many users on one /64. Also, when this block expires, if we need to extend it again, linking the previous range block log may help get a quicker block. Monty84500:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to emphasize that looking at WHOIS is of utmost importance with IPv6; my comment strongly depends on the ISP being residential. It most certainly does not apply to mobile or satellite ISP's.Jasper Deng(talk)03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NeilN. No wonder I hadn't seen it--it's only been here since 2008. As far as I'm concerned, though, it should be renamed: "able to make..." Drmies (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Therequiembellishere changing every biographical political article infobox to officeholder
Therequiembellishere appears to be engaged in making wholesale changes of infoboxes on biographical political articles to Infobox officeholder, despite being advised otherwise on his talk page by Bagunceiro and I, which he appears to have ignored for the past four weeks despite my best efforts to redirect him to respond to the discussion on his talk page several times in the edit summaries as well as two messages I sent on his talk page.
Therequiembellishere was asked by Bagunceiroon 12 May why he is changing MP infoboxes to "officeholder and going against the instructions for Template:Infobox officeholder which states that the appropriate derived template should be used, and Infobox MP is clearly the most appropriate.
He responded on the same day claiming that he's "been told" in the past that using those titles involves an unnecessary redirect and that "officeholder" was best but understands that it's possible the precedent has changed since then.
I responded the following day, supporting Bagunceiro stance that the template provides clear guidelines on infobox to use. I added, there is no harm in there being a redirect that is the whole purpose of redirects therefore there is no reason for doing this and asked him to please stop doing this.
I reverted these changes back and sent him another message on his talk page advising him again that Template:Infobox officeholder states; "Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." Therefore, despite previously being advised of this (from Bagunceiro and I), why he is changing every infobox to officeholder? I asked him to either stop doing this, explain why he continues to do this (as per WP:BRD) or the matter can be taken to WP:ANI.
Therequiembellishere decided to ignore this again and on 11 and 15 June continued to WP:EDIT WAR and change the infoboxes to officeholder.[46][47][48][49]
I've had similiar problems with this editor over a few years, concerning succession boxes. Also note, the editor's talkpage hasn't been archived since 2009. This may be a WP:COMPETENT issue. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm in a pretty busy period right now and haven't had time to reply until now. Which is why I've not been terribly available over the past few weeks to answer Tanbircdq's comments. That is, I admit, shitty, but I largely avoided the pages in question until I was more available to answer knowing that I wouldn't be able to competently reply at the time. I finally carved time out to respond after Tanbircdq's reverts became significantly more like wikistalking and I finally addressed him/her on the merits of his contention.
I'll talk about the wikistalking first since it's on my mind. This "dispute" started out with a few frontbench British politicians and he/she followed me to very niche articles like new American ambassadors and federal judicial nominees that he had never had real activity in before. In our recent communication he/she claimed that I couldn't possibly know the usual articles that he/she edits, and condescending said "many editors are involved in editing those articles, not just you" as if I was claiming ownership. I wasn't, I was annoyed that he'd broadened this dispute out to articles that he hadn't previously been attracted to which I know because I've been a part of the federal judge's articles for at least the past seven years and recognize most of the usual editors involved. Tanbircdq is not one of them. Tanbircdq claims he/she only made these edits after receiving an undo notification but, using this as just one example, that's a lie.
As far as the meat of the dispute itself, this is honestly jut so ridiculous to me. Firstly, Tanbircdq is claiming to be a part of some collective action with Bagunceiro, but that it patently untrue. Bagunceiro asked on my talk why I had been changing to officeholder and I replied that under the previous precedent (that I had been hounded for in the past when I was doing exactly what Tanbircdq seems to be obsessed with now), I was told that the specificity of what political office they held created an unnecessary redirect to the standard "Infobox officeholder" and that it was best to use that as the standard. Because, at the end of the day, no matter which marker is used, the information is displayed in exactly the same way every time. I also see additional issues with persons like Tom Carper and George McGovern who serve in multiple roles over their career. Are we supposed to determine which role was most notable to their career and use that as this distinguishing marker when "officeholder" as a neutral mode serves the same purpose? Regardless, Bagunceiro never commented again.
Then Tanbircdq started getting involved and has been hiding behind this, in my opinion, pretty insignificant issue to revert all my work to various infoboxes wholesale. He claims is issue is a technical one (whether to use "Infobox judge" or "Infobox mp" or whatever), but has been making his point by removing the content edits I've made to the rest of the actual box. In particular, many of my infobox edits do serve a technical function make make it easier for editors for finding and editing the infobox by standardizing the information displayed to be in a more columned format (using evenly spaced equal signs between the section header and the information), arranging the sections more like the order they will appear in the box and in removing unneeded and empty sections that amount to bloat that needlessly increase the bytes of the article, often by over 1,000.
After finally replying to Tanbircdq, I went back to all the articles he/she had removed my edits from and brought them back. I said he/she was free to go in and put the "Infobox ..." marker in but my primary concern was just getting the edits back. Which Tanbircdq did, but didn't reply to me in that time I was still at the computer and so I assumed the issue was by-and-large a settled matter. So I have to say I'm honestly pretty surprised this has continued to exist at all, especially going to ANI without me making a single new edit in between. Or in notifying me, which I have to say reeks of trying to get some administrative action put against me without my knowledge, even after being told here to do so, my notification came from Robert McClenon and, indeed, Bagunceiro came in to make it easier to locate. I also have to add that I don't really understand GoodDay's comment here, since the issues are totally separate and my dispute with him was a content issue, whereas this is a technical issue at best. Furthermore, his bringing up of competent, using my unarchived talk as an example is just insulting. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: I have not made further comment because I did not feel I had anything constructive to contribute and have not been following the matter closely. This should not be seen as tacit support.
For the record my position is as follows:
Your reply to my question appeared to recognise that you were in error but it seems that you have continued to make these changes.
You do not appear to understand templates, or the benefits of indirection and inheritance. There is no shame in that, but it does mean that you should be even more assiduous in following the instructions for them.
Alternatively you may have a deeper understanding than I and although you haven't yet explained what it is, a good reason for these templates to be deprecated. In which case you should discuss these concerns to obtain consensus for changing the instructions. I guess the talk page for the template is the best place for this, perhaps with heads up messages on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. If that is not the right place then someone there will be able to suggest where. Unilateral wholesale action is not the right answer.
With regard to what you call stalking by @Tanbircdq. I have no idea whatever of his motives, but his action in reverting your changes quickly was beneficial. Subsequent edits would have made unpicking the mess much more difficult. I imagine the job was a bit tedious. If the two of you have any history of animosity then I would urge you both to put it behind you.
Regarding Therequiembellishere's ad hominem accusations, the only time I've edited the infoboxes on those articles is when I've received a notification that my edit has been reverted, in which case I've looked through Therequiembellishere's contributions to find other articles in which he's done the same thing on. I've gone through my notifications and present diffs of the times when I've been notified with a revert; [69][70][71][72][73] (12 May), [74] (28 May). [75] (5 June). [76][77] (15 June). Note: the only time I've edited the articles was on 12 May, 28 May, 5 June, 15 June.
Being too busy to reply is a poor excuse: you say you've been busy but not busy enough to revert my edits as well as change infoboxes on other articles. No, you didn't avoid the pages in question at all as the diffs clearly show you were repeatedly edit warring and clearly breaching BRD in those articles (as this and this example shows). I felt the need to say that many editors are involved in editing these articles because you appeared to suggest that I shouldn't be editing on "articles far outside" my "usual purview".
Just to be clear I didn't revert your work, I merged the information with the original information that was on each article before you changed them, and as Bagunceiro has pointed out it was very tedious indeed but I was willing to spend the time and effort to do this rather than just simply revert your edit. On the contrary, it was you who reverted me every single time. My motives in this are simply to uphold policies and guidelines. There's no history of animosity between Therequiembellishere and I, I just take exception to being ignored the way he clearly has.
You can't claim to be a victim of injustice here when I clearly asked you here that you can either stop, explain why you're doing this or the matter can be taken to ANI (as you can see I wasn't joking), and patiently gave you every possibly opportunity to do this, and only at the last resort took the matter to ANI as you failed to do this.
Finally, it's not mine or the community's job to spend time cleaning your mistakes by putting the correct Infobox marker after you've changed them. I hope you now accept this policy/guideline as this recalcitrancy must stop. If you change another infobox to officeholder without justification then we'll be back here again for sanctions to be imposed against you as I'm not prepared to send multiple messages on your talk page which you won't respond to. If you have a problem with this then (as I suggested by Bagunceiro) you raise an RfC so consensus can be changed on the issue as a few editor's opinions on one talk page is not appropriate nor sufficient to suggest change on something which if consistent would potentially affect thousands of articles which have followed a formula over the course of the last 10 years.
Back to the matter in question, the problem isn't the content dispute itself, it's your failure to respond with other editors on your talkpage (regarding issues about your editing) due to what appears to be your WP:IDHT approach. Can you provide an explanation why this might be? Tanbircdq (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry again, I'm travelling for the next while and internet was spotty. Bagunceiro, I recognize that you were silent on the issue and thus were not giving tacit support and that was why I was confused as to why Tanbircdq kept bringing you up as if it was a collective response. As far as the template go, I suppose I don't really see why this has been such a big deal and don't know how the markers really make a difference, so some education would help. I tend to edit a bunch of infoboxes en masse, such as during the lead to to an election, and I found the use of "officeholder" as a standard to be the best way of going through a high number of articles easily. I have to disagree that his reverts of my edits are beneficial, however. This is me being protective of my edits, of course, but it is frustrating when I take an infobox and overhaul all of it only to see them all go away and return to a messier state because of the marker up top that is unseen to the casual reader. That is the crux of my issue, that instead of these massive reverts, that just changing the markers would be a less difficult solution and still provide the content best suited for readers. Especially during election time, when these articles tend to be at their peak visibility.
They're not ad hominem accusations, they are a legitimate complaint I am raising. It is simply a lie to say that you have only ever made these reverts after getting a notification because you made a conscious effort to stymie my editing by expanding into articles I had been editing so you could track what else I was working on. I did make a very conscious decision to move away from the British MPs after the frustration by the end of May and move on to American ambassadors (a new project) and federal judicial nominees (a continuation of what I've worked on for years). Just using the examples you brought up, you've carefully included only the diffs where I reverted you the the history of these articles (which are by no means a hotbed of activity) clearly show you making the initial revert of my edits. Which, to my mind is blatant stalking and a lie. I am not saying in any way that you are barred from editing these pages, but that the move into them at this time was done to limit my ability to edit. [78][79][80].
The thing is that you were still going back to far messier information displays with a combination of unused infobox sections, unneeded sections, or simply unnecessary over-explanatory information in some sections that all amount to the bloat, in my mind. The best example coming directly to my mind is Rushanara Ali's page, although the judges from above are good example too, where Staton's page results in an additional 1,031 bytes.
Yes, it probably is a poor excuse. I tend to use WP to shut off and the emailing process is draining and makes this seem more like work. Again, that is shitty, and I have a bit of time now to help get more of my affairs (online and offline) in order that should help discussion be more easy. But, yes, I probably should have devoted time into making a "work" session to nip this off much earlier in its process. For that, I do apologize and will devote time to cleaning up my talk and giving it more significant attention in the future. (Although I have no idea what IDHT means).
I'm not claiming any sort of injustice, I'm saying I disagree with your methods, which I found obstructive and overall unhelpful for the above reasons over something that is relatively minor to my mind. I will admit I was quite surprised that this came up because I was under the impression the issue was largely coming to be settled when you decided to launch it. We were finally talking, it seemed like we were narrowing in on the issue, I put my infoboxes back and you put the markers you wanted in. I left my computer shortly after you started putting the markers in because I was waiting for you to reply on your page before, which you did after the marker were put in and then hours later, with no edits in-between on either of our ends, you reported me before I had a chance to see you had responded to me on your page so I could reply, you decided to launch an ANI. The best way I can show this is using your contribs page. I would have definitely replied to you the next day but instead we were immediately here. So, yes, I am confused and your imperious "I wasn't joking" doesn't cow me in any way but irk me as petty. Especially as you didn't give me notification that you started the ANI in the first place.
I don't see the community as someone who will fix my mistakes and with this all raised I will pay closer attention to the markers. I still don't really see the magnitude of this issue that you seem to see and would appreciate someone explaining it to me further, which I was under the impression we were getting to on your talk before this all started. I honestly probably won't go into an RfC because it's not something I care that passionately about, though I am positive that on some talk page, somewhere, some years ago, I was in a discussion which said "officeholder" was the standard to be used and that's why I've used it. So the policy has definitely changed at some point and is not quite so dire as "thousands of articles which have followed a formula over the course of the last 10 years". Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic behavior by Seattleditor - Probably COI, personal attacks, disruptive editing.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Seattleditor(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been editing on Roger Libby the past few days. Their edits on the article's talk page indicate a conflict of interest and, up until now, they've mostly keep their editing to that talk page. Today, after I edited the page to reduce its SOAPy nature, they began removing maintenance templates from the page. I attempted to engage the user about it (here). They had done similarly in the past ([81]) saying it would negative effect the article subject's customers. After this, the user made this edit on my talk page accusing me deliberate malice that requires admin review and that I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata.
Moreover, their use of "we" in their post on my user talk page makes me think the COI here is strong. Their post was completely out of line. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Response, EvergreenFir Has Misinterpreted Both Intent and Concerns
I am a practicing journalist, one who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, who wrote an article about this Dr. for a Seattle area publication. There is no COI on my part. However EvergreenFir has several COIs. First, his only authored page, for a Murray A. Strauss, bios a person who is a rival of the good doctor. Most ironically, the two doctors authored a major research paper together on sex and violence (which contradicts the claim of no secondary sources, the editor's own biographical subject was a collaborator.) I mean no personal animosity or offense but the other apparent COI is in the editor's (EvergreenFir) profile where he has elected to make various statements about his own gender issues. Regardless of personal bias, it is not clear to me how a distinguished position title within an organization can be secondarily sourced. Where such attribution exists, it has been provided (such as to membership rosters on publicly accessible pages.) What is curious is why the editor does not choose to actually edit the text which has gone untouched for a great many months, and instead inject uncertainty and doubt. In fact, I had expressed my misgivings that this could do harm if the patients of this practicing sex therapist found that the same page that had been untouched for so long is suddenly pockmarked with multiple assertions of errata. When I "Talked" about that to EvergreenFir I stated that, for my part, I was open to any edits he may like to provide but I requested he did not make the doctor appear unworthy or uncredentialed in light of the concurrent sensitivities of doctor-patient relationships. I presumed he was okay with that so I removed the template(s) for that reason and that reason alone. Please be advised, I did not author the section on the countless TV and radio appearances made by Dr. Libby which EvergreenFir has since removed. The "We" in my writing simply connotes that Dr. Libby sought my help since he was aware I had helped contribute to the original content. I have no COI whereas EvergreenFir 's COI is well documented. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Roger Libby is America's premiere Sex Therapist. If that is disturbing to this editor, he is welcome to call in a colleague. Oh, he actually did that and the colleague acknowledged that the academic credentials (post-doctoral) being beyond reproach. It seems to this relative neophyte that Wikipedia needs a way to make sourcing changes, IF necessary "behind the scenes" and not in a shameful, public way that casts doubt on the credibility or authority of a biography, especially in the cases of practicing health care professionals. Seattleditor (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I think you might be a little confused as to how Wikipedia works. Writing an article for inclusion in a magazine kind of skirts the line of WP:NOTWEBHOST. But more importantly, if negative things about your friend can be reliably sourced, I'm afraid that isn't a violation of policy; see WP:BLP. Erpertblah, blah, blah...00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please take care of these personal attacks? How does my gender identity have anything to do with this? And if the subject of an article asked you to come and comment on their Wikipedia article, that's a WP:COI (whereas writing articles about criminologists is not)... Seattleditor if you are the author of that article, then you are Searchwriter and currently sockpuppeting... EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bio is certainly problematic as it contains just one secondary source, and most of it is unsourced. One solution is to remove anything unsourced and slowly re-build it. Seattleditor, if you're editing with two accounts, please pick one and retire the other (or link them in some way). Also, please don't make personal comments about EvergreenFir. Sarah(talk)01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an issue with the image, which Seattleeditor added as his own work, but the image is on Libby's website. [82] Unless Seattleeditor took that photograph, it needs a release. Sarah(talk)01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image, since it appears on the banner of a copyrighted website, I've requested deletion at Commons unless the uploader can show OTRS either ownership or a license to use the image from the copyright owner. BMK (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I whittled down the article quite a bit (diff) which was the apparent impetus for the hostility. Quite annoyed at these attacks and ridiculous claims. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searchwriter started the Libby article at User:Searchwriter/sandbox on 20 February 2014. The image was uploaded by Seattle24x7 on 21 February 2014, and Seattleeditor says he is Seattle24x7, so the three accounts do seem to be one person. Yes, the attacks need to stop. Sarah(talk)02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from a brief look at Seattle24x7 and related websites that this is SEO/marketing. Perhaps it's better handled at COIN in case other articles or accounts are involved. Pinging Jytdog in case he wants to take a look. Sarah(talk)04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left a long message for SeattleEditor at their talk page. Too long for ANI. I'd ask that folks give him a chance to reply there. Basically I am recommending that SeattleEditor change course or that we indef him per NOTHERE. Let's see what he says. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the Roger Libby article began in the sandbox of User:Searchwriter, as did the article Lane Powell, about a Seattle law firm. Both of the articles appear to have been intended to be promotional, and have only been rendered acceptable by stripping out large amounts of information which is unsourced or attributed only to primary sources.
The user page for Searchwriter says:
This is the User Page for the editor of Seattle24x7.com, a Seattle news bureau Website. Thanks for your interest and comments. Everything we contribute to WikiPedia is fully "white-hat," attributed, and well-documented and includes citations.
The account name User talk:Seattle24x7 was username blocked in 2010. No edits exist in their contrib list, but their talk page indicates that they wrote an article on a book titled "The High Road Has Less Traffic", which was prodded as being self-published, and subsequently deleted at AfD as being non-notable.
The account User:Seattleditor was created just a few days ago, apparently for the purpose of editing the Roger Libby article. On their userpage they acknowledge that their former user name was "Seattle24x7", the name of their "Seattle-based e-zine". An examinination of the website shows quite clearly that it's a public-relations outlet: many of the articles are written by the CEOs of the companies they're about. This is clearly not a WP:RS, and not even a blog, it is, as its browser tab quite clearly states "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar".
What we have here is, I believe, paid editing on the part of Seattleeditor aka Seattle24x7 and Searchwriter. Seattleeditor is not " a practicing journalist ... who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists", he's a PR guy for hire, who'll do up an article on your law firm or your controversial medical practise, or whatever for his own "e-zine" or for Wikipedia.
I suggest that the unblocked accounts be blocked unless they comply with our requirements for paid editors as outlined on WP:TOU and WP:COI. That means an admission on their user page, and on article talk page of their conflict of interest and their status as a paid editor. It also means that they cannot directly edit the articles, but must make suggestions on the talk page which other editors can implement if they agree. BMK (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, folks should read Seattleditor's reply to Jytdog on their talk page here for an example of how not to write in a comprehensible way, how to hide the true nature of one's publication in convoluted and deceptive language, with phrases such as "pro bono" thrown in to make things look better, and how, in particular, not to answer straight-forward questions in a straight-forward manner. BMK (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three other items:
A picture of Dr. Libby was previously uploaded on en.wiki by user Searchwriter, and deleted for permission problems. Admins can look and see if File:Dr. Roger Libby in 2014.png is the same image that's currently in the article, which I have requested deletion of on Commons for the same reason.
There's no doubt that the three accounts are the same person. After User:Seattle24x7 was username blocked, User:Seattleditor refrerred to it as his previous account. On the talk page of User:Searchwriter the editor reveals his real world name, and on the "Seattle24x7" website, the person of that name is described as "founder, publisher and managing editor of Seattle24x7, the founder of SearchWrite Search Marketing, an SEO, PPC and Social Media Thought Leader, and an SPJ award winner for Seattle magazine." This accords with the information in Seattleditor's response to Jytdog;s inquiry, and also reinforces the suspicion that SEO/promotion is what's going on here -- i.e. paid editing.
Seattleditor's response on the Commons deletion request is informative. [83]
(Incidentally, my understanding is that my second item is notWP:outing because the user revealed the information on their talk page. If an admin feels it oversteps the bounds, please delete the item.) BMK (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BMK FYI, in my first iterations of my note to SeattleEditor I included their name in a quote from the "about the author" section of the seattle24x7 profile of Libby, and later redacted it. I emailed oversight and asked them to oversight the pre-redaction versions. They declined, saying it was not a violation of OUTING. So we are OK on using his RW name. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So SeattleEditor's reply was not what any of us wanted. They are NOTHERE and appear to be dug in so far that there is no teaching them how to be HERE at this time. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (add missing "no" Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support per their response to Jytdog and another response to me. I asked two simple yes/no questions and got more evasive, combative, non-responsive verbal spew. We don't have the time or energy to waste on this gaming of the system. — Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support sanctions against User:Seattleditor. I wish there was a WP:POMPOUS essay, but I'll just have to be left with citing meta:Don't be a jerk (in reference to comments aimed at EGF). (Oh, and is WP:PEACOCK even allowed as an argument against an editor's comments? Well, then, that, too.)
In addition to NOTHERE cited in the title, for the record I also agree that there is a violation of WP:NPOV here that rises to WP:COI. I was hoping for @Jytdog:'s promised WP:COIN post before weighing in, but the original {{long}} comment is incorporated by reference to the reply to it, above.
I also agree that there may be a WP:SOCK issue here (I'd hope EGF will file a WP:SPI if appropriate). I'm not really sure which is worse, COI or SOCK, I feel they are both duplicitous. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since Jimbo probably wouldn't approve, I'll refrain from suggesting an alternate title for an essay on how to respond to such contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holding note. There is consensus for an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Unless something else eventuates, I intend to place that block after the AfD discussion mentioned below has been decided; Seattleditor should preferably have a chance to comment in the AfD. Please feel free to continue discussing Jytdog's block proposal in this section while we wait. Bishonen | talk22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
So where do we stand now? I'm still very offended by the editor above referring to EGF in the masculine. I do look at that before using these pronouns. EGF hasn't declared a preferred pronoun, but has declared GQ. So, no more pronouns there for me. I disagree to a large extent to what EGF has said on the talk pages of the Caitlyn Jenner article, but not to the extent of actually going to battle about it. This editor may yet convince me that they are right and I am wrong. I'm willing to listen. (And not willing to contribute to the article to that extent; I admit ignorance.)
So what now? How do we move forward with a sanction against User:Seattleditor?
What I say is to follow P&P (Policy and procedure), cite COI, NPOV violations, SPA and potentially SP (sock puppeting). With these accusations against Seattleditor how can WP:POMPOUS prevail as an alternative narrative (it's OK to blow-hole against editors here, really?)? Impose a sanction, I'm not really clear which sanction is appropriate, but let it be clear that esteemed editors (regardless of our disagreement with them) are not to be attacked with pomposity, and not facts. This does not, and shall not, intimidate us.
Literally all the sources of the article are primary sources, in the sense of being publications by Dr Libby himself — not "nearly" all, a phrase used above I suppose in honour of the current note 13. That footnote appears to cite a different author, Murray A. Straus, which may mislead the unwary, but it actually references a 1978 anthology which contains an article by Libby; i. e., that too is a primary source. Or not a source so much; it's a publication, an article, which appears in the list of Libby's publications. So, no secondary sources, and none have been offered since Evergreen Fir tagged the article three weeks ago. On the contrary, User:Seattleditor, a single purpose account, has attempted to remove the tags protesting that they're "damaging to the credibility of the doctor" and "deleterious to the patients of the doctor".[84] (That edit was made by an IP, clearly User:Seattleditor logged out accidentally, not attempting in any way to hide.) All this suggests to me that Roger Libby shouldn't be on Wikipedia. We don't do self-sourced bios, because they can't show notability. I've listed it on Articles for deletion. Seattleditor's understanding of policy does appear to be poor, and the way they answer questions quite evasive, but perhaps we might as well put off the issue of a block until the AfD is done, so that they can take part in it. Bishonen | talk07:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
There is a point that I wish to clarify for those listening in: "User:Seattleditor, a single purpose account" is not a reference to the Dr. Libby article. Instead, the SPA accusation, is I feel, accurate, on the basis that the user advocates for articles written at Seattle24x7. Dr. Libby's article there happens to be among those (as has been proven by others, above). The "single purpose" here, is about Seattle24x7, a PR news site (as another user put it, "CEO porn"), not about Dr. Libby himself. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
just fyi - i received an email from a person saying he was Roger Libby. Not happy about the tags on the article and among other things wrote: "In (sic - meant "if" i believe) my many publications, academic and professional credentials and references (including the links to professional associations which are publicly accessible online) are not sufficient, I would ask you to immediately remove the page entirely as it calls into question my professional standing given your editorial staff's lack of certainty in my credentials. Under the circumstances, I consider the "public editing" of the page to be damaging to my professional sex therapy practice and my reputation. Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation. It appears that on Wikipedia everyone is guilty until proven innocent." I'll also make a note of this on the AfD. I replied nicely and fwded to wmf legal. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing Libby isn't an editor here, since "Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation" is a not-so-veiled legal threat. (One that I hope he doesn't go through with, since all he'll do is throw away a lot of money, as there is obviously no "defamation" in determining that he doesn't qualify under our notablity guidelines.) Perhaps Libby will think twice next time before engaging a SEO/PR person who doesn't understand Wikipedia -- and if he could tell his professional friends that as well, all the better for us. There are a hell of a lot of doctors in the English-speaking world, but only a very tiny percentage of them qualify for a having a Wikipedia article. BMK (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Antifeminism
I've been trying to improve the Antifeminism article, because I think the current one is very bad for many reasons (it's very biased in tone, it doesn't accurately reflect its sources, and it's sloppy in general). There has been a huge resistance to this from a few editors though, who clearly want to leave the article in its current state, are unwilling to work cooperatively, and instead dismiss all criticism I have of it as original research, which lacks sources. Now I've tried to explain to them repeatedly that I disagree with this, because the criticism I had was criticism of the article, not of which information it should contain, or which sources it should use. They completely ignore this though, and instead keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Now I've been trying to assume good faith, and kept assuming that they were misreading what I wrote, but it's getting so weird that it's becoming really difficult to maintain this. See this thread [[85]], and especially Fyddlestix(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) second reply. The section was about something I removed, because it was unsourced, but which got reverted back. I tried to discuss this, and explain why it wasn't supported by the sources, but instead they went on pretending that I was trying to add information, which wasn't supported by sources. There's just no way that such a reply can be made in good faith to the what I wrote above it. It's becoming clear enough that they're just intentionally being impossible, probably either to frustrate me to a point where I would give up, or provoke me into questioning their intelligence, so that they can block me over personal attacks.Didaev (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be basically a content dispute, although it may be complicated by stubbornness and incivility. I suggest that you ask for formal mediation. A mediator may be able to get the parties to explain and work on their differences. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, then the next step for dealing with conduct issues would be Arbitration Enforcement under the gender-related sanctions under WP:ARBGG. But I suggest that mediation be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this less as a content dispute and more as a problem of disruptive editing on Diadaev's part. This user has been lobbying for changes to the article on Antifeminism for a couple of weeks, but their talk page posts are based on their own subjective opinions & reasoning, rather than on RS (this is probably the worst example). They've been prodded for sources and asked to stop making subjective arguments several times, and they've been given a formal warning for failure to cite sources and disruptive editing.
In the comment Didaev refers to above, I was simply trying to impress upon them the importance of citing sources - I was hoping that engaging with some sources might refocus the conversation and make it less subjective. But Diadev has chosen to raise the matter here rather than do that. So I don't see how mediation is going to help unless Didaev is willing to make some sourced, non-subjective arguments. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, a mediator would insist on citing sources. On the other hand, if User:Didaev is ignoring advice to cite sources, then that may be good-faith editing that is nonetheless disruptive editing. If this is seen as a conduct dispute, it is my experience that Arbitration Enforcement works more efficiently than this noticeboard. Has Didaev been notified of gender-related discretionary sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Didaev is editing in good faith, but unfortunately is still not getting the point about how all of our work on the article must be based on the summarization of reliable sources. Didaev is offering criticisms of the article which are personal criticisms. This is not helping the situation at all. What is needed is for Didaev to refer to reliable published sources when making arguments about what to change in the antifeminism article. Until that happens there's not much influence that Didaev can have on the article. Lacking any leverage based on what is found in the literature, the talk page complaints by Didaev are ultimately disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 'reliable source' doctrine is being abused here to skew the page towards a particular point of view. On the original discussion page, Binksternet et. al. have explicitly stated their belief that the only valid sources of information about "antifeminism" are feminist scholars. This must lead to a one-sided characterization. JudahH (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a fair characterization - as far as I've seen, no one has argued that feminist scholars are "the only valid sources of information" about anti-feminism. Rather, they've argued that there just isn't all that much (or any) academic literature about antifeminism itself that takes a "pro" antifeminist perspective. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JudahH, that's a load of bollocks and you likely know it. You are misrepresenting the opinions of Binkster&co, and doing so badly, both here and elsewhere, to the point that my ability to AGF is rather stretched. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to view everything through biased glasses, Kevin. If you're finding it hard to assume good faith, it's probably because you started out assuming bad faith instead. I've been polite and constructive in my (attempted) contributions to that article; just because I don't share your politics doesn't mean I'm trying to vandalize the page.
Here's a direct quotation if you need one: "Feminist scholars are a very highly respected source of information. Scholars in general are what we look for when a topic is difficult to define. There's no problem with referencing feminist scholars who are in fact the ones who study antifeminism the most. Basically, the only scholars of antifeminism are feminist scholars."
Premise 1: Scholars are what we look for as sources a topic such as this, in preference to other sources.
Premise 2: Only feminist scholars on this topic exist.
Conclusion: We look for feminist scholars as sources on this topic, in preference to other sources.
Whether the reasons for preferring "scholars" are sound or not, the outcome to relying primarily on them given these premises is an article written from a single point of view, rather than a balanced one.JudahH (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is faulty. The conclusion is not that feminist scholars are looked for in preference to other sources. We do look for scholars in preference to other sources generally speaking, and it is the case that a majority of scholars and other high quality sources writing about antifeminism do so from a pro-feminist standpoint. That is not at all necessarily a problem. Wikipedia doesn't shoot for some sort of vacuum point of view. If a majority of high quality sources about a subject reflect a certain perspective, than a properly written Wikipedia is likely to as well. That's a feature, not a bug. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion in this particular case is that feminist scholars are looked for in preference to non-feminist sources—perhaps not because they're feminist, but the outcome remains the same. Re this being a feature, I respectfully disagree with you. If all of the sources used on a topic reflect a particular perspective, even if they are high-quality sources, the article is skewed because there are high-quality sources on one perspective but no sources for the other perspective. Rather, we should represent both perspectives from the best sources available. I further disagree that academic sources are necessarily better than primary sources—i.e. people's direct characterizations of their ideologies in their own words, but that's the less important point, I think. JudahH (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with it, but it is explicitly a feature of Wikipedia. Our articles are intended to "represent.. fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Further policies emphasize that in doing so, we should consider the quality of a source, and avoid giving equal validity to all apparent viewpoints. You might disagree with any of these things, but they are all long established features of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a project rejected the idea of sympathetic point of view long long ago. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean by "abuse" of Wikipedia's policies—maybe I should look for a more neutral word than that, but the claim that the only sources of significance on a political topic are the ones from a particular side basically favors one viewpoint over the other. This is not a neutral point of view. You sound like you're comparing one whole side of a political debate to "flat earthers" or something. Again, there's a vast difference between the opinions of academic scientists on a topic of science and the opinions of academic feminists about the views held by their opponents. The whole point of NPOV, as I've understood it is that when it comes to divisive issues that editors can't come to consensus about, the fairest approach is to give and source the views of both sides, and let the reader draw his conclusions. Not to refuse to even offer the viewpoint of one side on the pretense that it has never been described by so-called "valid" sources. JudahH (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this comment when I added the two paragraphs below, but the first one was basically addressing your point, Ian. I see a fundamental difference between more or less objective questions of science or fact, where it's reasonable to give academics the authority, and questions of people's political views, where subjectivity reigns, and being an academic doesn't mean that one should be the only source used to characterize political views that he disagrees with. I would add, that this is a case where using primary sources would be entirely reasonable, I believe, as no inferences need to be drawn from them—simply the statement that "such and such political group describes its aims so and so". JudahH (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit: I should add that there's a difference, IMO, between an article about, say, some contested fact of science, where the academic perspective can be reasonably assumed to generally have more validity than the less academic ones, and an article about people's political views, where being an academic does not make one more of an authority on the opinions of some group of people than belonging to that group.
I should also add that I'm not editing in bad faith here, and I believe that as long as we clarify what we're talking about, we can come to a consensus that everyone is happy with. As I just commented on that article's talk page, I believe that the root reason this article has been provoking such strong opinions is that it currently covers entire ranges of ideologies (antifeminism, and, by implication, feminism) as if they were a single, even an organized ideology. This gives rise to misleading implications about both sides.
Didaev is a new user and an 100% single purpose account — they've edited only Antifeminism and its talkpage. It does look like they've come here to right great wrongs, and I will consider a topic ban if they should persist with their agenda to the point of disrupting the talkpage. However, there's no need for anything like that yet, as they haven't edited since receiving the discretionary sanctions alert. Perhaps they're thinking about it and will return more willing to listen to experienced editors. Well, see the optimist's guide to Wikipedia, I suppose, but it never hurts to assume the best, especially of new users. Bishonen | talk12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Unacceptable behavior of editor
Hello,
I want to inform you about unacceptable behavior of the editor Croata concerning the articles Bulgars/ Dulo clan.
During the past 3 months (since the beginning of March 2015) he was constantly removing all my edits on these articles stating that they were "vandalism", "unrelated info", "false positive edits", "fringe theories edits" or simply calling them POV. He denies the reliability of obviously excellent sources as Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank stating that they represent minority point of view. For example on 19 June 2015 he removed my edit on the article Bulgars where I have added information about the origin of Utigurs, a major Bulgar tribe, stating that the edit is "false positive" and "unrelated info". On 6 June 2015 I have warned him that in his version of the article Dulo clan, his conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is not supported by the cited four books - nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conclusion. He ignored my warning and reverted the article 6 times after that without bothering to correct this sentence or to remove it. On the talk page of Dulo clan article I have suggested many ways how to improve the article, for example :
I have suggested to move the information about the historical rulers of the clan from the section "Research History" to the article's intro where this information should be placed because it is well documented
I have suggested to removed the information that early rulers of the clan were claiming Attilid descend from the article's intro to "Research History" or to restate it in the form that some historians think they had such a descend. It is not known if they were claiming this.
I have suggested to improve the article Bulgars by replacing the very first sentence "... semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction" with more accurate statement " The three major tribes were Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, whose origin is still unidentified"
None of these suggestions (and many more) were accepted. The editor Croata doesn't accept any independent additions, he considers his versions of the articles to be final and set in stone. Also he tends to place disproportionate importance of the Turkic theory about the origin of Bulgars and Dulo clan and doesn't accept other theories about their origin to be added to the articles. Such a behavior is unacceptable and it does not help the readers of these articles.
I've reformatted. You didn't notify Crovata, and misspelled his name. The very top of this page clearly states you must do this. I have gone ahead and done so. Now to look at the merits.... Dennis Brown - 2¢02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take longer than I have to give tonight, but the other stuff still needed doing. User:Bbb23 is familiar with Crovata, so I would draw his attention here. Looking briefly, it seems more of a content dispute, but there may be some behavioral issues by one or both, so I will leave to B and others to determine. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I experience technical problems and don't know if will manage to actively follow the discussion. However, I neither have time to waste discussing the same thing over and over and over again. The violation of WP:NPOV principles, lack of neutrality and knowledge of the editor PavelStaykov, and in general about the topic and dispute, you can read at his talk page, Bulgars Talk and Dulo clan Talk. The scholars Zuev and Pulleyblank were only lately introduced, not months ago, and their minor claims have no relation to Bulgars. It is related with Utigurs and their article. The Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were not Bulgar tribes, they were different tribes who in periods were part of Bulgar confederation, but whose names etymologically clearly show Turkic origin. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs areas badly written, and currently work on them. He never answered which "four books", and I ask him again to respond. A simple read of the Bulgars article is enough to dismiss his claims, and often personal original research (which he calls "independent"). The Turkic theory is the only theory with verified evidence, and weight per NPOV. It is generally considered and discussed, and does not dismiss other ethnogenetic and cultural influence like other theories, Indo-European or Iranian, which do not have substantial amount of sources, reliability or confirmation for such claims. Not to mention how are ideologically motivated by the Bulgarian scholars during the anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria, considered by unreliable "scholars" (PavelStaykov cited a scholar who is not educated in the historiography or linguistics, but medicine) and a minority. Such a fringe theory also has an article - Kingdom of Balhara.
The editor PavelStaykov denies and called modern scholarship considerations as junk and part of "some Russian propaganda". As far the points go, 1. The list of rulers follows the list of the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans and their names and meaning are discussed in the section 2. There is no need for this, and just for record, previously in March and April he strongly opposed the reshaping of the statement as personally considered it was Attila itself and denied scholars general consideration 3. It is generally accepted they were most prominently of Turkic extraction (with some admixture of Hunnic, Iranian and other Indo-European origin and influence).--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get embroiled in a content dispute about which I know next to nothing. Even if I did, the only issue here for me is conduct. I've blocked User:PavelStaykov twice for edit-warring at Dulo Clan, the first time for 48 hours and the second for one week. When I blocked him the second time, I also warned User:Crovata about his conduct. There's been no reverts at that article since June 11. There has been one addition (I assume it's brand new but didn't check) at Bulgars by PavelStaykov and one revert by Crovata on June 19. The two editors have to use some sort of dispute resolution to resolve their content issues. As for their conduct, if I see either editor revert at either article, that editor risks being blocked, and a revert back after a block may also be met with a block. Both of them should stay away from both articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: The problem with the whole issue is that there's no constructive content dispute for Wikipedia, yet the fringe theories and personal POV/OR which are forced to be included in the articles which have nothing to do with - the violation of NPOV. I advise all involved to read all three linked talk pages to understand the situation. I cannot agree with the last statement, why someone who defended the articles from unconstructive edits, and rewrote the articles according modern scholarship, must stay away? Since 14 May personally rewrote the Bulgars article and done major constructive edits, and as currently is in the process of GOCE review for GAN review, and there few cites additionally for inclusion, it seeks if not edit activity at least my attention.--Crovata (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's as clear-cut as you state, then the dispute resolution should be straightforward. In the interim, my warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Sincerely, I simply do not know which of the claims, articles and talk pages above should take for dispute resolution. They all were answered here, talk pages time ago, and there probably even more he seeks for. I need your advice, and personal inclusion of PavelStaykov for dispute resolution as he began those disputes. He needs to decide what claims should be brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't want any kind of disapproval from his side if missed to mention some of his claims we dispute. @PavelStaykov: Respond.--Crovata (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to answer Crovata's accusation that I have "aversion for the term "Turks"" - this is not true. I am not obliged to share such personal information here, but I will do it. I grew up in small town in southern Bulgaria ( Haskovo ) which is of mixed population - Bulgarians and Turks. One of my best friends during my childhood was a Turk. I live in Sofia now and one of my friends is also Turk, and I value his friendship more than that of many of my Bulgarian friends. So, I don't have "aversion for the term "Turks", nor I have aversion for Turkic people or their culture. What I want is simply these 2 articles to be written in the best possible way. Also before I start the discussion, I want to make some general remarks. It is a common misbelief that Bulgars are extinct, or that they merged with Slavic people 7-10 centuries AD thus forming contemporary Bulgarians. This is not true. Even now three type of faces can clearly be seen on the streets of Bulgaria, all of them of obvious Indo-European origin, but definitely distinct. It is especially striking if someone comes from abroad. The approximate ratio is 1:1:1. I can take photos and upload them to the Bulgar's article. My explanation is that the proposed by scholars merging of Bulgars, Slavs and Thracian's continues even today - after all Bulgaria was a rural country up to 1950-1960 and marriages happened inside small rural communities. One of my friends took genetic tests and he was told that he is of Thracian origin. Personally I don't need to do this to know that I am of Slavic origin - it's enough to look at myself in the mirror.
About the article Bulgars. 1. The very first sentence in its current version states that Bulgars were "tribes of Turkic extraction". This is not known for sure - may be they were, may be not. What is known for sure is that they were nomads. If they were Turks, of Turkic extraction, Iranian, or Indo-European tribes influenced by Turkic and Iranian people is still debated among scholars. Using euphemistic phrases as "Turkic extraction" is not a constructive edit, it is an obfuscation of the truth. It is much better to state that their origin is still unidentified and to enumerate different Bulgar tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and so on. Crovata's opinion that these tribes were not Bulgars is ridiculous - just type these words in Google and read. Not to mention numerous books and textbooks where this is explained.
2. My second point is to state in the article intro that some of the Bulgar tribes participated in the union of the Huns - this is well documented. Most Roman, Greeks and Byzantines sources used the words Huns and Bulgars indiscriminately to describe the same people. Actually many scholars equate Bulgars and the (European) Huns. This can be done in the 3rd sentence of the article. This will help the reader to understand better the origin of the Bulgars. Stating that they envelop " other ethnic groups and cultural influences, such as Hunnic..." is not accurate. Huns were not ethnic group, they were conglomeration of different tribes, many of them Bulgars.
3. In the section "Etymology and origin" I want to include the identification made by Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank that Utigurs were Yuezhi tribe. Both scholars are renowned and the identification is undisputable. Also it is a base for research among many modern Bulgarian scholars as Pr. A. Stamatov, Dr. P. Tsvetkov, Dr. G. Voinikov and others.
4. Section "History" - the subtitle is Turkic migration. This is misleading and I would suggest to be removed. If Crovata is making such implications, probably he could explain exactly which Turkic tribes practiced artificial cranial deformation? "Further information: Turkic migration and Huns" - this is OK. The second sentence is controversial. What would mean "Interaction with the Hunnic tribes, causing the migration..." if the Bulgars were Huns themselves, to interact with whom? Also the cited source is not available online.
5. Section " History", cited source 40c, pages 127-128 - does not contain such information. Which line ?
6. Section ethnicity, the 3rd paragraph - it starts with "When the Turkic tribes began to enter into the Pontic–Caspian steppe...as early as the 2nd century AD" is also misleading. It is generally considered that Turkic migration started much later and that the tribes in question are of unknown origin, they spoke language similar to proto - Turkic. May be here we could include the explanation given by Zuev that these tribes were actually Wusuns?
7. Section " Anthropology and Genetics" emphasizes too much on the origin of the Turks - paragraphs 2 and 3. What is the point here ? This article is not about the origin of the Turks.
8. Bulgars practiced Artificial Cranial Deformation and this is stated in the article, but I think the discussion here could be extended, it is well known that European Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation and they can be traced (using this) to North China.
9. I want to include research paper (by Voinikov) that modern Bulgarian language contains a lot of Tocharian words. It is published in Bulgarian language but with Google translate it can be read by everyone.
Ok, it may be taken into account that through IP 93.152.143.113 wrote the same person as the one through PavelStaykov. The info in the intro about personal life (and previously where allegedly confirmed that Pavel Staykov is the personal name, and by education physicist) is useless and irrelevant for the whole discussion. The all 9 points were already discussed, and properly dismissed as are against the general scholarship(!), actually any relevant scholar consideration. This points are based on extreme and specially chosed sources and very minor considerations. They just confirm the lack of knowledge, will to understand, and disregard of general scholarship and evidence. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs are currently being rewrote by me and his deny of their separate identity (which is something generally accepted!) is incredibly delusional and further discreditable. That's typical example of original research and personal POV violating NPOV. Even worse, he claims two different things, that the Utigurs point 1. were a Bulgar tribe, while in point 3. were a Yuezhi tribe. He doen't have basic knowledge about the Utigurs and Kutrigurs and how they existed in the vicinity of the Bulgars simultaneously, and participated in the battles and politics of Eastern Roman Empire. The Bulgars were not Huns, they were not equated at all, yet the name "Hun" became a general term or exonym for nomadic intruders from the East. This consideration, also in the point 4, is so wrong it's just ridiculous that it needs to be discussed. The scholar Dr. G. Voinikov revolutionary considerations (and the fringe Indo-European-Yuezhi theory) were not cited by any prominent scholar because he is an independent amateur scholar who is not at all educated in the field of linguistics or history - he finished medicine. No strange that no academic scholar cites his research. The personal POV and OR is based upon two reliable scholars (but whose considerations have nothing to do with Bulgars, but Utigurs, and claiming that the "identification is undisputable" is something generally not accepted!) and unreliable scholars. Replying to all the points for the XY time would be too long and waste of my time. @Dennis Brown:@Bbb23: Please give me advice how to properly write the dispute resolution, and for ever to end this unconstructive discussion. Should I cite every claim word by word? This 9 points deal with the article of the Bulgars, but not of the Dulo clan (where most of his activity was involved, and first comment dealt with).--Crovata (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crovata: I didn't read the wall of text by the other party. I would forget about what the other user says. Their part in the dispute resolution is to set forth their own reasons for the content of the two articles. You, @Crovata, should decide what you disagree with (not set forth here) but what you disagree with in the two articles and explain why. @PavelStaykov: It is not a good idea to edit anywhere on Wikipedia without logging in to your account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgars were Huns, and Crovata knows this very well. Almost all serious historians accept this:
1. SANPING CHEN :
"In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns" - page 8, line 1 [1]
2. Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The world of the Huns :
Cassiodorus, writing his Gothic historv in the 520’s or early 530’s, and Ennodius (t 521) repeatedly calls the Bulgarians “Huns.” - page 164
Provided that what Ennodius said about the Bulgars, whom he equated
with the Huns... page 199
Jordanes’ Bulgars and Huns in this chapter of the Getica are but two names of the same people. Schirren thought that Jordanes simply followed Cassiodorus, who in Varia VIII, 10, 4, likewise identified the Bulgars with the Huns. - page 432, line 5
3. Steven Runciman in his book " A history of the First Bulgarian Empire" [2] repeatedly identifies Bulgars as Huns. The first part of the book is named The children of the Huns:
the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs. page 4, last line
On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars. page 5
the Bulgar branch of the Huns - page 7 line 4
The Bulgars, we know, were Huns ... - page 12, line 7
the Imperial writers use their name, the Huns’, and the Bulgars’indiscriminately to describe the same race. - page 15, line 16
and so on. Bulgars and Huns were the same people - that's why many historian use the term Hunno-Bulgars. I don't know what game is playing Crovata, but it is not serving the main purpose of every Encyclopedia - to tell the readers the truth. His next "invention" about Utigurs and Kutrigurs - every serious book states that they were Bulgar tribes:
Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe [3]
the Utigur wing of the Bulgar Huns - page 253, cit. 28
Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with theBulgars - page 141, line 6
it is impossible not to see in the Bulgars ofTheophanes the bulk of the old Utigur people - page 15, line 13
Already in 1772 (Allgem. Nord. Geschichte, 358), the German historian August Schloetzer identified the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs with Bulgars, on the basis of the information provided by Greek-language late antiquity chronicles (Procopius, Agathias of Mirena, Menander, Theophylact Simocatta). Procopius of Ceasarea points out that Utigurs and Kutrigurs attacked the Goths during the fourth century.
The whole story is simple. Approximately around 2000 BC, a second wave of Indo-Europeans appear in North China. They were practicing artificial cranial deformation - the first graves with artificially deformed skulls in Tarim Basin (in North China) are from around 2000 BC. These people later were called by Chinese Yuezhi and Wusuns. With the rise of Xiongnu(Mongol-Turkic Huns) Yuezhi lost several wars against Xiongnu (between 210-160 BC - very well documented by Chinese) and move into modern day Kazahstan, around the Aral sea, in the interfluvial of Syr-Darya - Amu-Darya. Part of Wusuns stay and part of them move with Yuezhi, they were the same people after all, although they often warred between. That part of Wusuns who stayed gave rise to Ashina Turks, as Y. Zuev always pointed out - Ashina clan originated from Wusuns,[4] who were Tochars( = the general name for Indo-European people of North China). After 2 century BC graves with artificially deformed skulls disappear from Tarim Basin. They appear in Kazahstan. Burials of podboy type also appear there. With the disintegration of Xiongnu descendants, Turkic migration was initiated and Ases - Tochars (Ases- Yuezhi- Wusuns) were pushed from Kazahstan into Europe during 4 century AD and became known as European Huns. [5] Artificially deformed skulls disappear from Kazahstan and appear in Europe. European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
This theory is supported by several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:
1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars ) were Xiongnu:
Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and
ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu.
Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the
continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu.
2. There is no convincing evidence that the language of European Huns(and Bulgars) was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (Pritsak), indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive.
3.There are academic sources stating the connections: Utrigurs-> Yuezhi, Vokil-> Yuezhi[12][13][14]
Edwin G. Pulleyblank and many modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi.[15][16][17]
4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.[18]
5. The genetic tests show that paternal ancestry between the Bulgarians and the Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible.
6. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there. [19][20][21] Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of Dulo- Upsilon "|Y|".[22]
Summing the information from these 7 points( including the data about artificial cranial deformation) - linguistic, archaeological, academic - show that:
European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European
population from northern China and particularly from the people known to
the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to
Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially
Turkic and Iranian groups.
Instead of using phrases as "Turkic extraction" and "Turkicized Sarmatians" it is much better to use the the real names of these people because they are known actually - Yuezhi and Wusuns. To what extent the language was Turkic is difficult to say - it was a mixture of Tocharian, Turkic and Iranian languages. There is a research paper explaining this: " Was the Tocharian language really Tocharian?"
About Dulo clan article. I would suggest:
1. About the article intro - to remove the phrase "Western Turks" - it is not true. Western Turks are much later phenomenon. We could restate it with " Early Turks".
2. About the article intro - to remove the statement " they were claiming Attilid descend". This is knot known - some historians think so, some( in fact most) think they were descendants of Attila.
3. To include that Dulo was the ruling dynasty of the Utigur Huns - this is true, and that Utigurs are identified by Zuev and Pulleyblank as one of the tribes of Yuezhi. The name Yuezhi means " Moon clan". This is the explanation why Turks from Turkey have Moon on their flag - they incorporated that part of Wusuns and Yuezhi who didn't move to Europe. That part became their ruling dynasty Ashina, which is Tocharian word for clear, pale blue - Yasna. That's why they call themselves "sky Turks". This is the historical truth. Bulgars and Ashina Turks have common ancestors - Tochars.
4. To remove completely the last sentence from the section origin:
" Burmov, Peter B. Golden, Gyula Németh and Panos Sophoulis concluded that claiming of Attilid descent shows the intermingling of European Huns elements with newly arrived Oğuric Turkic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples."(4 books cited here)
nowhere in the cited 4 books there is such conclusion - that " Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" - where, which line? Also, this sentence is illogical - claiming Attilid descend shows....they were Turks. Why? This is completely Crovata's own conclusion. What is the implication here - that Attila was Turk or what ?
5. To move the information for the historical rulers of the clan into articles introduction - it is well documented information and the reader will read what is sure for these rulers. This information belongs to the article's intro, not Research History.
6. To include back the information about the Martenica - there are archaeological evidences that such adorments were used in Tarim basin and central Asia and they were brought to the Balkan peninsula by the Huns(Bulgars).
PavelStaykov (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the reasons for speedy deletion have been avoided in the current version (and I see no BLP or copyright concerns in it now), then AfD seems like the correct route to me and I don't see that it has anything to do with admin at this stage. Mr Potto (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Wikipedia policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.
In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.
The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...
“
No you LISTEN, you are the ONLY PERSON in the WHOLE of WIKIPEDIA that has a problem with the GOOD IMAGE being used. I tried solving it amicably but you decide to change the IMAGE again for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you REFUSE to a have ANY DISCUSSION but continuously KEEP changing the image, the post to have a discussion BARELY lasted 48 hours BEFORE you changed the IMAGE yet AGAIN... You are a VANDAL and I will NOW REPORT you....I wrote those in CAPS LOCK cause you seem to be blind or something ...
”
If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.
Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.
Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.
Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcinghisownimagesintoarticles and rightafterusurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Wikipedia for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote
“
Gage Skidmore is a professional photographer currently based in the Phoenix metropolitan area. He began his career covering politics in 2009, covering the U.S. Senate campaign of ophthalmologist Rand Paul. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of organizations and campaigns, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, ASU Center for Political Thought & Leadership, Campaign for Liberty Foundation, Reason Magazine, Western Center for Journalism, and has been published in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Politico, and Forbes.
Media/business inquiries: gtskidmore@hotmail.com
”
If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Wikipedia. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Wikipedia as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Wikipedia. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Wikipedia at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Wikipedia not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.
I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Wikipedia is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--Stemoc15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? Calibrador (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a WP:COI which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--Stemoc14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW [96] so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010Talk14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great but the image thing is still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –Davey2010Talk14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. Calibrador (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to Commons policy regarding image uploads, so this is "attribution" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private category, there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--Stemoc15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calibrador, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)
Back to the issue at hand regarding if Cometstyles Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. (There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...) (t) Josve05a (c)04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "by Gage Skidmore" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--Stemoc14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Wikipedia from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link WP:Selfpromotion, even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours IS self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--Stemoc15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at 3RR for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also warned by an admin for harassment. Calibrador (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--Stemoc15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. Calibrador (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to keep this open until Stemoc and Calibrador return from their 24 hour blocks. I'd like to hear some proposals, as there's potentially an issue with Calibrador's behaviour, and in turn there's definitely an issue with Stemoc's behaviour. It would be good to get it sorted out with the minimum of fuss, rather than just closing this thread and having a repeat with either Stemoc or another user raising similar complaints in the next few days and weeks.
I'd think the sensible suggestion here would be that Calibrador is either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images, and consensus is in favour of the change, or there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes. It's important to say at this time that we do appreciate the time and effort he puts into taking and uploading photographs BUT other photographers, both professional and amateur do exactly the same, and in the interests of fairness, we want to see good images from a wide range of different photographers being used on the project, this in turn encourages image contributions from other photographers. Every photographer who takes good images should have an expectation of their images being used by another project and that their images will be chosen fairly, without bias, and on the merit of the photograph and its content, composition and appropriateness for the article. Calibrador's behaviour isn't really allowing that to happen right now. Nick (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is, he is trying to keep his talk page clean so that paying clients don't ask about his block, anyways thanks for pointing out the previous discussion involving him JustDaFax, maybe I should have pointed this out at the very top of the thread and saved myself a lot of time, the admin in that discussion EdJohnston warned him not to re-offend, and he did....many times actually..I'm tired of this cause I did not come back after retiring just so that I get involved in MORE wikidrama, I have no issue with this, I just do not like POV pushers regardless of who they might be ...I hope an admin comes with a solution soon which will stop this from happening again..--Stemoc00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm Stemoc I mentioned the report right above so I'm not sure how you missed it , That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Say, Davey2010 could you ping those editors mentioned in your report, that had issues with Cali/Gage? They are likely not aware of this ANI complaint that is now in a state of WP:BOOMERANG and may well shed some light on why they had concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, completely, with Nick's suggestion. It seems to be the most sensible and fair solution. I would be more in favour of the 1RR suggestion; it's not prohibitively restrictive (and doesn't discourage further contributions), but it reigns in any excessive promotional behaviour and forces him to seek consensus with other editors if they take issue with his revisions. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block for Calibrador - Quinto, that type of sanction is only effective if Cali/Gage sees the continuing errors of his ways, and acts on them. He's been warned repeatedly to no avail, even reverting the block message on his Talk page when warned not to. Stemoc is likely right, Cali/Gage has deep reasons for his Talk page scrubbage. I say indef the character, at least until we get a serious commitment to reform that he can be held to. He's been gaming the system here for too long and shows no intention of stopping. Jusdafax01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef Calibrador - I'm probably not going to be liked for this but the editor has caused enough problems and I think the 1RR won't solve anything at all, We could go down the 1RR route but he'd end up being reported at ANEW and then it'll be this discussion all over again and he'd end up being blocked - Once unblocked we'll be doing it all over again. Indef seems a better and wiser idea IMHO. –Davey2010Talk01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- In complete agreement with Nick here. The 1RR proposal for Calibrador makes a lot of sense. However if that doesn't work an indef seems like the only other option. -- Shuddetalk05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand 1RR and renaming of the files to remove his name (per DGG's comment), but before this last Bbb23 block for edit warring, he's never been blocked, and he has over 25,000 edits behind him. Indef blocking is excessive at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of that was to get him to respond, which he's now doing, if less than satisfactorily. But Dennis, it's my firm belief that if he gets off with 1RR and renaming, he's getting off easy. I really don't want to go wading through his edits, just to find more examples. We are already at TL,DR. Davey 2010 has it right. Jusdafax20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current and past problems with Calibrador, formerly Gage Skidmore: suggest extending current BOOMERANG with indef block
Good double block, and I share Nick's concerns. By the way, isn't this diff above in this very ANI complaint (!) using "very close to libel" as an implied legal threat in violation of WP:LEGAL, as well the use of the term "paranoia" an attack on the mental condition of the editor Cali/Gage has brought to this board? If so, wouldn't a continued block of C/G be protective in nature?
In any case, I've had some troubling issues with Cali/Gage Skidmore at the L.A. Reid article. In brief, he lies, distorts, ignores and in general does whatever needful to get what he wants. My involvement began in 2012 when I cordially welcomed him to the page while expressing concerns about his captioning. He gave no reply.
In August 2013, he repeatedly inserts his own photography as the infobox photo and refuses to reply on his Talk page or on the article Talk page when I attempted again to discuss. When challenged, he lied in his edit summary saying, as clearly shown in this diff that I had reverted him without explaining, which the diff shows my edit summary had, and that I was in violation of WP:OWN, when in fact I had repeatedly asked for Cali/Gage to discuss the matter.
I also noticed others had similar issues and Cali/Gage failed to respond to them either. Finally in disgust I walked away from what I felt was an unpleasant and manipulative editing experience. And this editor has a serious set of issues, as noted above, and in his warning at AN just last month, also as noted above. He's a fine photographer, but we can do without his hostile gamesmanship and relentless self-promotion, in my view. Jusdafax12:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The use of "very close to libel" once probably shouldn't be construed as a legal threat per WP:LEGAL. I don't really see enough diffs to support this strong of an action. I started looking through some of his photos and they are quite good. Personally, I think it would be a shame to loose his future contributions. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Not to go all Wikilawyer on you but the pertinent paragraph in that policy: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation. As for photographers, he's good but not good enough to allow his brinksmanship and outright bad faith editing to continue, in my view. Jusdafax06:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you are Wikilawyering at all. I just think his phrase "very close to libel" is not quite the same as saying it was "libelous" nor did he do it repeatedly. I think before an indef block is decided, there should be more discussion about whether adding his name to the end of file names is a serious issue. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it - that's not the only issue, as I demonstrate in this section just above. He's been abusing the place for years. You're right, the word "repeatedly" is in the policy too. But, now that he's unblocked, what does he do? Wipes his Talk page clean, and ignores the issues raised here. He does not apologize, does not comment, just up and vanishes. You OK with that? Why? Because he takes good pictures? Jusdafax06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you that there are serious issues. I just did Google search in images for "Gage Skidmore" and it returns pages of his photos. So, maybe 1RR or 0RR would be a better starting point for now? --I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first thing we all need to agree to is to get him to talk. He has a well-established history of avoiding discussion. That has to stop. Indef him, he's forced to face the music on his pristine talk page. He can answer questions there, express contrition and understanding of our policies, etc. Seriously, he must not be given a slap on the wrist and turned loose again on the project. Enough is enough. Jusdafax07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calibrador response
If you look at my more recent edits, aside from accidentally reverting too many times on one article without knowing (trust me, it was my mistake), I have begun using edit summaries, tried to seek consensus, and mostly tried to avoid conflict. Stemoc reverted several different edits over several different pages within a short span of time simply for the fact that he believes I am somehow a COI violator. What should I really have done differently? I tried to include discussion, and a clear edit summary at every opportunity.
I sincerely apologize for my past indiscretions, I have seen the error of ways in the past about not discussing changes seen as controversial. I don't need to be punished in order to see that, I see it clearly already. Also, I did not disappear, and inviting everyone that has had something bad to say about me with no one on the other side to defend me is a little biased.
The main issue that was at heart here that was underblown because Stemoc enjoys making a lot of noise, and crying COI at every possible chance, is the WP:Wikihounding and uncivil nature of their edits. I have no idea why this has changed into a discussion about me. I've realized my edits in the past were disruptive, and if you look at my edits recently, I made sure to include an edit summary in nearly every contribution, and when necessary, created or participated in discussion. This includes the 3RR that I accidentally got myself into without realizing, I created a discussion on the talk page, and included a reason for making the edit in my edit summary. Unfortunately that was completely ignored by Stemoc in favor of COI accusations, and stating that I'm profiting from Wikipedia, which I have not ever. I suggest concentrating on that rather than my past mistakes which I apologize for, and have tried to amend. Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the thing on my talk page was a mistake, I did not know about that policy, and when it was re-added, I accidentally thought someone re-added it to my talk page just to rub it in or something like that, I didn't look at the history page until after I had made the edit. My mistake once again. As for now, all users have control over their talk page, I think Stemoc is once again assuming bad faith, and made another COI allegation that was unfounded. I don't want to distract from the main issue though that I think has not even been addressed yet, so please discuss Stemoc's offenses. Calibrador (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found Gage creating this article really odd until I did a bit of research and found out that he is somewhat of a "follower" and then i found this..should we now assume Gage is a Paid editor as well cause your edits related to Rand Paul sure looks a lot like public relations work..no? So you use the wiki to push your own agendas, create articles on stuff which again boosts your own career and then you lie about it and then come here and blame me for foiling you? Just claim that you are a political photographer and you are doing all this just to boost your own career and this will all be over...Heck, you even uploaded a new yet poor picture of Donald trump because you didn't like the one I added as it wasn't one of 'yours'...When i first came across you a few years ago, I thought you were a hero for adding HQ pics of celebs and politicians free of charge, boy was I wrong and yet even when multiple users above have claimed that you have been 'gaming' the system, you still deny it and deflect it back to me...Honestly, if all this does not result in a ban or a block for you, I worry that you will do it all over again cause honestly, I do not think you joined wikipedia to help grow the database and you have no intentions whatsoever to follow our policies if they contradict with your ambitions and you have already been on the Edit Warring notice board 3 times over the last 50 days and yet you keep blaming others and refuse to accept that you made mistake after mistake and you even blanked your talk page twice even after 2 admins warned you not to and then you blanked it again the 3rd time just 10 minutes after your block was lifted..Why would anyone not worried about their image do that?...If you somehow walked away from this with just a slap on your hand then this would mean Wikipedia has failed...--Stemoc13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, Stemoc has his own issues. But this is the first I've heard of this Rand Paul article, which opens a new and distressing window on your POV pushing activities, Calibrador. Leaving that aside for the moment, as well as your excuses for blanking the block notices on your talk page repeatedly, which strain credulity since you are saying you didn't read the admin postings at all, we come to the issues I have delineated in detail above. You have posted a lot of words here. Not a single one addresses my specific and documented concerns, and those of others who have further concerns. So is this the best you can do? A "sweat promise" to now, after years, act like most decent Wikipedians, and actually use edit summaries, actually seek consensus? Now that major sanctions are under discussion here, I challenge you to address the charges that have been brought forward. Jusdafax13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I addressed them? I admit I should have participated in discussion in the past instead of acting in a cold manner. I hardly even remember the incident you are talking about in regards to the LA Reid article. FWIW, that was not my photo, I did not take it. I was acting like any other editor looking for a better image that was freely available on Flickr, and thought that better illustrated the subject of the article, and thought it was weird that a photo with someone else in the photo that was years older was preferred. I did not look at the article history you linked, I'm just going by memory. Not sure what else I can say, but I'd very much like a response to Stemoc's behavior, as absolutely no one with any authority has had anything to say about their hounding and uncivil behavior that I documented in my original report. Calibrador (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not to make this any sort of issue, but I just looked at the article, and would note that the photo that I added is now the photo that is universally used to illustrate the article across Wikipedia projects, and not as a result of me. Someone else did that. I really have no memory of that situation though, it was several years ago. I know I was in the wrong on that though, so I apologize. Calibrador (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that GageSkidmore/Calibrador suddenly changed his username is an indication that his intentions here are likely less than good faith. I really don't see a pressing issue at all with Stemoc, but with GageSkidmore/Calibrador we see a user who is all about self-promotion, and in many regards, whose motivations, i.e. Rand Paul book, etc. are questionable. He likes to ensure his pictures retain precedence over all others; yes, he takes many pictures that are free-use, and that is good. But many of his pictures aren't of article quality and composition, and he many times fights for ones that are the least worth inclusion. There have been problems in the past, and I see them again. He likes making great streams of edits on pages, rather than carefully consolidating his efforts, he continues to put 'by Gage Skidmore' on every single picture uploaded to the commons, obvious self promotion, and his consistent efforts to evade (name change and notification deletes) demonstrate his negative impact here. Spartan7W§14:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that I stole that idea from David Shankbone, should we bring David Shankbone to AN/I? The stream of edits that I think you are referring to were an effort to try to control my own content. Many (not all) of the photos that were uploaded from my photostream were cropped very poorly, or were not the best one to illustrate an article in my opinion. Most (not all) of my recent photo additions were replacing of my own photos with an alternate crop, or slightly different color, sharpness, etc. Some mistook that as simply uploading the same photo with a different title, but that was not the case, people were adding my photos to Wikipedia unknowingly to me, and I wasn't particularly a fan of the way they looked, however minor it was. I don't specifically recall very many instances where a "stream" of edits other than that one instance where it was controversial and someone took notice of it. After I was brought to the noticeboard, I did not continue that behavior. Despite what you may think, I'm capable of learning from my mistakes. As was the case with the recent noticeboard discussion, and is the reason I used an edit summary and created discussions on several recent articles. Unfortunately that was disrupted by Stemoc who reverted several different edits across several different pages, crying COI and that I'm somehow being paid to edit Wikipedia, how exactly should I have responded to that other than the way that I did? In the first few instances on one specific page, I reverted with a descriptive edit summary stating my opposition to the revert of my edit, and also included a talk page post. That post was met with a paragraph of COI accusations. In the end, another user, PrairieKid reverted the page back to my version twice more when Stemoc reverted it to their version. The fact that I overstepped 3RR was an accident on my part, I understand that policy very clearly, I would not have overstepped that if I had known the first edit I made also counted as a revert, I was simply re-adding official portraits that were replaced for some reason unknown to me. In regards to the Paul thing, I would simply consider myself an expert on the topic, the book article was added because I was trying to keep it consistent with the previous two book articles. Not sure what you were trying to imply with that, especially since the article is not written in a biased manner. I don't believe I've ever made any sort of NPOV edits to anything Paul related, if I did that was a mistake, but I do not believe I did. The only thing I can think of are stylistic article choices. Calibrador (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really Shankbone? the guy that took random celebrity pics and never had a COI or ever pushed his POV across wikimedia? only a handful of his celebrity pics were with his name in the image title which i mentioned above, we ALLOW...not 100% of his images..He rarely if at all replaced someone's images with his own unless it was outdated and I doubt he made a single-cent out of doing this..I would be really surprised if he was ever dragged onto any of the WP:AN boards..and again, you are deflecting..Now you are claiming that users like Lady Lotus and I made "bad" crops?. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, this image by Lady Lotus was so "badly cropped" than you just had to replace it with this image of yours? or replacethis with your cropped version or replacethis image with one of yours for the exact same reason.. I don't think you care about the quality of your images cause if you did and you thought your version was BETTER, you would have uploaded your version over the "same image" that you were trying to replace, instead of uploading a same if not similar crop with again, your name in the image title...I have told you on multiple occasion that if any user on enwiki or commons finds an image on flick with a free licence and they find there is a need for that image on ANY of the 700 odd wikis we have (300 of which are wikipedias), they will freely be allowed to upload that image to commons so if you have a problem with it, please, feel free to change the license of your images on flickr to ARR (All Rights Reserved) but at the same time, you won't be allowed to upload those images here either without scrutiny....and regarding the PrairieKid edit, If you actually see the history, he changed an image because another user reverted my edit because he didn't understand why my "revert" of your edit was a "self-promotion" because you had your name changed which is why you did it (you can lie about it many times but we all know why)..infact there was no 3RR by me but I accepted the block because I felt that maybe NOW people might see exactly what I have been saying all along, I don't have to repeat myself again as everything i have said is listed above..You may not see it but even though you have been around since 2009, you still refuse to understand or follow our policies so you have not only violated one, but MANY of our policies over the years and you only got away with it because of your name. I have listed a few of your violations above and on the 3RR thread which you keep going back too, this board is NOT for 3RR....this board is about your attitude on this wiki and how you deal (or lack thereof) with other users and your ability (on inability) to both understand or follow our polices and your insistence of claiming over and over again that you are the victim here when its clear that you are not....So instead of deflecting to me, why don't you tell us why an admin should not block you? and P.S, I'm NOT Hounding you, I'm getting you to talk because over the last 6 years you have been on this wiki, you REFUSE to talk when posed a question and you always ignore hierarchy on this wiki and now when you have this opportune time to save yourself, you deflect, passing the blame onto someone else without realizing that this will only make it worse for you....the only reason I'm replying to your posts is because you keep mentioning my name and pointing fingers at me, i know how to defend myself since I have been in similar situation a few times....Everytime I post, I added more proof regarding your edits, and everytime you posts, its just more accusations hurled at me without an ounce of proof and yet, I'm the one hounding him as you claim....anyways I have wasted too much time on this, I have better things to do across wikimedia--Stemoc00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, first off, you gotta learn to not slap up these giant text walls that make the average editor's eyes glaze over, and tone down your use of caps. That said, it appears to me you have a number of decent points. There is no doubt that Cali/Gage has utterly and repeatedly failed for years now to discuss and come to consensus, except when he is lying, which I document above. I'm hoping by keeping this thread open that others will come forth, so we can establish what kind of sanctions Cali/Gage will be facing. There is growing consensus something has to be done. Cool out, man. Jusdafax02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah can't help it bro, once I have something to talk about, my wall can be higher than the Great Wall of China..I actually cut myself short there cause most of the things that needed to be said has already been said....I have mentioned a few times that i use Bolds or Caps or "quotes" for "emphasis" only, I'm not really "shouting"..I agree, this has dragged far too long and needs to be solved once and for all...I have no interests in making edits to the wikipedia-space as i prefer most if not all my edits to be on the main space..--Stemoc02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified about this discussion on my talk page. I do not favor an indefinite block of Gage Skidmore (the username change was in bad faith, however, and should be reversed imo). Though he has demonstrated a strong POV against notable minor candidates for office as I documented here, my main issue with Skidmore is his lack of communication, specifically his refusal to discuss contentious edits he makes in furtherance of his POV. Nevertheless, based on what he has written above, I believe he has the potential to change. He adds great content to articles and wikipedia should not eliminate his ability to do so through an indefinite block. A 1RR restriction seems like a fair remedy. This may encourage him to discuss his edits (as part of the WP:BRD method) rather than reverting reverts without providing any justification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for interaction ban
At this point I think it would be very wise to consider implementing an interaction ban between myself and Stemoc, I don't conceive this ever resolving amicably as far as their prerogative goes, so I think this would be the best way to not be disruptive. Calibrador (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such interaction ban since the only one to benefit from it would be the proposer himself, who would get rid of a vocal critic. Criticism that IMO is justified, because like many others here I see Calibrador's activities as using Wikipedia for promotion. Thomas.W talk16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yup Thomas's hit the nail on the head - WP:IBAN states and I quote "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved - There is no conflict - It's simply one (well actually quite alot) of editors unhappy with you and your self promotion here. –Davey2010Talk17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they were civil about it, I wouldn't have made the request. Unfortunately they are one of the most uncivil people I have ever had interaction with. Calibrador (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Thomas W. I'm fed up, obviously. As I comment above, Stemoc's off-putting delivery is annoying, and post-block, he needs to cool that down. But Stemoc's got some valid points, and I for one am glad he's making the push to inform the wider community about Calibrador's promotional and conflicted edit history. This self-serving proposal merely continues that pattern, and coming in the midst of an ongoing discussion of boomerang sanctions against Calibrador, is arguably disruptive. Cali/Gage has clearly learned nothing from the way this thread has gone. If this is the best he can do, indef him, and we can discuss it without his attempts to turn the discussion. Jusdafax02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for a ban on Calibrador/Gage Skidmore to add his name as author/photographer to articles on en-WP
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits we should notcredit the image author or copyright holder in the article, unless relevant to the subject, but just having taken a photo of the subject of an article does not IMO make the photographer "relevant to the subject". So I propose a ban on Calibrador/Skidmore to add his name as creator/author/photographer to articles on the English language Wikipedia, whether it's done in the image caption, as a footnote, as a reference (yes I've seen his name added as <ref>Author: Gage Skidmore</ref> to articles, so that his name appears among the references at the bottom of the page, see Matt Groening) or in any other way. Having his name on the image page, visible when clicking the image, should be more than enough. Several proposals to add image attributions to articles have been made through the years, but all have AFAIK failed, so we should go by what MOS says, that is no image attribution unless relevant to the subject of the article. Thomas.W talk16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: No sign of WalgreensOsorio since before this ANI case was filed – is it legitimate if one of us removes the "Commons Admin" userbox from their User page ourselves after this amount of time?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up #2: WalgreensOsorio edited on June 24, and has apparently removed the "Commons Admin" userbox in question, so that issue is now resolved. Perhaps at this point, we should just AGF here, and assume this was a new user who didn't know any better (in terms of what they did at Wendy's), and have someone uninvolved close this report. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed other similar behavior by this user on various user and article talk pages. See diffs/pages here: [99][100][101]
I've attempted to politely explain the importance of our copyright policy to this editor when he's posted on my talk page, and I also posted a warning regarding appropriate interaction with other editors on his talk page back when it wasn't being directed at me. Could an administrator please take a look at this situation (both the intimidation and possibly explaining the copyright issues to this editor)? The most recent edit on my talk page in particular is making me a bit uncomfortable, and I'd like to remove myself from the situation. ~ RobTalk02:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The aggressive commentary aside, what we have here sounds like a lack of competence. @LooneyTunerIan: needs to understand that copyright violations are dealt with very seriously. Threatening, or implying, to readd copyright violations is grounds for an immediate indefinite block. Edit warring over it is also foolish. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LooneyTunerIan: If you wish to have those articles deleted, you can add {{Db-g7}} to the top of the article, provided that you are the only significant contributor to them. On the other hand, I'd much rather you stick around and improve the articles to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. No-one here has anything against you personally or Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections. ~ RobTalk05:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LooneyTunerIan: It wouldn't immediately delete them, but it would add a template to the page that would mark them for speedy deletion under the criteria of WP:G7 (artist requesting deletion). Adding them to the category you've created will not mark them for speedy deletion by itself. ~ RobTalk05:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: In any case, I've done what you said. All of my articles that I have made have the {{Db-g7}} symbol on them. All I can do now is wait... and see if they get deleted. With any luck, they might. But after this, I am never creating another Looney Tunes-based article again. I'll leave that to the professionals. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interaction ban request
I'm requesting a formal interaction ban between myself and Annvarie. I've been editing Nicki Minaj discography since March, and almost every edit I make seems like an uphill battle with the force of Annvarie. Within three hours of my inital edit to the page, right back in March, I had somehow found myself in an editwarwiththem. It's continued this way ever since.
No dispute is too small for Annvarie to get their teeth stuck into. From the capitalisation of letters to the colours in an discography infobox, that were origianlly changed to conform to Template:Infobox album/color. Annvarie can somehow word an argument for practically any change made to the article. Annvarie also shows no sign of compromise when editing. Every single dispute the two of us have had has resulted in either Annvarie barking at me on some platform, me asking an admin for their opinion, or me starting a discussion on the talk page. While you may sit there thinking "What's the issue in taking it to the talk page?", trust me, it gets to the point where you really have to ask yourself what you're doing with your life, opening a wordy talk page discussion motioning to to change a chart name from "US R&B" to "US R&B/HH" hindered by an initial edit war with Annvarie.
I started drafting this request at my sandbox, writing a large chunk of it and saving it under a hidden note to take a nap for a couple of hours. I guess Annvarie saw my draft, through flicking through my contributions or other means, based on their next edit summary, another revert of mine, saved with the most pageant-y edit summary I've seen since creating an account here: "I don't consider editing a competition. I follow guidelines and base my edits on samples provided. That said, I reverted this edit based on WP:Text formatting & the sample table on WP:Discog style." something extremely polarizing from the usual blank summary or occasional summary CAPITALIZING buzz words like GUIDELINES or POLICIES to REALLY GET ACROSS THE MESSAGE that they know what they're TALKING ABOUT. On the intuition Annvarie saw my sandbox and found out about my plans to request an IBAN, I tried one last time to extend the old olive branch, and ask to work through issues, stylistic differences, and any other conflicts we had. This was, as I predicted, met with a nice lengthy paragraph on how Annvarie only makes THESE EDITS because they're following STRICT GUIDELINES that I evidently don't, and I'm a liar for insinuating they revert all my edits. While I never actually accused Annvarie of reverting all my edits, here's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 reversions Annvarie has made to things I've contributed to the article, some with good reason as they unknowingly violated certain policies/guidelines, but a large majority just due to personal disagreement.
Admittedly, I have assumed bad faith in certain instances, which I hold my hands up to, but honestly, can anyone blame me for doing so? I just want to get this out of my hair at last because honestly, I'm so fed up with treading on eggshells on that article. It's now 9am and I've had no sleep after being up with a nasty cold, so some of this may make no sense/sound overly cunty/or even stupid in some parts. I apologize in advance if this is the case. I'm content with a mutually-sided IBAN, I have no reason to revert Annvarie, they're a helpful editor, we just have difference of opinion...a lot, as hopefully they see me in the same way and won't request a one-sided ban. Hope to hear others opinions, christ this is going to drain the shit out of me, Azealia911talk09:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not think that Ibans can ever work in situations in which editors work on the same content. I also have little knowledge of discography related issues and think that it may be worth pinging editors that have contributed to a relevant article, TP or Wikiproject to comment. However, having read through report related texts I think that issues of WP:OWN probably apply. A number of the edits and reversions seem to be about issues that didn't seem to me to have been of great consequence and I think that problems with the interactions may develop from problems arising from the actual edits. Issues here also relate to WP:AFG and WP:CIVIL.
Perhaps a topic ban on one or both editors would be appropriate. The length of such a ban may better be decided by editors who better know the topic but even a very short ban would get something on record so that if there was recurrence in behaviour then platform would be provided for further steps to be taken. Something needs to be done to better promote collaborative editing here. GregKaye09:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an interaction ban would be all bad, at least for a trial run for a couple of weeks or-so, to see how it plays out. After which time, if the article history then starts re-clogging up with constant action-revert-action-revert like it is now, we could re-discuss a longer or permanent interaction ban. The only con of the trial IBAN would be a possible reversion of all edits made during the trial with the excuse of "The IBAN's over, I can edit how I like"
I'd respectfully oppose a topic ban, I don't think that would be fair on Annvarie, who you aforementioned is a SPA, considering a topic ban on Nicki Minaj would leave them with no pages to edit, with them having only edited Mianj-related articles. But by the same token, I don't think it'd be fair on myself either, considering topic bans aim to reduce disruptive edits, which I personally don't think I've made on the article.
I'm not inclined to issue either a topic ban or an interaction ban. Yes, I've noticed the two of you, and I think it's remarkable how petty both of you can be. Changing small text from 85% to 90%, and then edit warring over it? I'm more inclined to ban both of you from making purely cosmetic changes to discography articles, so that you stand a chance of learning how to interact over content.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww The change you reference was nothing cosmetic, not on the main view of the article anyway. {{small|Insert text}} sets at 85%, and was a way of decreasing mess to the array of <span style="font-size:85%;">Insert text<span> I have no idea where you got 90% from. But really, a discography topic ban? That seems grossly unfair to both parties, rendering Annvarie unable to edit their primary edited page, which potentially leads to them just leaving the project all together, and unfair on myself, especially as I'm in the middle of a FLC, and responding to comments could get me reported. Azealia911talk13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest a discography topic ban: I suggested a ban on making cosmetic changes to discographies. —Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would that cover exactly? Could you give a few examples, relating to previous conflicts between myself and Annvarie? Sorry, it seems a tad vague, and could still cause problems at my FLC upon certain suggestions. Would it also just be NM discography? I edit many other discographies without issue from other editors. Azealia911talk13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Non-administrator comment) I agree there is edit warring going on over some silly things, but in my few interactions with Azealia911 (eg at AfD, I remembered the colorful signature) I've not noticed anything unpleasant in his/her attitude. Annvarie as stated is a clear SPA: all of his/her edits are to Nicki Minaj articles, with 90 percent being to the discography article. Azealia911 has more than 5,000 edits; Annvarie has fewer than 500. That means a significant percentage of Annvarie's edits are actually reverts; I think WP:OWNERSHIP is going on. That Annvarie responded to something Azealia911 was writing on his/her sandbox indicates Annvarie is purposely tracking Azealia911's contributions for some reason. I have a thick skin but I would feel a bit troubled/violated if someone did that to me. That's just my 2 cents. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a notice on Annvarie's talkpage, warning her that if she doesn't make comments here, I will place sanctions without her input. Let's leave this open a bit longer and give her a chance to respond.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, I don't understand how my edit count translates to me making only reverts. I don't spend alot of my time on the internet so I when I do I edit on that discography article since I have a large interest in Nicki Minaj. I obviously don't consider myself an owner of the article, and my contributions to it are mostly chart/sales updates and new music additions. In my opinion, Azealia911 is overreacting since when I do revert their edit it's usually constructive and as they stated above, they took ownership of some of their mistakes. I take ownership for some of my wrong edits as well, but I don't make a big deal about my edits being reverted as long as its with good reason. When we have disagreements, we have third party involvements on the talk page and I stick with the consensus (Isn't this what Wikipedia advises it editors). To say I revert all their edits is absurd since I've reverted less than a quarter of their total edits to the page. I relation to responding to their sandbox (as implied above), we have had discussions on my talk page before in which we discussed this same topic. I can't believe I'm being accused of violating another editor when Azealia911 has repeatedly used foul language on MY talk page in simple discussions. To be honest, I don't know how to fix this supposed "issue" since I believe all my reverts (when necessary) are warranted but I have been a very constructive editor on that aricle.Annvarie (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a while to reply, I don't have this page on watch as it changes every few seconds. The ownership that was pointed out by a couple of editors, which I originally didn't consider at all but looking at some of the disputes has become somewhat frivolous to me, is the issue of you not letting edits "pass" for lack of a better phrase. Things like the chart name change, text size template changer (which after thinking about it, isn't stopped by the guideline you pointed out) could all have gone without you doing anything in return, yet your editing style to the page gives off a patroller-type style. This style is also backed up by your apparent tracking of my contributions and that edit summary, which was what really lead me to open this up. And as for the foul language accusation on your talk page, the only minor-obscene thing I've ever written there is the phrase "horseshit", which I apologise for if you really took it to heart. Other than that, I used the word "fucking" but it wasn't directed at you in any way, not that cussing's considered a WP:Personal attacks anyway. At this point, I have no idea what would be the best cause of action, as long as you stop reverting almost every damn stylistic edit to that page that I make. Azealia911talk22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User hasn't edited in almost 24 hours. Give them a chance to respond. If they start up again without responding, I'll yank the AWB. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with [104]? It looks like a constructive change IMHO (switching a project template to a correctly more specific template). Maybe not something I'd bother to make myself, clearly not one you'd make, but that's no reason to prevent Dthomsen8 if they wish to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More obviously, [105]. WP Journals is, I'm surprised to find, a redirect to a WP Academic Journals. As such, then yes, NOTBROKEN would apply. Not that I'd seek a block over it though.
I would also note the we have a vast amount of pointless cosmetic and sub-cosmetic (invisible code-only whitespace stripping) 'bot and script editing and any challenge to chat gets seen as hostile edit-warring. We have far worse things than Dthomsen8 to worry about (or not). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor being discussed, I decided to sleep on the question and meanwhile do no edits at all. I have decided that I will stop using AWB for WikiProject changes, but I will note that many of the updates were adding WikiProject templates for other projects such as subjects and countries of Academic Journals. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered response. Have you read the COSMETICBOT policy linked above and are you happy to abide by it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not WikiProject changes in general, the problem is doing purely cosmetic edits that clutter watchlists for no good reason. It's entirely fine to do cosmetic changes like {{WP Journals}} → {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} if you're also doing something else to the page, like adding another WikiProject Banner, or updating an article assessment. I'm also concerned it took an ANI thread to get you to think about those edits when the problem was pointed out to you, and that you don't seem to review your edits before saving them, but I'll let MSGJ and others deal with that if it becomes a more serious problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the cosmetic edits are annoying: they uselessly increase the amount of diffs that the humans maintaining the articles have to examine, and the size of the article's edit history. Sometimes they also try to impose the bot operator's editorial choices on the article (changing one template to another when both are valid) though I don't know if that's happened here. So I'd support the request that these edits stop--thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see these as problematic or even cosmetic edits. Project templates on talk pages are not wiki links in articlespace, the intended object of wp:NOTBROKEN, if anything wp:BRINT is closer, but even that isn't appropriate. These talk pages have little content, and few watchers. The edits are therefore not cluttering many watch lists, nor extending huge page histories. They remove hidden redirections, avoid Easter eggs, improve the utility of what links here and improve the category allocations, so that academic journals are less likely to be conflated with journals in the sense of newsmagazines and the like. Would we prefer that the edits include a token talk page post to meet some wiki-legalistic constraint that serves to impede good work? LeadSongDogcome howl!21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the offending account, deleted all the problematic redirects, and rev deleted the move vandalism to hid the possible BLP issues. Also move protected the article. Anything else? --Jayron3200:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see a red linked user talk page, and no discussion on the article talk page. Have you attempted to discuss the content in question? Also, notifying an editor when you report them here is required. Monty84501:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, the notice board you need to move to is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where all can blister their fingers as the polemics rage. This is not the correct venue for the conversation you want to have. It looks to me like the guy you are reporting has a fairly good case, actually. Jusdafax02:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I posted a more detailed description of this issue to the page you suggested: here.
Individuals that do not understand our political process should not be updating this page. The article is too important, influences too many people, and can have a real affect on voting in the United States. If a politically-savvy admin can lock this down and manage this page, that is probably the best solution. Again, I'm not intimately familiar with Wikipedia so I once more apologize if this is an improper venue. JaskaPDX (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have no proof as to if he's a Bernie Sanders campaigner as much as I don't have proof you're a Hillary Clinton campaigner, I would hope these discussions would be kept mature and without logical fallacies. Nitroxium (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RSN discussion is not helpful and I'm leaning towards a WP:NOTHERE block against JaskaPDX if the editor wants to use the site just for advocacy. Once the game of "only people who agree with me have the right to edit there" starts, it never ends well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. That isn't what I suggested at all. I'm asking that an established moderator lock down the page and manage it themselves. Not me, because clearly an interest in the transparency in the integrity of our democratic processes are, according to you, advocacy of a particular candidate. Thanks for clearing that up because that is at the core of this issue. Your entries with the non-citations have been undone. I refer you to the above comment by Jusdafax. JaskaPDX (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaskaPDX (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick thoughts: First, it might just be because I am Canadian, but I really don't see much value in a borderline indiscriminate list of random people who support a candidate. I mean, it's nice and all to know Ted Danson is still alive, but, really? (As a related aside, is it just me, or does the "individuals" section of Martin O'Malley's list seem totally desperate?) Second, JaskaPDX, it would be helpful if, instead of re-reverting when people disagree, that you go to the article's talk page and explain your reasoning. Hopefully other interested people will be willing to fairly evaluate your concerns, and you theirs. Resolute15:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. In fact, I did enter this in the talk section of that article, but it was promptly ignored and the poorly cited names were again published. It's clear, and you make the case with the Ted Danson entry, that the Clinton supporters are trying to drown out the other candidates by sheer volume, sources be damned. Luck you, I wish we had the Canadian political process; this is really ridiculousJaskaPDX (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. I made no statements regarding the actions of "Clinton supporters". I used Danson merely as an obvious example of "why should anyone care what they think?" from the list. Mia Farrow would have been an equally valid example. Resolute15:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, that isn't my intention. I don't want to suggest that this was your position - it most certainly was not. I am extrapolating what you said about Danson and why, I believe, him and so many other celebrities are included in this article. The important thing, it seems, is that the list of endorsements looks extensive. In that respect, I believe that's what the Clinton supporters are up to which is why they simply copy/paste Congressional names from a citation without sources. I side with you on the relevancy of celebrity endorsement, but I know some others may have a differing opinion so I'll let someone else make that decision. Again, sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. Not my intention whatsoever. JaskaPDX (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update JaskaPDX has again removed dozens of endorsements from the article titled "Here are the senators who have already endorsed Hillary Clinton" here. I agree that the page is a bit oddball but it's a legitimate page that's part of every US election cycle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I would like JaskaPDX to explain that edit (I don't see any evidence that this has been discussed at either JaskaPDX's Talk page, or at the Talk page of the article). It looks to me like all of the removed endorsements were sourced. I suppose a justification for removing them might be if they came from a WP:Primary source. Otherwise, I can't see how the removal of sourced content like that is justified... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That CNN article is not a primary source of endorsements and should therefore not count as a legitimate source for endorsements. It was clearly established in the talk page of the article that the women cited in the article did NOT endorse Clinton, but rather in a PRIVATE card urged her to run in the elections. Nitroxium (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN article in question is here. If what you say is true, can you produce a counter-source to buttress your claims that these aren't "real" endorsements?... Anything short of that, and this source looks legit to me as a reference to include those names in the list. (Full disclosure here: Very few people care less about this primary than I do, so I literally don't have a "horse" in this race, and am simply looking at the sources here...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great – you can probably knock Warren out of the list with that. But what you've put here would not even knock Boxer out of the list – to any objective eye, what Boxer said sounds like an endorsement. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The important part is that she says she can't speak for others, which indicates that not all other women are endorsing her. You are trying to legitimize an untrustworthy source by telling me to look for specific articles that contradict it on every single name. I have shown you some proof as to why that article isn't a good source, let's stop the immature discussion and get onto solutions. For one, it would be much better if we used direct sources of each person/group's endorsements instead of an indirect source like that CNN article. Other than that, it would be great if we followed the rules established for the Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Endorsement_RulesNitroxium (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You have in no way shown that the CNN source is "untrustworthy" in toto (far from it, in my view); what you have maybe shown is that the CNN is "sloppy" in some of the particulars. That doesn't rule it out as a source, in my view. What it likely shows is those in CNN's list may need a second confirmatory source (or possibly a second source showing where the CNN source might be erroneous in a particular instance here and there)... Basically, the CNN source should stand unless another source can be produced to show where it's in error. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It mixes endorsements with non-endorsements and in itself does not hold as a verifiable source. The fact that it would need a second source to confirm means we could just use that second source as the only source anyways. If CNN suddenly starts saying that a house representative is endorsing Clinton in that article, then you would be asking for anyone who doubts it to find an article about that same representative saying something AGAINST Clinton which is not likely. This article should not be used. Nitroxium (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You were much more concise and more diplomatic but 100% correct. I visited this page just as a curiosity and I sensed right away that something was wrong when I had to scroll all those names to see the other candidates. It was strange because I've only read about a handful of individuals making public pronouncements in Hillary's favor. Further, there were names on there that I know for a fact wouldn't be backing Hillary if this race gets close. And therein lies the root of the problem. This page creates the false impression that the Democratic Party is a monolith and everyone is united behind one candidate. It not only tilts this page in one person's direction, but it serves to dissuade voting by making that individual look like the presumptive nominee. JaskaPDX (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think human beings have enough capability to spot BS when they see it. Political endorsements are public events. The whole point of a political endorsement is to get that information out to as many voters as possible. If these were truly endorsements, you wouldn't need to source them from a citation without detail. Use some common sense. Are you suggesting that I need to go out and find a published source that says Rep. (flll in the blank) doesn't support Hillary? Give it up.JaskaPDX (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, really? So no one has ever endorse a candidate with just a printed press release? I'm must be misremembering all the zillions of times that has happened before... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to use that press release as the citation. That would be fine. This is the entire point I'm trying to make. Press releases from a Congressional office is exactly the sort of material that would qualify as a proper endorsement. Or are you suggesting that a Congressperson would hand CNN a printed copy without making that release available in electronic form on their website or social media pages? JaskaPDX (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is garbage and why are you removing the AfL CIO from Sanders? The Hillary campaigners are pathetic. Reddit has already been informed, we will not sit back and watch the right wing smearing continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.34.210 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that far from "heading a fundraiser for Hillary" or "endorsing Hillary to run" sourced to a CNN article titled "Here are the senators who have already endorsed Hillary Clinton" does not mean they endorse her. It's just about grinding down every single link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straight from the horse's mouth:
We call on the AFL-CIO, union members and working people everywhere to unite behind Bernie Sanders and elect the President America's workers desperately need...The South Carolina AFL-CIO Executive Board strongly urges the AFL-CIOto support Bernie Sanders 2016 and his campaign to become the nominee of the Democratic Party for president
I really don't think you want to go down the "CNN is not a Reliable source" road – I really don't think that'll go well for you... If you want to prove your case, you're going to have to get your own reliable sources to counter whatever the sources you don't like are saying. That's the only path for you here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When a CNN article doesn't have any sources to back it up, we can call BS. There are no footnotes or references to any of these endorsements and I think it's pretty obvious that, at the very least, the female "endorsements" were anything but. Regardless, I don't need a source that says "Representative X does not endorse a particular candidate when the citation used for said endorsement is not sourced itself and was published weeks before other candidates even launched their campaigns. At some point, common sense must prevail.JaskaPDX (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're hilarious. The AFL-CIO discussion belongs here. I've explained my reasoning there. I'm not going to re-hash the fact that they just asked for an endorsement to be done by the full AFL-CIO which was rejected. At this section, I note that you removed Senator Durbin, who the CNN article reported had "Headlined a June 2014 fundraiser organized by Ready for Hillary", and linked directly to [106] which states "Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has added himself to the long list of high-profile Hillary Clinton presidential bid supporters" which I find to mean an endorsement. You ignore the source it links to and have yet to explain on what basis does headlining a fundraiser for someone's campaign isn't evidence that they endorse the candidate (beyond just because you don't think CNN is a reliable source and your failure to actually the links contained within the article). As I said before, it's clearly about dancing around so you can grind away every link to the candidates you don't like so your guy looks better. Precisely what we don't need here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already written and apologized that I removed him accidentally. It was an easy mistake to make considering his name was buried between 20 others that had no such citation. You're going to have to try better than that. And BTW, your ALF-CIO bit makes absolutely no sense. If that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is. Words have meaning and the AFL-CIO sent this out in a press release, about as official as it gets. And again, you are knocking me while continuing to refer to an article that wasn't sourced itself. Just because CNN appears on the URL doesn't make it a good piece of journalism. Your rubbish about grinding away at a candidate is exactly what is wrong with the political process. That is, people who see this as some sort of game pitting two people against each other, a soap opera. This is not what our democracy is supposed to be about. CNN cheapens it with irresponsible journalism and it seems we have a handful of people that aren't able to be intellectually honest enough to recognize that this particular article has serious flaws. This isn't a game, these elections, and I'm tired of it getting referred to in ways like grinding away at the other candidate. If Clinton has all these endorsements, then the source material shouldn't be had to find. She doesn't and that is why her supporters, or whomever put this up, didn't take one look at this and go elsewhere. Either they were completely lazy and didn't bother to check if any of that was true or they did check, found nothing, and tried to use this as a credible citation. JaskaPDX (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're ridiculous. A portion of the AFL-CIO says (via a press release from the campaign) they encourage the main AFL-CIO to endorse Sanders (because they can't endorse him themselves) and the main AFL-CIO says the South Carolina one can't, they take it back and the AFL-CIO doesn't endorse either candidate (which makes sense since they aren't going to turn before the primary is finished) but you want to include that as an endorsement of Sanders somehow while a CNN article titled "Senators who endorse Hillary Clinton" includes a mention of Durbin, states that Durbin is leading fundraisers for her and links to other articles describing him as a support and you still claim that the article is came from is not a reliable sources and (falsely) that it didn't include any source/links to other articles and that we shouldn't include those anyways since they endorsed her before she officially ran and that's only endorsements to run for President not actual endorsements to be President and so on. Again, there's a talk page for a reason so argue it there not here. Since you removed the entire CNN article under at least one false premises, do you care to go back and put the ones you'll agree with or do I have to hunt down each name one by one only to have you remove them all again and refuse to actually discuss them until you're cornered about it? You're either here honestly to report on the endorsements or an advocate who doesn't belong here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for you, everyone thinks the article is not sourced well. And don't fret, I'll be taking some time and looking through each and every one.JaskaPDX (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange concentration of new accounts on new, obscure article
Yesterday I blocked StevePhoenixAZ (talk·contribs) for being a spam-only account (inserting links to a commercial sites like this). One of the articles they had edited was Faur București, which was created on 6 June. I cleaned up this article as it was of interest (being football-related), but today I happened to check the edit history and spotted some rather odd goings-on. Despite being only two weeks old and very obscure, it has been edited by numerous new accounts – over 20 so far – with many of them using similar edit summaries ("grammar" is repeated often). One (DanielHolmes01 (talk·contribs)) has already been blocked by another admin for being a vandalism-only account, and some others have indulged in vandalism. However, some have also been positively productive. I can't really work out what's going on here. Is it an article that's been picked as some kind of training ground for a sockfarm of some kind? Other thoughts/views would be appreciated. Cheers, Number5710:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I jsut extended the bloock of User:J0eg0d. I did so primarily becauase of [107] this edit, which includes an unsupported accusation of socking. As that is what the current block is for, this seemed worth noting. Moreover, the edit includes a particualrly gross personal attack ("kapo" with a link to make the attack crystal clear to anyone who might miss it). In response to notification that this edit was improper here, and some further back-and-forth, User:J0eg0d made what seems to have been a final response here. As the previous blocking admin, I felt this was far out of line. I notifed the user of the block at [108] and in the subsequent edit. As this has considerable drama potential, I ask for one or more uninvolved admins, or the community at large, to review my block. DES(talk)12:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-semitic remark alone has earned him an indef block, I think. It's fairly clear that J0eg0d is WP:NOTHERE. He's simply going to escalate his behavior until he gets inevitably banned anyway, then go play martyr to his cheering fans on various Reddit forums dedicated to gaming Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is an admin board, so I'm not sure whether or not I should respond, I come here to read the different disputes as a way to learn how (and how not to) behave/respond to certain circumstances. Again, not sure that I have a voice here, but DES did request the community's response, so I took a look. And having taken that look, I think it's clear that this individual has deep-rooted issues in dealing with the constraints that are put on editors in an effort to make this project more legitimate. We are similar in that we joined Wikipedia years ago (him in 2005, me in 2009), but did not become active until relatively recently (him this year, me at the end of 2013). However, his recent activity looks to be growing more antagonistic in a geometric fashion. I'm actually surprised at the restraint of only extending the block a single week. But hopefully when he comes back he'll have calmed down. Onel5969TT me13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
J0eg0d isn't here to build an encyclopedia and never has been. He's an antagonistic user whose actions here have been odious, all amplified by his continual off-wiki activities. I for one do not think that the project will be affected one whit - positively or negatively - by his absence.--Jorm (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however many days the personal attack contributes to the block extension, but decrease it by however many days the socking accusation contributes. The accusation of socking was not made “without any evidence”: The accusation mentions that the IP address matches the area of where the Wikipedia user has admitted to reside. For better or worse, people have clearly been banned under WP:DUCK for even less, so this shouldn't be sanctioned as a spurious accusation when it empirically exceeds evidence thresholds for taking action against socks. So dock from the ban extension however many days the accusation contributes. I hope all character attacks no matter how subtle are equally sanctioned going forward. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed his talk page access for continuing the personal attacks after the block. To be honest, an indef block might be justified at this point, but I've held off on that for now since an AE is open. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel I've actually upped the block to indef. They may appeal to UTRS or BASC. DESiegel if you disagree with my change to your block parameters please feel free to undo without consulting me, but please do leave a comment here explaining why. Thanks... Zad6819:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
I'd like to take a moment here, if I may, to ponder the human cost of these episodes and to ask whether it can be reduced. On the one hand, we have the troubles inflicted on this editor's targets, of whom I am not the least, and I can't say I've enjoyed the vituperation, the mud-slinging, the creepy stuff on-Wiki about my company’s offices, the IP-vandals travelling in the wake, the anti-Semitism. And of course there's the endless trouble it takes to construct, argue, and then to decide cases against editors of this ilk -- time that could better be spent on better things.
But I'd particularly urge reflection on the damage to the editors themselves. We’ve seen this repeatedly at Gamergate: newly-recruited editors plunge headlong into the fray and then, over a span of days or weeks, deteriorate until the decision to block or ban them is inescapable. The trajectory is familiar, but it consumes dozens, even hundreds of hours, of hard and unrewarding work and can leave scars across the encyclopedia.
It also, clearly, takes a heavy toll on the Gamergate editor. Read this editor's posts over the last week or two, looking not for violations but simply thinking about their state of mind. Wouldn’t things have been better for all -- including the editor himself -- if all this could have been stopped sooner? Could brakes have been applied to prevent or cushion the denouement? AE and AN/I are currently inclined to look for smoking guns, and so we await the ultimate explosion. I don’t know the solution, but I do wish we could both avoid the disruption and also avoid the pain and broken crockery. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo Dr. Bernstien's sentiments: once and for all we must solve this gamergate problem. They're a blight on wikipedia and a threat to our culture of collaboration. 166.173.251.170 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the "problem" lies entirely with a massive attack of cultish IPs whose ministry consists of breaching experiment after breaching experiment to try and whittle down any opposing culture clubs from their hateful Eden. I would argue that their constantly crossing the river is because they believe we would lose any war of attrition with them. They fancy themselves masters of puppets. I wonder how Reddit would react when we pointed their higher-ups to the Arbitration case and every event since then? After all, they have no love lost for Reddit's master. —Jeremyv^_^vBori!17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Systems are already in place to deal with the situation. Insisting more be done 'for the sake of the editor' sounds as disingenuous as I'm sure it was implied. Thorrand (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't asking anything. Sometimes when someone gets too invested in a topic, the best thing for them to do is back away. Saying Wikipedia is in any way responsible for the editors personal editing habits seems like an attempt to absolve individuals of personal responsibility. Respect WP:OWN and it will help to avoid WP:REICHSTAG. It's certainly not only gamergate editors who fall victim to that. Thorrand (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this conversation be closed / hatted. The proceeding in AN/I it relates to has ended so this is WP:FORUM and an unproductive opportunity for incivility. I do not direct that at any particular viewpoint - but all of them. Does anyone object if I hat it? Vordrak (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Continously disruptive editing. The user refuses to discuss in a civil manner or contribute to the project.
Without discussion, editing the infobox of Balšić noble family, changing the contemporary and historiographical view of the family (notability), that instead of Serbian, they were Albanian. There is a section regarding theories on their origin, and a discussion at the talk page.
Without discussion, editing the introduction of Souliotes, changing the contemporary and historiographical view of the tribe (notability), that instead of Greek, they were Albanian. There is a section regarding theories on their origin, and a discussion at the talk page. Rolandi+ opened a dispute discussion about the article, which is very confusing.
I was new here (now I have 4 days here) so I didn't know that I had to use the talk pages.After I was warned , I have ALWAYS used the talk pages of the articles or user's talk pages.(you can see that).After I was informed,I haven't edit anything at "Balsic family"
"Souliotes" (I have used only the talk page after that.Actually without consensus at the talk page,Zoupan deleted from the "Souliotes" some informations +references that were on the article since a long time---I have asked for independent help at the relevant notice board. )
Zoupan also claimed "8,000–12,000" here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Serbs .When I asked him to provide references ,he provided some references that didn't say the same thing he claimed (so he lied with his references).
He says that I deleted a "referenced" source.I used the talk page to explain him that the used reference was not serious (so it is not reliable).The web page referred to kosovo as "Kosovo +Metohija" which is not its official name.The most important thing that makes it clear that it is not a serious media are the comments.There are many nacionalist comments (that a serious+reliable media doesn't allow ) such as "Ramush Haradinaj+Hashim Thaci are killers etc "/ "we will never return to Kosovo dialogue" etc.
After we hadn't an agreement about "Balsic family " and "Kosovo serbs" ,he started claiming at the Souliotes' talk page that my references weren't correct.He wanted from me to answear his questions (he made these things only to "revenge" against me as I didn't have the same thoughts with him about some serbian related informations.).He also said that he had references where he based his claims.I asked him twice to provide his references at the talk page but he didn't (he lied again).Also he said to me that he would made edits at some albanian related pages (about the albanian nobility--He obviously wanted only to "revenge" ).---For all of these please see our talk pages and the mentioned articles' talk pages.
As for my "inappropriate comments" I am ready to be more carefull in the future.
He also said that he believes I am a sockpuppet.Actually ,he can investigate about that.Albert Bikaj is obviously "albanian" so it's normal for two albanians to edit albanian related pages.I am sure that Zoupan is the "same" person with other serb editors based on scope,spellings and punctuation marks.As I said :Zoupan thinks I am a sockpuppet and he can investigate about that.
Rolandi+ (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar and avenger? Okay. Please do take a look at the talk pages, because this is getting tiresome. Note that the user has made 8 edits to the above comment, with one timestamp.--Zoupan20:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I did 8 edits to the above comment, with one timestamp.However ,this doesn't mean that my words aren't true about you.As I said the other editors can see our talk pages and the mentioned articles' talk pages.And don't continue adding "Ottoman greeks" at the souliotes' article without our consensus .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This disruptive pattern is still in full motion, while blind reverting appears a typical strategy for the promotion of a national pov. I've left a last warning in Rolandi's talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP inserting original research beyond level 4 warnings
KWW and The Rambling Man had been engaged in an edit war on the Phillip Seymour Hoffman awards page, TRM adding awards and then coming back to add references and KWW removing everything not well referenced at time of addition. Neither was following adequate policy to discuss disputed changes. It escalated on their respective talk pages and finished with KWW blocking TRM for edit warring, an obvious involved block.
Due to a combination of the edit warring and the disruptive discussion and the involved block I have blocked KWW for 72 hrs. I would like to request other admins and editors review the situation writ large and in particular both blocks. I believe mine was a necessary stop to disruptive activity however others may not see it that way. Any admin consensus here to unblock may be acted upon with my blessings without specifically asking me first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only article talk page contribution by The Rambling Man is a single paragraph of ad hominem. The bigger problem is KWW blocking him, which is arguably a textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED, and precisely what the policy is there to prevent. The rationale was "Violations of the Biographies of living persons" which would theoretically be an exception, but I don't see how lists of awards would qualify, nor can I conceive that the majority of admin would agree, per the exceptions. TRM's actions are a different story, and the edit warring could have been handled here or by any uninvolved admin. Not sure what to do there. The block duration is fine, but the rationale is wrong, as is the blocking party. There isn't much we can do at ANI about that, and the loss of RFC/U means ARB is the only possible venue to even hear the case. That is where it needs to be. Either way, I think you did the right thing with what you had to work with, George. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For uncontentious facts, it's better to use {{cn}}, even on a BLP. Removing very-likely-true-and-harmless-if-mistaken facts is really not protecting anyone from anything, which is the main purpose of BLP policy; BLP isn't a tool in a game of Nomic. There's no justification to wield the BLP Hammer here. This wholesale removal of facts, which editors were in the process of sourcing, serves no purpose. Jesus, just give them a couple of days to source everything. Save the BLP card for when it's really needed, like when someone's reputation is at stake. Using it as an ace in the hole here devaluesWP:BLP - makes it less likely to be respected in the future as a legitimate rationale.
As for the blocks: Kww's was way out of order, and I was a keystroke away from undoing it when I saw Kww had been blocked too, and I (uncharacteristically) decided to not to act unilaterally once I saw it was getting more complicated. He was "involved", and (this is an aside, not my main argument) Philip Seymour Hoffman is not a BLP. His death a year and a half ago doesn't count as "recent". So if nothing else, Kww was involved in an edit war and was using BLP as a justification when it wasn't. And blocked the person he was in a non-BLP dispute with.
I'd strongly suggest both be unblocked so they can participate in the discussion here. Both were handling this suboptimally, but if I have to choose sides, Kww's behavior here was shameful, while TRM's was just dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly seems to be the textbook definition on an involved block; I don't see any way in which BLP issues are even close to excusing it. An unblock for TRM, at least, is in order; I think I'm going to go do that. Unblocking Kww to participate makes sense, I suppose. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KWW was on the correct side of policy until the decision to use admin tools when involved in a content dispute. It would have been better to bring TRM's behaviour to public scrutiny. I think neither party comes out well in the end, I suggest we let the blocks expire(no objection to unblocking for the purposes of participating in this discussion of course). I think that George's block was reasonable given the circumstances. Chillum22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking both seems sensible. Neither user has covered themselves in glory here, but the big concern for me is Kww's clearly involved block. Might be the sort of thing ArbCom needs to sort out. Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM has been unblocked. I think it's only fair that Kww also be unblocked so that both can contribute here. Unblocking one and not the other isn't going to help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, no different than I would have treated any other editor that insisted on edit-warring unsourced material into a BLP. TRM's experience level doesn't give him special privileges in that regard.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(by promptly I mean like, tomorrow IF there's no progress on meaningful discussion... I don't mean, drop everything in your life and bring me a shrubbery right now. Sorry if I left that impression...) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using your example, you deleting sections of what he was working on just three minutes after his last edit [110], which was just the first of seven edits deleting wholesale the awards. He was actively working on and sourcing them when you did this.
I would also note that WP:BLP is meant to protect living persons from negative material about them, it isn't a catch all for any content whatsoever in an article about them. Adding an prestigious award may or may not be correct, but it isn't what BLP was designed to "protect" them from, so claiming an exception to 3RR isn't really valid here. And that makes you WP:INVOLVED, even if not intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK,
This isn't a content dispute. It began as intentional policy violations by TRM, policy violations that he has never acknowledged and shows no sign of understanding.
As to the contention that TRM was somehow justified: no. His "last edit" was a wholesale restoration of unsourced material. That's not in line with either the letter or spirit of either WP:V or WP:BLP: the citation had to be in place when he restored the material, not at some unspecified time after. At the time he began disrupting List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman, it's not clear that he had found a single acceptable source.
BLP is intended to prevent inaccurate material about living people. Both unsourced praise and unsourced criticism fall under it. The notion that the material has to be malevolent is inaccurate. From the nutshell: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLP clearly and unambiguously applies to the material I had removed and TRM was inserting. Winning an award is a contentious item, as miscrediting the award does do harm to the person that actually won.
WP:INVOLVED shouldn't apply here, because of the "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area" applies. I don't have any involvement with TRM, and my involvement with the area is strictly administrative: I remove material that isn't sourced sufficiently to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:V. As for Hoffman being covered by WP:BLP, there's legitimate dispute there: I had thought the time limit was two years, but I see that it is phrased more softly than that, with the expiration coming between 6 months and 2 years, depending on nebulous factors. However, as the timeline shows, TRM was blocked for disrupting the Hugh Jackman article: no nebulosity there at all.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing unsourced material is the act of an editor, not an admin. Thus, this was a content dispute, and so you were involved. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing BLP violations isn't acting in an administrative capacity? That's an interesting assertion, but not one that I think would have wide support.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting one's actions are "removing BLP violations" is not a trump card that makes your actions outside of scrutiny. The actual action should actually be "removing BLP violations". Your claim of them as such is not enough to make it so. If you want to know whether or not they were clear BLP violations, read this discussion for consensus. --Jayron3203:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WK, if the BLP is invoked, the implication is that it's not a content dispute, and I believe we have to take the admin at good faith (Jayron, whether something is a BLP violation or not is frequently up for debate). Part of protecting the BLP is protecting the protectors. That's not to say that Kww's invocation of the BLP here was reasonable; I have no opinion on that right now, but AGF should extend to these cases. If an admin in all honesty makes a reasonable claim that they are protecting the BLP, we should accept that. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: To the extent of blocking the other party in a dispute? No, I don't think I agree. I could see the normal exception in WP:INVOLVED being invoked (i.e. straightforward case...obvious action...any reasonable admin would have [done] the same) in such a case, which as always is used at one's peril, but I don't think that invoking a BLP gives one a blanket exception to the policy against involved blocks; that's too slippery a slope. The ability to judge a situation dispassionately is too often the first thing to go in a dispute, and blocks specifically are too powerful a tool to be used in its possible absence. (Keep in mind that I am talking about only Kww's block of TRM here, not any other aspect of the situation.) Other admin tools, like deletion or page protection, might be a different story. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, User:Writ Keeper, I wasn't talking about the block. I haven't read everything here yet, much less followed the diffs, but that block smells bad a mile away. I mean, most blocks stink, of course, but if one makes a block like this, even when uninvolved (and I have not yet measures, let alone judged Kww's supposed involvement here), it should be a reasonably crystal-clear BLP violation, not some business about getting awards or someone putting them in one article and thus denying them of another subject, or something like that. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Either ArbCom both, or ArbCom neither, here. I lean in the direction of "ArbCom" neither, as this is mostly silliness, not malevolence... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, ArbCom is invoked here for alleged abuse of tools, which, if I understand it correctly, applies only to one of the two. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was. I had forgotten that case: Cwobeel was AE-blocked for behaving precisely and exactly as TRM was doing.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That entire thread at AE is about how it is no big deal, followed by a week long block. Have we long our collective minds? Utterly overkill, and if actually enforced evenly, we would be blocking hundreds of people per day, none with any intent of malice. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of this is prevented by filter 661, which prevents a very large subset of these edits from occurring in the first place. There are leaks, but generally the only time it becomes a problem is when someone edit-wars to preserve the BLP violations that have accumulated in an existing awards article. The filter was the only solution I could come up with that corrected the problem without creating these tempests.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As quoted above from BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately" (emphasis added.) Enlighten me, just how was this content "Contentious"? I understand that not all contentious content is negative (although BLP is most often cited in connection with negative content), but it can't reasonably mean "all content". What is being defined as "Contentious" here? DES(talk)23:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Miscredited material damages the person that legitimately won the award. How do we ensure that material isn't miscredited? Citations to reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. By that standard, pretty much all content in a BLP is "contentious" as it could always indirectly affect someone if it is inaccurate. I think there needs to be a good faith belief that it is actually incorrect or likely to be incorrect, or else a request for sources that has not been responded to for a significant length of time, before this sort of BLP removal applies to not obviously contentious content. DES(talk)00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious involved block by KWW, but the worst part is the wikilawyering above about how WP:INVOLVED should not apply here... which sounds like "I'm ready to do it again". Right or wrong he was about the contents of the edit warring(s), his interpretation of WP:INVOLVED boundaries is clearly silly nonsense. Kww should drop the stick and recognize he was patently wrong, otherwise that's probably stuff for Arbcom. Cavarrone00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of BLP our verifiability policy is clear about burden, but that is hardly the point. You were involved in a dispute over content, it was your edits that were being reverted. Another admin should have made the call. Chillum00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a pound of flesh would you be happy with a recognition of error and a promise to not repeat it? I would. Chillum00:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Between the bizarre interpretation of BLP ("it's contentious because I say it's contentious", seems to be the flavour) blocking another admin in breach of involved and the self-righteous issue-avoiding responses on the topic, I've lost a fair whack of faith in KWW and I'm not entirely sure that recognition of error and promises not to repeat (even if forthcoming, never mind the grovelling apology that's due) will restore it. --Dweller (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really prepared to state that removing BLP violations creates involvement? Given the AE decision, the notion that the edits weren't BLP violations don't hold water. We certainly don't believe that admins that revert and remove vandalism become involved as a result, so I do not see why BLP violation would be treated differently.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that collectively, we are resorting to blocks way to quick to start with (and with much too cavalier an attitude about it), plus the involvement, plus the lack of acknowledgement. You can't promise to not repeat what you don't claim to understand or be guilty of. At least not sincerely. Maybe we need to sleep on it, but this isn't a singular or trivial issue in my eyes. At the very least, I want more clarity than an apology can offer. I'm I really expected to block someone for adding back an award on a BLP? If not, where is the consistency? Dennis Brown - 2¢00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, Dennis, if you notice people inserting unsourced material into BLPs, I expect you to remove it. If editors persist in inserting the material without providing citations, I expect you to block them for doing so.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comparison with the earlier AE - I think it's clear that Cwobeel was not making an effort to put in generally reliable sources on articles and did this repeatedly over months without fixing things. TRM did by the time he was done with (at least the Hoffman one) put in a long list including The Guardian, Bafta, the Golden Globes, NY Times, film critics groups who issue awards, etc. That result appears to me to match our community expectations and policies on source reliability and coverage. Even if we grant you the "contentious material" point, which I do not, refusing to allow sufficient time to put in reliable sources which one is in fact doing is the problem. The "immediately" does not reasonably mean "without exception and without allowing someone any time whatsoever to source something".
You appear to be asserting that it does, and if that's really going to be your final position, then this will end up at Arbcom. Much less the speed of escalation or the block involvement. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(uninvolved non admin) Its a shame, and the actions here, edit warring by both, and and an involved block and then twisting policy to try and sweep it under a rug are far from what should be expected from admins. They should be examples of good behaviour not bad. Definitely an ARBCOM case in the making. Actions like this are why some question admin actions and put a mark on all admins. AlbinoFerret00:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make absolutely clear, I AM asserting that the edits were not a violation of BLP per the prior AE finding, prior WP history and community expectations. The prior AE was regarding ongoing patterns of edits that were never adequately sourced, not edits which were in the process of being adequately sourced in a prompt and ongoing manner. Cwobeel never fixed the problem. TRM was fixing the problem with what clearly appears to be a correct result (to me), and you allowed him no room to do so. Your rules and prior case interpretation are evidently so literal that your judgement is suspect. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we're in the practice of making things absolutely clear, I'm asserting that the sourcing needs to be provided prior to the restoration. None of this storm would have occurred if TRM had followed the basics of WP:V, much less WP:BLP, by restoring the material after he had found sources to substantiate it. His repeated insertions of IMDB, his edit warring over individual items that were not covered by his new sources while not providing citations, his repeated insults and attacks, all made it clear that he had no intention of abiding by our fundamental sourcing policies. If you can excuse this misbehaviour, I will point at your judgement as being suspect. This was, and remains, a case of an editor intentionally violating WP:BLP and WP:V.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go back to the Hoffman article. As it stands, when he was done, please tell me if you believe that the end result of his editing work was a standards compliant sourced article or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see: he reverted in a set of unsourced awards and as of now, he has never introduced a source that substantiates that material, so no. There are numerous other awards in the "Film Critics Award" and "Miscellaneous Awards" sections that have no sources, such as the IGN awards, Gransito awards, Gold Derby awards, the International Online Film Critic award, the Venice Volpi cup, the Utah Film Critics awards, and more. Have you been defending his edits without checking to make certain that the sources he supplied actually substantiated his edits? That's the point: he restored challenged material without providing any substantiating sources, in violation of WP:V, much less WP:BLP. He provided sources that substantiated about half the article, and then tried to claim he was done.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The specifics of what's still not sourced adequately to your or policy satisfaction makes for a perfectly good article or user talk page discussion.
The question of whether his "done" point is good enough makes for another one.
The point is, you have now acknowledged that at least half of what he restored now *is* adequately sourced. You repeatedly acted in ways which attempted to frustrate giving him enough space and time to do at least that much sourcing and improvement work.
The point also is, whether the material is justifiably describable as controversial or as normal content (which, though needing correct sourcing, would not require immediate draconian action, much less edit warring).
The point also is, whether it is reasonable to read the policy or prior precedent in such a manner that prior fixes of the sourcing problems are required before re-adding material in general.
The point nearly finally is, whether any of this was suitably serious of a violation to edit war over, act in an escalating confrontational manner in general, issue warnings and finally a block over, versus being something which should have been fixed in the normal way of things with discussion. In other words, was it abusive behavior or merely imperfect editing.
And lastly, whether the block was involved or not.
As I said elsewhere, TRM could have fixed this by acting differently. That's not the question. The questions are whether he actually edit warred (probably), introduced false or bad or controversial material by normal standards of controversy (probably not), introduced not yet sourced material (true), eventually corrected much of the lack of sourcing (you have yourself admitted, at least half of it he did). This picture, from a normal non-involved viewpoint, does not argue that edit warring to stop him, warning him, or blocking him were good choices, much less policy supported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since his material about Vancouver contradicts the only source that he provided about Vancouver, I would say that he did probably introduce false material. I reverted obvious and intentional violations of our sourcing policies that were being accompanied by abusive edit summaries and talk page comments that made it clear that he had no intention of complying with them. As for whether his "done" point is "good enough", no, that is not a point of discussion. The material had been challenged. He had restored it against WP:BURDEN, and has not found references that support it. There is no policy-based argument for keeping such material. Sourcing about "half" of one's edits while reverting against both WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN is not some kind of success marker: it's a sign of absolute and abject failure to comply with WP:V, especially given that the article he was eventually blocked for was unequivocally a BLP.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, you have a such a monumentally WP:IDONTHEARYOU attitdue to all this, that I am staggered as to how you became an admin in the first place. This is not the first place that you have shown such an inflexible and arrogant stance, while hiding behind your interpretation of rules that everyone else sees differently. However you try and twist things, you were WP:INVOLVED. That's not the sign of good admin, but it is somthing that is a massive red flag to all. Sadly I suspect you'll dodge an ArbCom bullet in this instance, but unless you start changing your approach and attitude, your admin days will be severly numbered. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is not surprising in the least. Recently, an ArbCom case was filed against Kww and I added to it, warning the committee that I had seen problems in Kww's behavior. He seems to assume his biases are neutral POV, and therefore, everyone who disagrees with him is breaking policy. So edit warring is restoring an encyclopedia against disruptive editors, and it doesn't matter to be civil towards them because they're second class Wikipedians. Edit warring, disruption, incivility, all in the name of preserving the encyclopedia, of course. So it comes as no surprise to me that he edit warred here and abused his tools, it wasn't hard to see this coming. LesVegas (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So we're just going to ignore the elephant in the room? It takes two to tango, and this wasn't the isolated actions of a single Admin. Was Kww blameless or "innocent" here? Heck no! But I've seen enough from The Rambling Man to have concerns on that end as well. Again, if this goes to ArbCom, the actions of both Admins should be examined here. If this turns into a "let's lynch Kww" (who, in my experience, I've found to be one of the better Admins at smoking out socks and vandals), I'll swiftly be joining the camp whove lost confidence in the Admin corps in general. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man could have de-escalated or proposed sources on talk or could have edited sources into a sandbox version or several other approaches. I think that those are obvious and givens. That said; "it takes two to tango" does not mean that both parties actually did something worthy of an arbcom case. I think looking at both in the incident would be unavoidable, but the amount of button pushing seemed asymmetrical. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All he had to do was not violate WP:V by restoring challenged material without providing an inline citation that supported the material he had provided, and especially not do it with respect to BLPs. That's not some major expectation that is beyond his capacity. As it stands, many of the claims in the article still aren't supported by citations.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you view it in isolation, and ignore the pattern of behavior... Anyway, I can already tell this isn't going to end well. For the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Edit conflict with several) (Following up Dennis's post of 23:08). I agree with Dennis that this looks like WP:CRYBLP rather than a valid BLP issue. Kww also described the reversions on the PSH list as challenging the list's veracity[111] which is obviously an editorial choice (thus, involvement), though he also considered the PSH award list edits to also be under BLP[112]. A few seconds with a search engine was enough to verify several of the awards, so this all comes across to me as Kww trying to make a POINT (one that in my opinion didn't need to be made). PSH's more important awards are also already listed and cited in the main PSH biography article, which as an FA has presumably been carefully vetted, also deflating the BLP argument if the disputed awards were the relatively minor ones. Anyway, wiping out the whole list was excessive. I'll leave aside the block issue for now, but at minimum I see battleground conduct backed by bureaucratic overzealousness and/or seriously lousy editing judgment here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww have you lost your mind?? These are famous actors who win oodles of awards, much of which can be verified with some digging. Saying this is contentious is really pushing it to justify edit-warring while involved. This behaviour is extremely punitive to all content-editors and undermines what's left of the egalitarian nature of this place. You could have looked and found sources but your nose was out of joint so you turned it into a battleground. If we apply this behaviour across the 'pedia, we'd have no editors. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I belive it's true that an arbitratable issue is involved, but I don't believe it's hopeless than KWW can be shown the error of his ways through discussion. We should only file cases we can't deal with otherwise. We're not there yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was normal edit warring in the sense of trying to push an opinion about the events described in the article. It seems to have been more about imposing an absolutist approach to Wikipedia policy enforcement (WP:BURO) for its own sake, in a situation where it wasn't helpful in the slightest. It would be great if Kww could lighten up about this, and realize that Wikipedia policies are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the multiple people who note the WP:INVOLVED nature of this. Whether or not TRM needed to be blocked for edit warring or not is now irrelevant. If he did, KWW needed only reporting him at WP:ANEW. There's hundreds of active admins, someone would have taken care of it. Admins should not use their tools when interacting with people whom they are in an active dispute. This is a textbook case of an involved block. It may or may not have even been a bad block, but that's now irrelevant. I'm not sure any firm action needs to be taken against KWW, except WP:TROUT and to log this in our collective personal memories incase this becomes a pattern, though. It was a bad action, but I don't see evidence that it was more than a singular, isolated bad action, and I don't believe we need to arbitrate or demand resignation or anything else like that. We don't even need an apology, an allocution, an admission or anything like that. It'd be nice, but really what we need is just to all know that KWW has done this once, and if it becomes a pattern, act later. It's documented, it's almost universally agreed to be a bad thing, and we should move on and just keep an eye open for further problems. --Jayron3201:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin is unable to understand when a block is legitimate or not, when WP:INVOLVED applies and how to proceed in case of content disputes and edit warring, he is unfit to use the block buttons. Competence is required, let alone measure and common sense. And the major issue is not the block, but the persistence by KWW to justify it through a biased interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. So far, his responses read like "I'm ready to do everything I did again", which is unacceptable. Cavarrone01:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. People say stupid shit in the middle of an argument all the time. Have they actually used their tools inappropriately after everyone has told them it was inappropriate? If they haven't, we can chalk it all up to "people saying stupid shit when they are angry". If they DO use their tools inappropriately again, then we have something to work on. But I generally tend to ignore the bullshit people yell when they are pissed, because it is meaningless. --Jayron3201:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The protection war with Philippe a while back[113] didn't involve blocking anyone but it did involve tools, and resulted in an arbcom admonition. The tool use seems like a technicality in both cases though. The issue as I see it is poor judgement combined with an overbearing attitude. I wish he would use a much different approach. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Jayron, if you believe I am writing this way because I am angry, you are only partially right. I am a little torqued, but it is primarily because people seem to be treating this as a content dispute, and that's primarily because of TRM's involvement. WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP, combined with a supporting AE decision, make this pretty much black-letter law. I remove unsourced material from award articles all the time: it's one of our chronic forms of BLP violation. I warn editors that restore that unsourced material all the time. If someone insists on restoring unsourced material to a BLP, I routinely block them. It's not some case of me getting a hair up my ass about article content in any way that's different from reverting vandalism or other, more egregious BLP violations. What happened today was that the editor that chose to violate policy has a support base and people are more inclined to look upon it as a content dispute for that reason. If this had been an IP editor inserting unsourced claims about K-Pop bands, no one would have batted an eye.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's hundreds of active admins. You didn't have to be the one to do it. You're right, if this had been someone you'd not recently interacted with, no one would bat an eye. If it is a person you have a recent history with, ask for outside help. That's the proper way to do it. --Jayron3202:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember any time in history that I have had a content dispute with The Rambling Man. Today was strictly about behaviour from the start.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were in one with him. On multiple articles. Immediately before you blocked him. As others have pointed out, WP:BLP is not a license to edit war indiscriminately on BLP articles, nor does it mean you can just block someone because you don't like what they are doing on a BLP. Even if what they are doing is unreferenced for a few minutes. If you are unsure as to whether or not others would have blocked TRM in this case, look around at this discussion. Almost unilaterally, no one else would have. Your argument is invalid. If you had asked here or at WP:ANEW before blocking them, consensus would have been to not block them. Ergo, you're wrong. Any other ex-post-facto justification of your block is invalid. If you are going back and forth with an editor on any issue except eggregious vandalism or negative unsourced information about a BLP, it is your responsibility to ask another admin to do the review the situation. And again, if you're belief is "maybe it was negative". Read this discussion. No it wasn't. So just stop. --Jayron3202:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clear up any confusion: I'm not TRM's fan. The dismissive and ease of which you are saying you block someone over them adding an award bothers me, particularly since it isn't exactly a great way to keep new editors and smacks of the love of rules over the end product (an encyclopedia), but the involved issue is the biggest concern. But again, my comments are not due to any love for TRM. Assigning the concern to a fan base would be a big mistake here. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww: Alternately; you're overreacting to editors generally known to do good editing, and rather than AGF with them you treated them like IP editors inserting random garbage, which is all sorts of wrong.
It's not "just" a content dispute (on Hugh Jackman, that's a BLP) but you cried BLP on the Hoffman Awards list article and picked a fight with TRM, when everyone else above seems to agree that was the wrong thing for you to have done, and there seems consensus your application of BLP there was defective. That seems to have set the stage for whatever came next. Which took a grand total of 16 minutes and 11 of your reverts there, two warnings on TRM's talk page neither of which specified which article and which edits you meant.
And you did not evidently give him sufficient time to make similar cleanups there as he'd done with the other one.
Dude, sixteen minutes. You reverted 11 times, in sixteen minutes, without talking to him about the specifics or letting him fix things he was clearly in process of at least partly fixing.
Are you seriously claiming that TRM needs to be given specific instructions about what it means for a citation to support the material he is adding? That TRM did not know that the material he was restoring wasn't supported by inline citations at the time he made the restoration? And as for the eleven reverts, please: sequential reverts count as one revert. You would rather that I hadn't taken the time to look at the material he was adding and only removed the violating sections? I picked through his wholesale reversion and only removed the points that still violated policy after he had added an incomplete source.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think I'm part of TRM's support base, and I do think (as others have said here) that reverting uncontentious and undisputed material is much different from reverting vandalism or egregious BLP vios. Treating stuff like that as a binary rather than a matter of good judgment is what I mean by absolutism and bureaucracy. And a good faith challenge over sourcing requires (IMHO) a material concern that the stuff being challenged is actually erroneous. While it's true that the BURDEN is on the one who put it there, challenging verifiable material (especially uncontentious material) too many times is either a battleground problem or a competence problem, take your pick. Per WP:AGF we are not supposed to treat people's edits as vandalism unless there's actual evidence of a problem. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm torn. (Not about wanting to hit KWW with the fish, 'cause I'm completely on board with that.) Part of me agrees with Jayron32 that we should stick this in our brains in case a pattern emerges, and if that's what everybody wants to do, I'm okay with that. OTOH, I have two worries. The first has to do with something KWW said to Jayron32 above, about an IP editor inserting unsourced claims, and it is that we wouldn't be here munching popcorn and watching the show if TRM weren't an admin. This would have been a regular old unblock request, through a regular old procedure, and we might maybe possibly could have a thread about it here hours or even days later. The lack of scrutiny prior to today's events could be enough to have Arbcom examine KWW's past admin behavior. My second concern is that it appears that if KWW himself has any argument with any phrase in any article/list about a BLP, he believes it to be "contentious," and that's not what I take the BLP policy to mean. It does not require or encourage the removal of all unsourced statements. If KWW really thinks it does, that's a problem, and it certainly appears that is indeed the case. KrakatoaKatie02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Contentious" simply means that any reasonable person might believe the claim to be untrue. That does apply to most facts, yes, and WP:BLUE doesn't apply to winning regional film awards. I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel makes it pretty clear that these kind of additions do fail WP:BLP. I may not have remembered this exact case earlier, but I was a participant in the discussion and have taken numerous actions based on its conclusions. I do so habitually and without relying on some list of links to previous discussions.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel was a problem in that he repeatedly failed to properly reliably source, over months, despite many warnings and much chance to do the right thing. You've already admitted that even by your standards TRM at least half-correctly sourced the changes on the Hoffman article, and you aren't disputing the timeline that shows that you didn't give him a fair chance to try to do so on the Jackman article.
Even if you dispute eventualism, failing to give TRM 16 revert-free minutes to make fixes is nowhere near the same as months.
"Contentious" simply means that any reasonable person might believe the claim to be untrue. Kww, that is a drastic stretch or attempt to redefine the English language, to the point where the word means nothing and there was no reason to include it in the policy page. I'll go with wikt:contentious: "1. Marked by heated arguments or controversy. [quotations ▼] 2. Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord." I can't imagine a sane BLPN discussion that would find those award mentions to be contentious, unless there was an ongoing dispute or issue with someone with a history of making bad edits. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your right that Kww's reading would make our use of the word contentious superfluous. But I would adopt a much more expansive interpretation: first, if someone is making a good faith claim that something in a BLP is not just uncited, but is factually wrong, its contentious under BLP policy. And second, all negative assertions about a living person should be considered automatically contentious. BLP has never required a citation for every single positive factual claim about a living person, and it shouldn't be read to do so. Monty84504:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say if you think something uncited might be factually wrong, you can revert it under WP:V without regard to whether it's a BLP article or not, as a content decision. While if it's a contentious claim in a BLP (and if it's negative, it's presumptively controversial and therefore contentious) you must revert it as a policy matter. The difference is if you make content decisions about an article, you are editorially involved in it and should stay away from it administratively.
I'll also add that the practice of flat-out removing stuff on suspicion of problems or DONTLIKE is obnoxious even if the stuff really isn't in good enough shape for the article (plausible uncited claim that you have good faith doubts about). The right thing to do is transfer it to the talk page and say what the problem is, per WP:PRESERVE which is a part of WP:Editing policy that nobody seems to remember. The talk post then alerts other editors of the issue, and maybe someone can find a good citation or figure out that it's actually a misstatement of something verifiable, etc. (Obviously there are exceptions like bad BLP vios). What happens now is the stuff just disappears and the only way to find it is by grovelling through the article's revision history, looking at piles of edits that turn out to be contentless, and often made by de facto unflagged and unapproved bots. Hope that's not too tangential. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was catching up on this thread and almost commented earlier, at which time I would have said "per Jayron32". But I got pulled away, and now that I've come back, and seen the adamant "I'm right you're all wrong" position... I'm starting to think there's a more serious problem, if Kww is unwilling to accept a fairly clear consensus about interpreting BLP (not, as he seems to think, about whether BLP is important or not, or needs to be "enforced" or not, but on interpreting what it means). He doens't need to agree, but he needs to accept consensus is against him - this was not "BLP enforcement" in any meaningful interpretation of the term. I remember that stupid ArbCom case someone above refered to (I was one of the Arbs, though in the minority): I opposed any sanction on Kww because the rules were being interpreted in a strict, sanctimonious, irrational way, to browbeat someone who was doing something that was actually fairly reasonable. But now it's Kww interpreting rules in a strict, sanctimonious, irrational way, to browbeat someone who was actively trying to do something about the problem (albeit in typical über-grump unproductive fashion). ArbCom was wrong to sanction Kww then, but Kww was wrong to block TRM now. If he doesn't see that, if he's going to stay in IDHT mode, then I'm not sure leaving this until it happens again is the best approach. Probably best to let him sleep on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly gotten the drift that many people don't think unsourced awards violate WP:BLP (although their reasoning eludes me). What seems to be happening here, however, is that people don't even wish to view TRM's edits through the lens of WP:V. There was nothing so urgent about having a list of awards for anybody that justified restoring the material prior to providing a source. Even if you all line up and say that everything I believe WP:BLP means is wrong and I just have to accept it, when did WP:BURDEN lose all of its teeth? Why is everyone so sympathetic to the restoration of unsourced material? Georgewilliamherbert keeps hammering at me for the "speed" with which I undid TRM's edits without noting that it was a sequence problem: if TRM had found sources for his material, added them, and then hit the "save" button, there wouldn't have been any reverts at all. I gave him his fair chance: I looked over his edits, removed only the material that remained unsourced while preserving every part of his additions that met policy. He responded by restoring them all en masse without providing a single source to back them up.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you've admitted he fixed at least half of it on the Hoffman article, given time (despite the edit warring). That demonstrates that he was making progress towards an article adequately sourced by community standards.
Getting into the edit war was not the right response, you were assuming bad faith and not allowing reasonable time for him to work on fixes to the article. The faster you go on these things the more it blows up in your face. You should have been able to tell from the first valid reliable sources on the first article that he was working in the right direction. Failure to AGF on that point and let him work on it some is the problem. You responded like they were outright vandalism, not works-in-progress. You can't treat known-good editor making in-progress-eventually-good-edits like a vandal. If you disagree with the incremental manner you ask them to sandbox or talk page, not edit war over it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask you to bear context in mind: even if we 100% accept your perspective that I was dead wrong about it being a BLP problem, at the time I was interacting, I sincerely believed that I was dealing with an editor that was intentionally inserting BLP violations. That tends to influence my tone and demeanour.—Kww(talk) 06:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM's response wasn't ideal, but I somewhat understand the dynamic. Sitush said something recently that stuck with me: "Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand... In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button"[114] (referencing a dispute unrelated to this one and whose details aren't relevant here). There's an understandable impatience that content editors have when they're told how to edit by people who don't write content themselves. Best thing to do is lead by example instead of acting like a supervisor and expecting people to respond like underlings. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KWW, regardless, the appropriate response to someone actively working on an article, and slowly adding refs is not "edit war, edit war, edit war, scream WP:BLP, then block". The appropriate response is slow down, let them finish their work, and ask for outside input. If TRM had no intention of providing refs, then such lack of intention would have become evident if you had allowed them time to do it the wrong way. Instead, you edit warred repeatedly, played the BLP trump card, and blocked them. Now we're here discussing your behavior, and more than one person above have called for your tools because of it. If you'd done nothing for 24 hours, and TRM had actually done the wrong thing you're claiming you think they were going to do before you stopped them, we'd not be having this discussion at all. There's no loss to the encyclopedia if you actually let someone break the rules a bit before blocking them, rather than stopping them before they have a chance to break a rule you think they might be on the path to breaking. --Jayron3203:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)t[reply]
Actually, TRM wasn't adding any material to any article; he was replacing the mass deletions or blankings that Kww had made without any warning, discussion, consensus, attempt at finding/providing references, or even tagging. Kww seems to have conflated part of the Cwobeel AE discussion into blanket permission for him to mass delete from any and all awards articles or lists as he pleases, and either block or edit war if his mass deletions are attempted to be reverted. It is a longstanding principle and guideline that the correct way to remedy a list or list article that may need, or would benefit from, additional citations is to either (1) discuss the issue on Talk regarding the most pressing of the concerns and enlist help or input, (2) place "citation needed" tag(s) on the item(s) that seem problematic, (3) place a refimprove tag at the top, and/or (4) better yet, provide the needed citations oneself. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there are at least two different readings of "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately" and to avoid further dustups like this we should either remove the word contentious or the words "– whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable –" this would either give us what seems to be KWW's position "material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately" or what I suspect may be the Rambling Man's "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately". Either option would be shorter and clearer, on balance I prefer "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately". But we need to clarify the situation because this is not the only occasion where people have clashed due to different interpretations of the same policy. ϢereSpielChequers14:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that we end up with people wikilawyering that unsourced, contentions positive statements fall outside of BLP, which I think is not the intention. The word "contentious" is the problem. By definition, this became contentious as soon as Kww objected. As such, the most literal interpretation of the policy backs Kww (insofar as the Jackman article is concerned) - though that essentially creates a first mover advantage. The question, however, is what a reasonable person would expect. And in my view, it is reasonable to think that an unsourced list of awards can be allowed for a short period of time when challenged. I think Kww was right to challenge, and certainly right to challenge IMDB. But reasonably, he should have allowed TRM time to sufficiently source. So from that perspective - and despite obviously lacking some background interaction between the two - my read is that Kww started the edit war on the Hoffman awards page (not a BLP) and improperly cited BLP as an argument. Consequently, I don't believe he had the 3RR exemption he thought he did, and he certainly was INVOLVED in a content dispute. However, I have to wonder just what TRM was doing to go to the Jackman awards article specifically to revert Kww's clearing of that page from three weeks ago. I find it hard to view that as anything but WP:POINT and a conscious decision to open up a second front on their little battle as that was little more than an effort to provoke. Resolute15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best read I've seen on this so far. Challenging was fine, blocking this early would have been wrong from any admin as overkill, no less an involved admin. TRM isn't innocent, his issues just pale in comparison. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Resolute. I suspect that one problem we have is that one person's positive statement is another person's contentious one. But more pertinently, my reading of the current policy is that KWW is not taking it literally. Taken literally the sentence starts with "Contentious material" and therefore does not apply to anything uncontentious. I'm aware that there is a different interpretation, hence my suggestion that we go for something that we are all likely to interpret the same. ϢereSpielChequers16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you also have to use some judgement in how you react as an admin. Even if you believe "John won an Academy Award" is a BLP violation, you don't react as if someone said "John is a pedophile". Contentious might be "disputed", but you also have to consider the actual damage done to the subject when determining how to react. In some cases, blocking, in others, tagging or discussing further, per WP:BRD. Everything isn't as black and white as Kww appears to be making it, that all unsourced edits remotely tied to a living person are block worthy if the editor disagrees with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww has been on a deletion spree, devoid of prior discussion or notice or consensus, on Lists of awards and nominations articles, and has created his own special edit-blocking filter which prevents anyone from restoring the awards. I bumped into this on List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. When I tried to restore the 60 awards and noms (out of 62) that Kww had deleted, I was unable to, even after several tries -- instead a big red warning message with the STOP sign and the following text appeared:
Awards and nominations must have citations to reliable sources validating each and every award received. If this edit is not an attempt to add unsourced material related to awards and nominations, please report this error.
I reported the issue on Talk:Hugh_Jackman#Eyes_needed_at_List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Hugh_Jackman, and with some repeated questioning Kww revealed that this was an invisible tool he created and was deploying himself, after gutting awards articles, so that no one could add the awards and noms back to the articles unless each one had a citation. Please read the entire discussion in that thread. He stated that "Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning." Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit filter 661 has been in place since the Cwobeel arbitration decision. It does, indeed, prevent people from making most additions of unsourced awards to awards lists. I've referenced it in the discussion above. It does tend to keep this problem from growing without provoking edit wars, simply by getting the editor to include the source when the material is originally introduced rather than letting it linger unsourced in articles.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you twice about the genesis/aegis/origin/discussion of this edit-block filter, and your entire response was: It's intentionally invisible, and I am the author of the filter. It simply enforces a fairly obvious consequence of WP:BLP, and, if you wish to discuss it, I would suggest that WT:BLP is the appropriate location. Be certain to mention that the reason you discovered it was because you attempted to add a massive amount of material about a living person without taking the time to verify that it was true, in violation of WP:BLP, restoring it after its veracity had been challenged, in violation of WP:BURDEN. Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning. That's not what you are saying now. Again, please direct me with a link to the precise discussion/origin/aegis of this edit filter, if indeed it is the same one you posted on List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. Whatever its origin/aegis, I can guarantee it is being used against Wikipedia policy when, after gutting an article of 60+ public-record awards and nominations without warning, cause, discussion, or even tagging, it is placed on the article while WP:INVOLVED, again without discussion, consensus, or permission. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where you see that I am contradicting myself. Yes, I wrote that filter. I wrote it and installed it shortly after the Cwobeel arbitration enforcement. Yes, it is invisible to anyone without edit filter privileges, and it is invisible on purpose. It enforces what I believe to be an obvious consequence of BLP (a belief supported at the time I wrote it by that Cwobeel arbitration enforcement, although this discussion makes that less clear). Even if you reject my stance on BLP, it certainly prevents a widespread problem of editors violating WP:V. Any filter editor that reviews its history and content will see that it has been reasonably effective at blocking unsourced award additions, and is in no way specific to any particular awards article.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it fairly useless, and I don't know how I could make it useful again after exposure. I assume that no one would believe that you are going to make false statements on my behalf at this stage of the discussion, so you should be able to reassure people that the filter was put in place roughly one week after the Cwobeel discussion, that I haven't edited it in months, and that it has no logic to look for any specific award article (although it does have logic to determine that the article it is dealing with is an awards article).—Kww(talk) 05:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, created 31 Jan 2015, last edited by KWW on 10 Feb 2015, on 4 June 2015 User:This, that and the other changed it to limit it to mainspace (previously had no namespace restriction so it would affect userspace). The targeting logic applies to the class of awards articles, not specific ones. I still feel that it should be made public but, yes, you have characterized it accurately there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Without bothering to verify it was true is ABF on your part, and the filter is massive overreach. If you watch the Oscar ceremony on live TV and see your favorite actress Jane Schmoe receive an Oscar and give a memorable speech, the need or lack of it for durable sourcing when you add it to an article is one thing, but it's bizarre to say you haven't verified that Jane really received the award. Stuff like that happens all the time whenever there's a live TV event like an important football game and someone updates an article with the score. And in general, people have knowledge that generally derives from RS even if they don't have the citations at hand, which they use when editing. Do I know that Austin is the capital of Texas? Yes. Do I remember where I learned that fact? No. Can you say I haven't verified it? That's silly, maybe I used to live there. You're using admin tools to impose an extremist vision on Wikipedia content editing. Please stop that. I'd go as far as to say are editorially involved in this whole awards thing by now, so you shouldn't be doing anything administratively in it. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, Please link the discussion(s) regarding the (1) request for creation of, (2) the guidelines for deployment of, and (3) the permissions required to use, that filter. There is no directive or request for such a thing on the Cwobeel AE; the decision was simply that Cwobeel was "Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists." [115]. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed that any of those three things exist. I created the filter on my own accord, based on my understanding of WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLP, and did so after the Cwobeel decision reinforced my understanding of the BLP consequences of unsourced awards. I have had the authority to do so since the edit filter was first deployed. Edit filters are generally pretty cautious (this one is, actually, because its logic weights it towards large additions), but they are not generally publicly discussed because it makes them too easy to bypass. Review of its history shows an extremely low false positive rate: only a handful of edits that it has blocked weren't additions of unsourced awards.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it shocking that you are so,dismissive of this, and the fact that genuine GF edits have been blocked by your filter, with the associated loss of goodwill involved from thos (and other) editors. Can I strongly suggest you get rid of this filter pronto. – SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very concerned by such auto-restrictive blocks, especially when it's the whim of one person who has put it there. Are there other examples of these active that I've never come across? Are these common? "Wikipedia- the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit unless they run into Kww's filters"! This really does seem to be over-stepping the mark as much as trying to claim Philip Seymour Hoffman is a BLP. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 54 invisible filters active on Wikipedia. Some are monitor only, but most prevent edits. Many are targeted against individual editors, some prevent certain classes of edits. I'm responsible for three of them that prevent edits and one that simply lets me know that I need to examine some edits to see if it's a repeat block evader.—Kww(talk) 05:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are deep into sledgehammer and nut territory. An ArbCom decision to take action against someone whose behavioural patterns in this sphere necessitated action does not give anyone carte blanche to stick in such a disruptive filter without specific consensus to do so. IF this flagged up an issue to you directly so you could make a subsequent jugement call, I would have no issue with that, but it's just awful and obstructive as it stands. I strongly advise this is removed immediately. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added: making the filter invisible is more ABF. Saying it becomes useless if visible shows a presumption that everyone who encounters it is going to analyze it and try to work around it and is basically a vandal. It goes against our principles of openness. The filter should be turned off, but it should also not have been invisible. Even actual anti-vandal scripts protecting the project from real vandals are visible[116] and their effectiveness doesn't seem impaired, so hiding the edit filter is just secretive and obnoxious. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A number of anti-disruption filters are hidden. With some there's no point because it's obvious what they're filtering and therefore obvious how to avoid them, but with more complex ones, and ones used against persistent and determined vandals, it's often better to hide the actual regex that it's using. Black Kite (talk)09:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When a filter is targeted to a specific deliberate vandalism (edits made to harm the encyclopedia on purpose), the ABF inherent in hiding the filter (or writing it in the first place) is justified by evidence, and hiding it is understandable on a pragmatic basis even by those of us with philosophical discomfort over hiding stuff (I've never made an issue of the mere existence of hidden filters, though I think they are overused). In this case the edits targeted by the (now disabled) filter weren't vandalism, so the ABF was obnoxious. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examination and discussion of these hidden filters is long overdue. But it's just a smokescreen here. Sure, we all know the TRM can be a pointy chain-yanker. But Kww should be made to hand in his little tin sherrif's badge, 'cos his trigger-happy attitude stinks to high heaven. 194.150.177.10 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These filters seem set to spring like traps upon unwary editors and then do nasty stuff to them such as removing permission bits. I'm not liking the award lists either which seem inherently intended to collect adulation of particular people in a way that violates WP:NPOV. For example, there seem to be few scientists but lots of pornstars. As for BLP issues, the idea that you can automate this by checking for sources is absurd. In browsing the lists, one finds the topical example of list of honours received by Sepp Blatter which well demonstrates the problematic nature of the concept. This contains a blatant BLP violation in the lead which has easily slipped through. I'm usually an inclusionist but think you could save a lot of aggravation by deleting every one of these lists. If subjects have significant awards then these will be for their notable deeds, discoveries, roles, &c. These should be covered in their main article and the giving of the award, such as the Nobel prize, will go best there too, endorsing the importance of that aspect. As for Sepp Blatter, I'm not touching his list for fear that some tiger or trap will spring upon me. Admins who act too protectively will find that they are making work for themselves as no-one sensible will touch such stuff. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No filter that I have ever worked on has taken any action against the editor that made the edit, Andrew D. In theory, the filter allows for automatic blocking and removal of autoconfirmed status. Automatic blocking of an editor was disabled on English Wikipedia before first deployment, because very few trusted an automatic process to do that. The ability to remove autoconfirmed status is still there on the menu, but I have never tried it. At this point, no filter on English Wikipedia automatically modifies any user right. They all log the edit, tag the edit, warn the editor about a potential problem and allow him to proceed, or warn the editor and prevent the edit from occuring.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, as I have documented and referenced thoroughly, an edit filter error on a good faith edit might as well say "get stuffed". It stops the edit, but also stops the editor. The general vibe that comes down from the WMF is that we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Just look at how passionate we are about the importance of drive-by, one-off editors or how grumpy people can get about protection, disallowed edits due to a filter are the complete anathema to what the Foundation wants. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c with Kww) I thought of asking for an admin to revert that edit (so they could fix any resulting filter actions that non-admins can't), but then realized I have no permission bits to remove, so I went ahead and reverted just now. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Take this to ArbCom and examine both administrators' actions and history
If you want to take it to ArbCom, go for it. Calling for a collective hanging from the yardarms first isn't necessary. There is no need to carry on this part of the discussion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This current dispute is between two very hard-nosed admins. As it happens, I !voted against Kww's adminship due to temperment concerns. Note the many opposes. There were a lot of reasons not to give this editor extra buttons. He prevailed in his fourth Rfa. A major violation of WP:INVOLVED? No doubt in my book. As for TRM, he's been here forever. Pretty comfortable throwing his weight around at WP:ITN, where I have been watching him for years, as he drifts into borderline abuse repeatedly. I banned him from my Talk page just yesterday for posting what is a fine example of WP:BAIT: here is an admin coming to my page looking for a fight. In my long term observation, TRM is a bully who should desysopped. Am I, and others who take issue with his hostile bluster, correct? I propose the community send this admin shootout to ArbCom, who can take evidence, look at the long term histories of both admins carefully, and apply sanctions. Common justice and the long term health of the 'pedia calls for no less. Jusdafax06:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be a good idea, since right now TRM is (or was) blocked and can't speak up at this ANI. We should at least let him have his say somewhere -- either unblock him and let him speak here, or let ArbCom check into the situation. Either way, no matter what, I think Kww's secret edit-block filter and his mass deletions/blankings of awards articles have both got to go. If it takes ArbCom for that, ArbCom it should be. Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM is unblocked[117] but might be asleep or something. Any arb proceeding would of course have to look at both. Floq's suggestion of waiting overnight and seeing if people are thinking more clearly tomorrow sounds good from the perspective of arb cases being messy proceedings that we should try to avoid. On the other hand, there's enough evidence of long term problems that maybe we need a case. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I received a brief email from TRM (who I don't know from Adam and have never interacted with or received communications from) that "I am actually unblocked but in these circumstances I usually just let things play out." (I guess he noticed my post above.) I agree on both points that you made. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when it P.S. Hoffman a BLP anyway? He's been dead 18 months.
I'm utterly astounded that an editor as shitty as Kww is an admin in all honesty. He completely lacks the temperament and fair minded approach to content to be worth of admin tools. If The Rambling Man agrees I'd suggest a desysopping of Kww and topic ban from editing award articles. His editing was disruptive, and TRM was clearly trying to protect content.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it all started from Hoffman. Look at the timeline, he started blanking the Hoffman article, edit warring with TRM, claiming he was exempt from 3RR and warning him using the justification it was a BLP. Then, to prove his point, he moved to the Jackman's article. But all started from the Hoffman "BLP". I have to agree with Blofeld, I used to (also publicly) apprecciate Kww, but at this point he should be desypopped and topic banned from awards articles as a minimum. Except if he will post an extensive and convincing apology for all the bullshit he made and said in the last hours, obviously. Cavarrone10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. TRM has done nothing to warrant an ArbCom sanction here. If it wasn't for the awful WP:INVOLVED and against-policy step Kww took in blocking him, this would never have reached ANI, let alone anything more. I do, however, support taking Kww to ArbCom. Flagrant misuse of the tools, and his subsequent refusal to see any other point but his own (an inflexibility of attitude he has shown in other quarters) do warrant a closer scrutiny. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you take Kww to ArbCom, TRM will be a named party anyway and his conduct will be examined. In the end it doesn't really matter whether the title of the proposed case is "Kww" or "Kww and TRM". Black Kite (talk)09:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support although this discussion isn't required, as any person can file at Arb. That said, there are several questions here, beyond the involved block, and the only body empowered with deciding these issues is Arb, leaving us no choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Show me a pattern of abuse here (see: AntonioMartin case, etc.). Right now, all I see is a very ill-advised one-off. Neither Admin's hands are clean here. But I don't see a pattern of abuse of Admin tools here, just one case of over zealousness in "enforcing" Wikipedia guidelines. It is somewhat disquieting that Kww will concede no fault in this instance, but I'd rather AGF in regards to all the other good this Admin has done and assume Kww won't make a mistake like this again. If the community "lynches" every Admin who makes a mistake with the tools, there will quickly be no Admins left, and certainly no one running for RfA (anyone thinking about running for Admin should look carefully at what's happening here and consider very carefully before making that jump...). Let's call this a "collective reprimand" and move on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You want a pattern of abuse? Well, let's try the against consensus revdelling of the Best known for IP that other admins, particularly I, Chillum and Drmies all strongly opposed. [118][119] plus lengthy talk page discussions on that page. Then, spinning back a bit further we have this kerfuffle with Floquenbeam over an unblock not being the letter of the law [120]. Spinning back further, we have this dramafest where he took an admin who had the sheer chuzpah to dare to unblock Eric Corbett to Arbcom, resulting in the loss of said admin. Anyway - Kww does do good work around here, but the "just doin' my job, ma'am" attitude really does cause more harm than good at times. I don't particularly want an Arbcom case either - they really cause more harm than good - but rather I would like all parties involved in this dispute to realise that something is seriously wrong here and take steps to correct it under their own steam.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although, as Dennis said, it's meaningless to vote on this sort of thing. In Kww's case, he has a horrible combination of poor temperament, hubris, and misunderstanding of policy. His gross misunderstanding of applied BLP policy is just the latest evidence in a longer pattern. Just recently, he suggested that Cochrane Reviews are unreliable if their authors are Chinese. Inflammatory comments that at the same time show a lack of the ability to read policies and guidelines reveal that there is a deeper problem we are dealing with. Additionally, Kww's default position has always seemed to be to assume bad faith, a long pattern I complained about just last week and this very attitude has now culminated in an involved block of TRM. If Kww fails to see where he is wrong, how can we assume he'll act appropriately in the future? He has shown that he's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to promote agendas and exercise his power even if it means abusing it. Seriously, do we want TIGERS running around with tools? LesVegas (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose take what to Arbcom? The fact that KWW actualy enforced BLP on an article? There's no question that's what he was doing, and there's no question his block was correct. I have a better idea, shut down that idea and lay off KWW KoshVorlonRassekali ternii i mlechnye puti15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, his block was deeply flawed, and his action as an WP:INVOLVED admin is what is being very rightly questioned by most people here. If we don't examine the circumstances of an admin's misuse of the tools, then we open the door to a possible problems for everyone in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's not admin misuse. KWW removed unsourced items in a BLP, that's what has to be done per WP:BLP, The Rambling Man reverted the unsourced items back in which is totally wrong, so if you want to take about admin misuse , look there instead. KWW did right to block him as he was repeatedly adding in unsourced stuff to a BLP rather than looking for references then adding it back in once the references are found. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on the individual adding material in, not the one challenging. No arbcom over this, it's straight up a good block, even if it is a bit WP:IAR. KoshVorlonRassekali ternii i mlechnye puti16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this also involves Kww edit warring while claiming BLP on someone who is not an LP, or a recent one. He was out of line on this one. He went from there to a rather petulant block of the same editor: that's a problem in my book, and most other people here, given the weight of opinion expressed so far in the thread. – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Kww's filter is disabled immediately. If he wants to have a filter or bot that flags up to him when edits are being made I don't have an issue, but I do object to this mindless/automated process which does this. Valid edits have been blocked by this filter, which should have been a red flag to anyone with a more flexible approach. The loss of the information from those edits, and the associated goodwill makes it clear this should be removed. I'd also strongly suggest to Kww, that rather than the knee-jerk reversions he seems so fond of, it takes only a shade longer to look for a bloody source! These are high profile people and are normally high-profile awards, so a simple search shows whether there is a problem. That is how you build an encyclopaedia, not by relying on flaming filters and bots to block good faith contributions. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. The secret edit-block filter, and the mass-deletion & content-restoration–prevention way it is being used, are a mind-bogglingly unilateral defiance of Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to make this comment above but here seems the better option now. I wanted to make the point that there are genuine reasons for keeping some edit filters hidden; some are quite easy to avoid if you know how the filter works. This is particularly important for LTA cases and other high priority vandalism. I've known some LTA users to vandalise the edit filter requests page, making it quite clear that they know there is an edit filter logging their edits. On the other hand if a filter is set to disallow, it's not hard to get to that filter if it disallows your edit. Being able to read what it does would make some filters alarmingly easy to get around. That said, I'm not at all convinced that this is the kind of filter that should be set to hidden. It's not the kind that would be detrimental to the project if avoided, and I agree that transparency should only be avoided if absolutely necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per above, and further possible sanctions. I did try to restore Jackman's awards page and starting sourcing it and the filter blocked me with a ridiculous warning that every single award should be sourced and that anything else isn't acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. To be blocking edits automatically based on a non-existent "BLP" rule invented by the creator is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. I'd go so far as to say that the very existence of this filter illustrates a sufficient competence issue that I'd support desysopping, even though it would mean the timesink of an Arbcom case since I presume KWW's "I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" reactions above signify that he'd rather go down in flames than admit he's made a mistake, let alone resign voluntarily. – iridescent08:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have to agree with this this proposal. If it simply warns an administrator about a potentially poor addition that's one thing. But that's too much power for a personal bot. The thing is, this is one personal administrative bot that we know of. Is this type of thing common among administrators? I mean I really have no idea if multiple other invisible bots like this exist and this just happened to be one we found out about. It gives the feel of some Philip K. Dick dystopian society. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - this filter appears to have been added unilaterally without any noticeboard discussion or consensus viz the policy "Implementation of AbuseFilter on Wikipedia is done with due caution — most abuse filters should be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("warn", "disallow" or "throttle" modes)." I see no evidence this happened. Sam is right that per WP:BEANS we shouldn't publicly disclose filters, but just a reassurance from other admins that the filters are okay would help, which we don't have. After all, ClueBot NG does all its vandalism reverting out in the open using a Bayesian filter, which means keeping filter regexes secret is not necessary, as machine learning will stop them anyway. Work smarter, not harder! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - conditional on complete transparency regarding all other such filters. I had no idea such things existed, and per Fyunck, I am uneasy regarding all such "bots" in operation without scrutiny and oversight. I'd like to see a complete list of such bots. Jusdafax08:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Their existence is not a state secret—you can see the full list here (KWW's filter is #661). As Sam Walton says above, the exact rules of some of the anti-vandal ones are intentionally kept secret to prevent people working around them. – iridescent08:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can understand the need for circumspection when filters are intended to catch out LTA stuff but not otherwise. That this one appears to have slipped through (or, at least, no-one saw it as a potential problem) makes me think we may need some sort of review mechanism for filters current and future. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone through the edit filter log, and checked the filters in question, #640 and #661 (which is what I assume we're talking about here). They're hidden so I can't tell you what they do but I think the implementation is weak, with admins complaining about false positives. I see that other admins have had problems with the top 100 filter. And I think the Best known for IP filter could be implemented more intelligently. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, the Top 100 filter had a disastrous error in it for an hour in Jan 2014. I don't think it has malfunctioned since then. 661 generated a false positive in userspace, which was the only complaint against it (since corrected) and 640 theoretically tripped in talk space (corrected, but it never actually happened).—Kww(talk) 13:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems pointless to actually disable these filters, as they don't actually seem to produce many false positives. I assume therefore we are talking about setting the filters to log-only or warn, as opposed to disallow? Black Kite (talk)09:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they do produce false positives, with all the crappy side effects that go with it (loss of goodwill, annoyance with the Wikipedia software etc) It's disheartening for good faith editors doing the right thing and then not being allowed to save their work. If Kww wants to reconfigure this filter to ping him when there is a problem so that he can deal with it directly, that's fine, but not as this obstructive faceless and Orwellian mechanism that does little good to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would be very happy to see such a filter applied to controversial awards such as from the porn industry. I could understand extending the filter to other specific awards if we had a bunch of vandals repeatedly adding that award in a vandalising way, such as claiming various Islamic scholars had been awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Israeli Defense Force. I might also support changing our software generally to prompt people for a source either for all articles or all BLPs, but only if such a change was reflected in our policies, guidelines, training material and the user interface in a way that was consistent and user friendly. ϢereSpielChequers09:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it with fire per Ritchie333, Blofeld and Iridescent. Also a close review of other filters eventually created/used by KWW is necessary if not urgent. Cavarrone11:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per iridescent, at least for now. Ultimately, Arb should decide the fate of all this. This is simply too large an issue for ANI, where we lack any tools to sanction admin actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's that got to do with edit filters? If we blocked everyone who violated one admin's opinion of BLP, we'd have no editors left. It drives me nuts about people adding tabloidish sources to Katie Hopkins all the time, but I've never block over it unless there are repeated ad-hominem attacks added to it. Which is not what we have here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There needs to be some sort of discussion and consensus before such a filter is delployed, in future. Not of the details of the regex or other filter logic, perhaps, but of the general existance, scope and purpose. Musch like the pre-approval needed for bots, I would think. DES(talk)12:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have deleted filter 661 as an inappropriate use of the edit filter. The edit filter is designed to catch abusive edits; it is not to enforce content disputes. And no, Kww, contrary to your demands of me earlier, I will not "discuss with you" before I remove inappropriate filters like I have before. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filters disabled
As a result of this discussion, I have disabled and deleted the majority of my filters. The ones that remain are 550 (as it is used to monitor for "nowiki" markup insertion by a number of editors, including the WMF), 601 (currently disabled, but it's very effective against Colton Cosmic, so any filter editor may want to reenable it when he begins to act up again), and 667, which is a monitor-only filter. For anyone that's curious, the filter that Reaper Eternal refers to above (693) blocked the addition of the word "trans" to any article about Drake Bell: no false positives ever occurred. I put it in place after Drake Bell came under attack during the Caitlyn Jenner announcements. As a result of that filter being removed, Drake Bell has been on full-protection now for 24 days, all to allow for people that suddenly might want to discuss trans fat and transmissions in regard to Drake Bell. Seems like a poor tradeoff to me, but YMMV.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether to be annoyed or flattered that variations on my username appear several times in your Colton Cosmic filter. Probably both. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that is the main problem with your filter, then I don't even know what else to say, other than that you should have never given yourself 'abusefilter'. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made 693 visible so that anyone can take a look and comment as to whether full-protecting Drake Bell was a preferable alternative to that filter (or an enhanced version of the filter if it actually presented false positive problems).—Kww(talk) 15:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only see 4 logged hits[121] from filter 693, all of them edits from the same user, who has been editing through 2008. They are repeated attempts to make the same edit, about a controversial tweet by Bell, sourced to an IBTimes article. While there are problems with the edit, it looks like something the normal BRD process could have handled just fine. Are there unlogged hits or expired logs? If there have only been 4 hits, it would have been much better to discuss the issue with the user. Even if the filter was needed, it should be seen as a limited form of page protection and discussed on the article talk page. I also don't see any reason to have kept it hidden. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put the filter in place after a flurry of attacks on Bell. Reaper Eternal disabled the filter, and the page was put on full protection by User:Panyd a few hours later. The page has remained on full protection for most of the last four weeks. The filter has remained disabled since then, and even if it was enabled, the full-protection would prevent it from firing. It was intended to keep us from needed to fully protect the page, but others apparently find the full protection preferable.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background info. It looks to me like the long lasting full protection on that article was excessive, though it may have been justified for a little while after the tweet drama (June 1 aiui). Pending changes was (and is) another possibility that doesn't seem to have been considered. Taking the filter as a reasonable third option, IMHO the right way to deploy it would have been 1) announce it openly (like protection), posting about it on the talk page to let people know what was happening and discuss whether it was wanted; 2) have it display a message when it disallows an edit, saying what the problem was and inviting the person to post an edit request on the article talk page if it had stopped what they thought was a valid edit. The one edit that it did stop was reasonably valid: it had a decent source, though the wording could have been improved. The person retried several times, then gave up, making no attempt to use the talk page. Someone else then tried to add the same info without a source and was reverted (not as vandalism). However a quick web search shows there are tons of RS documenting the incident, and there was relatively little talkpage discussion about keeping it out.
Overall I'd say this filter was a basically reasonable idea, but executed with too much secrecy at both the technical level (it didn't need to be private) and the communication level (it should have been discussed on the talk page). Getting a good edit stopped by a filter is immensely frustrating because you have no idea what you wrote that the filter didn't like. Overall I prefer pending changes to techno-fixes like filters, in situations where just one article is affected. The most useful (and most dangerous) capability of filters is their ability to act across the whole site, supplementing Cluebot and what's left of the RC patrol. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting it, but looking at some of these edit filters...I don't know. Let's look at 616. In its current form, it reads simply (user_name="187.109.239.254")&(article_namespace=0), which, invisibly and (had MusikAnimal not disabled it a month after it was started) permanently prevents IP 187.109.239.254 from editing anything in mainspace. I'm having trouble seeing any reason why this shouldn't have just been a month-long block of 187.109.239.254, which would have served much the same purpose--it's not like the IP was contributing to any other namespace--and have been transparent and non-permanent, as we require of such restrictions to IP editing. Why would you make this edit filter? Writ Keeper⚇♔15:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It permitted the IP to contribute to talk page discussions of articles he was interested in, not just his own talk page. The IP's problem was that he refused to discuss changes. That filter was, admittedly, an experiment to see if I could find an approach short of blocking an IP that would permit the IP to still contribute. It failed. I would have disabled it myself short order.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is supposed to be a less harsh alternative to blocking, why would the filter be flagged as hidden from public view? And, especially given that the IP in question was showing no desire to contribute anywhere but in mainspace, how could that rationale possibly justify a completely-invisible-to-anyone-else pseudo-block? An edit filter, particularly one hidden from public view and particularly one that is permanent since you apparently forgot about it, does not provide the transparency required for admins to be held accountable for their actions. If that wasn't self-evident before you made the edit filter, then I don't really know what else to say. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if it's continual abuse from a blocked/banned user or something like that, then those filters can be a big help. But there still needs to be oversight. Perhaps all these invisible filters can be put in a special administrative section that passes muster amongst many administrators first? If a few others find it will be useful and helpful with minimal collateral damage, then it gets implemented with a watchful eye to make sure it does what it says. I don't want administrators trying to stop real vandalism with one hand tied behind their backs. But all administrators should be made aware of an invisible filter so we have checks and balances. Most admins I've dealt with have been as straight and narrow as they can be, even if they're yelling at me, but not all. I can't believe the filter we were mainly talking about would have been given the ok by any group of administrators. Far too restrictive and isn't really targeted at a particular user. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think there needs to be a talk page for each edit filter, like every article, and every page. People can then discuss issues and suggest alternatives, and gain consensus. There is an area for discussion, but it's not structured like a talk page (more like an ad hoc revision history) and if the filter is hidden, non-admins can't get at it. They might still want to discuss the purpose of a filter rather than the specific content. Also, some filters like 667 are probably better off written as a script using the API or PyWikipedia so they can do machine learning. (Yes, I'd like to write something like that if I ever have time). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would editors find it useful to have some structured non-ANI discussions (at one of the village pumps) about edit filters and when it should be appropriate to hide them? Sam Walton (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't any other problems besides this one, not sure what it would help. There aren't that many, and if an admin wasn't to question a hidden filter, he can at WP:AN without disclosing the hidden info since other admin can see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly has been a "What!? There are filters?! Nobody told me about filters!" element to this discussion, and that's coming from editors with a fair amount of experience. That would indicate that we should consider elevating the visibility of the existence of filters.—Kww(talk) 17:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I'm aware of filters and I assumed that administrators had a set of "special" filters to help them combat big problems. But I also assumed they were listed on a restricted page for all administers to use and comment on their effectiveness. Sort of what we all have on our preferences or gadgets tab. I did not know that administrators could create them and use them with no real oversight. Obviously some of these filters need to stay hidden or they lose their ability to work. We need to trust, when multiple administrators test and evaluate these hidden filters, that they work well and as intended. But when I see many administrators shaking their heads in wonder and surprise at this over-reaching filter that Kww created, then we know their policy on filters needs a big tweak to be fair to all wikipedians, including themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but obviously not the invisible ones. Kww is being hit as having some underhanded agenda with this invisible filter. I'm not talking about his blocking a fellow admin while being deeply involved. That's a separate issue. But this misuse of an invisible tool. Having a vetting process where he submitted it to three other admins (that aren't his bff's) would also be protecting himself right now. So it's better for everyone involved. Instead of defending himself he'd be saying things like... I made it with good intentions and three other random administrators said they approved of it's functions. It might still get deleted if someone later complained, but it's end of story as far as some secret abuse of power. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck, FYI I know that at least one of the Edit Filter Managers and Admins should be able to see the invisible filters. I could see 661 fine when I went to look. So it's not "private secret" to the creating user; it's only hidden from people outside (I think either of those groups, but not 100% sure). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that George. But the way it sounds and looks, there are over 250 filters that I can actually see. I have no idea the number of invisible filters. It sounds like an administrator can create an invisible filter and simply add it to the list and that no one actually checked on what this Kww filter actually did. It got lost in the giant list of filters. At least if it undergoes formal scrutiny by other admins before it is ever activated, it has a better chance of being weeded out as this one should have been. It sounds like no one really checked this one out, and that shouldn't happen. There needs to be something in place to verify the usefulness before they go live. Maybe there is, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be reading what you're saying wrong, but I just want to clarify that a 'hidden' filter isn't hidden from the list; you can still see the name and log. It's only the filter details (conditions, actions, notes) that are hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a systematic review of the edit filters that exist? Perhaps there are some which are no longer needed that could be deleted or disabled. I don't think editors are objecting to the existence of filters just that an edit filter can be easily created and forgotten without any oversight. And I think there shouldn't be an edit filter for an IP address which might be shared by other editors (or future editors). LizRead!Talk!19:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There probably needs to be a centralized page where all the edit filters in use (and maybe even those that are "suspended" from use) are listed out, including what they do, and when they were instituted, so even though of us in the peanut gallery can see them. Doing so shouldn't be a big deal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Well, then the conditions of some filters are hidden but I can click on others (like Special:AbuseFilter/11) and see the conditions that trigger the filter. So, it is the filters whose conditions are hidden that should be checked by those who can view them. LizRead!Talk!21:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yeah – after perusing, there are a lot of edit filters marked "Private", and one could legitimately ask how many of those need to be "Private" and not "Public"... But, in general, this whole thing is above my pay grade... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Filter policy
There has never really been a documented policy on what edit filters should or should not be used for, or on precisely how accurate a filter needs to be in order to considered suitable for its task. I think everyone agrees that countering vandalism is a Good Thing and that interfering with good faith editing is a Bad Thing, but very little has been written about what that should really mean in the context of edit filters. In practice, the edit filters have been managed via the mutual agreement of a small handful of the most active edit filter managers. There are about 170 users with the filter manager user right, and all but about 20 of those are also current admins (many of the exceptions are former admins or WMF staff). So, the group of people working in this area is generally an experienced and thoughtful lot, but there are still only a small number of people that are really active in managing the filters. At its inception (2009) I was one of the most active filter managers, but except for a brief burst of activity a few months ago, I haven't been very active on the filters for years. It is probably well past time that we write out some sort of policy on what edit filters should and shouldn't be used for, when the private setting is appropriate, and what minimum level of accuracy a filter should have before it is allowed to give warnings or disallow edits. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. I also used to be a very active edit filter manager (even before I was an administrator). A little over two years ago I raised concerns that the edit filter system was being abused and that many of the people that are currently editing them have very little understanding of the internals of how it is implemented (which is different from if they understand how the filtering works/how to write filter code). Since that time that abuse has been extended to the point where a fairly significant number of edits hit the filter (we have moved from "hitting the filter is generally suspicious" to "hitting the filter is a fairly common thing for newer editors"). I note that even log only filters used to be "no false positives". In a similar vein, there have been filters that have been turned onto disallow without even being tested, and several instances of filters that hit nearly edit being activated. I recognize that times can change, but honestly I gave up this argument years ago because it seemed like nobody cared. At the end of the day, the edit filter is really a backwoods area that only a very small portion of the community even knows exist (and then a much smaller proportion of that knows how to use it), and so if one speaks up with "this really needs to be fixed" the general response I have received is "who cares?" I'm glad to see at least I'm not the only one recognizing these problems, but I would hate to see the current use of the filter system actually get codified into policy. If we do that, then we are literally writing into policy "we do not trust new users to edit without intense supervision", which is what a lot of our current edit filters since become. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary Clinton
Recently, it was decided that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article should be moved to Hillary Clinton(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in this well attended move discussion; the major factor in the decision was that Hillary Clinton is her common name, per the closing panel [122]. Since then, users (myself included) have tried changing the name at the top of the infobox from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, per Template:Infobox_person#Parameters, which says it should be the "common name of person." Several users, however, have fought this vehemently essentially rearguing the move request. There are now two threads on the talk page. In the first, consensus seems to be for using the common "HC." So someone who didn't like that change started a second thread and again consensus seems to be in favor of sticking with the common name. But yet, some users won't drop the stick [123]. CalidumT|C00:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just noted this on Berean Hunter's talk page but, per a test on my sandbox page, it turns out that an admin who opens an edit window on an unprotected article receives no warning when they save that edit, if the article was protected while they were editing. I did not test if you preview, that may show the warning, but a straight open-edit, (type), "save" goes straight through. No sign of the red screen you normally get if you start editing a protected article... I did not previously know that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather odd to protect the version that represents a change from a decade-long status quo. Isn't the general rule that the status quo stands until consensus exists to change it? Also, the block seems uncalled for in this case. bd2412T01:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @BD2412: I agree the block seems uncalled for, as evidence is pretty clear that there's reasonable doubt he knew it was protected. However, BD2412 is incorrect regarding returning to the status quo in an edit war. Whatever state the article is in when it is protected is all that matters (absent egregious BLP issues, which this isn't). Admins aren't supposed to pick sides, and that includes not granting preference to a first mover or second mover, or really anyone. You click the "protect" button, and whatever state it is in when you click it, that's where it is supposed to stay. --Jayron3201:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already unblocked but it didn't happen the way that it should. We were trying to work this out and BD2412 unblocked without checking first. I just wanted to know that Jona wasn't going to edit through the protection which seems reasonable to me. — Berean Hunter(talk)02:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been accomplished with a warning. This is not the kind of circumstance justifying an approach of block first, ask questions later. bd2412T02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved, so forgive me for commenting at all. However, I find it outrageous that a dispute that has only been a matter of content (not behaviour), and which is being discussed on the talk page, was brought to AN/I by an involved party for no reason whatsoever, merely because he didn't like how the discussion was going. The result was that his preferred version was protected, deviating from a decade-long status quo. Outrageous. RGloucester — ☎02:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calidum and a couple of others are failing to get consensus on their preferred change so they began edit-warring to force their change and immediately came here to get their preferred version enforced by admin action. Berean Hunter kindly obliged, locking their version in for two weeks. Now Berean is whining that his block-first-ask-questions-later block was overturned. This is farcical. Undo the page protection and warn or sanction the editors who are trying (and now apparently succeeding with the help of Berean) to bully their way through a content dispute by edit-warring.
This was a brief edit war, precipitated by Callidm and his buddies, and should have been dealt with by a stern warning or two. Not by knee-jerk blocking and rewarding the edit-warriors by locking the article in their version for two weeks. Would someone please undo the page protection, warn all parties about edit-warring and then leave the editors to get on with editing the article in accordance with policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one that is whining to try to get their way. You aren't really a neutral observer are you? I would have been unblocking so your assessment is off from a lack of understanding. I would have liked policy to have been adhered to regarding undoing another's admin action for the sake of courtesy. That's all. Okay, you can go back to bitching now. — Berean Hunter(talk)03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I boldly edited that page once. It was reverted. It was discussed. That's how we do it here. That's not whining. That's not edit-warring to get my way, like Calidum and his buddies, whom you have just rewarded for their bullying by locking this highly topical article in their version for two damn weeks.
Per WP:ADMINACCT, would you please tell me what purpose that full page protection is serving? I see discussion occurring on the talk page and one trivial edit war which can be addressed with warnings. What are you seeing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27 Jonathunder (after full protection via edit conflict, removed)
The last one shows that edit warring would have been continuing had it not been protected. I skipped several diffs concerning the image caption which boils down to more name bickering. Contrary to your claims above that you only reverted once, I count three. There are multiple threads on the talk page and none of them seem to reflect that you guys are anywhere near reaching a consensus.
Per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER, locking that page down is spot on. Per the new move request, it shows that there are editors who are refusing to accept the finding of three impartial admins that determined consensus from the digital reams of paper that was the last move request. There is a great deal of I don't like it and I didn't hear that going on and a lot of wikilawyering. One of the chief aims of full protection here is stability. The edit warring needs to cease and two previous short term full protections didn't work so we're going with longer terms to see if that will be effective.
I hope that the database is only storing the changes (delta diffs) and not the bulk article size. If the latter is true then this 211K+ article has been edit-warred just in the incidences above to an extra 5.7 Megabytes of useless data bloat. — Berean Hunter(talk)13:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Berean Hunter's page protection. I take issue with the Hunter's description suggesting an aim of protection is stability. I'd assert that page protection is more properly for preventing undue instability. By documenting above the rampant edit warring, he's demonstrated adequately the necessity of full page protection. It appears BH has acknowledged error in prematurely blocking Jonathunder; in the future Jonathunder might show better sense, as a holder of community trust, in avoiding involvement with edit wars in live pagespace. Wikipedians expect better from administrators. BusterD (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my change/revert would've been my only change/revert, regardless of page protection. Anyways, I support the page being protected, no matter what form it was in. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, GoodDay.
Please don't exaggerate, User:Berean Hunter; I reverted twice, with civil, explanatory edit summaries, and then immediately opened a talk page discussion. (I forgot about the second, they happened in quick succession.) My third edit in your list is a bold new edit which was reverted and then I opened a thread to discuss it. Textbook perfect editing. BRD. Unlike in the first instance, where Born2cycle boldly changed the woman's name in the infobox and I reverted with a clear, civil explanation. What happened there, Bearean? Did one of the edit-warring, POV-pushing bullies open a talk page thread to discuss their proposed change? No. One of them reverted me. I opened the talk page thread, inviting them to discuss it. Now look at what's happening there. There is no consensus on the talk page regarding the name in the infobox. There had been no edit-warring since 20 June. Calidum tried it on at 22:06 on 24 June; Omnedon reverted an hour later. An hour later GoodDay restored the disputed change, despite no consensus on the talk page. Then look at what you did. Brilliant. Fucking brilliant.
Nobody will tolerate another move request this soon. That's a red herring.
That you assert the problem is people not accepting the outcome of the RFC demonstrates your poor grasp of the situation. The RFC does not mandate we change the woman's name wherever it occurs in the article.
The discussion about what name to use in the infobox, in image captions and in the article is going on on the talk page. You should be warning and blocking User:Calidum and User:GregKaye and anyone else who repeatedly inserts a change that is contentious and being discussed on the talk page. Not locking the damn article in their version for two damn weeks. Truly pathetic behaviour... (I'm referring there to your inability to admit you were gamed by the biggest bully on that article, and your clear belief, even now, that you did a great bit of admin work there.) Take a look at the number of times those two appear on your list above. Take a look at what they actually did in those edits. Take a look at what was happening on the talk page when they made those changes. Ugh. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am utterly indifferent to which name is used, but (while this seems to be a very nasty edit war), I'm also a bit nervous about having Clinton's article full-protected for two weeks while she's running for President; there probably won't be any major developments in the next two weeks (and minor developments can be covered in the appropriate subpages), but it's hard to be certain. Having the entire article locked for so long over a one-word disagreement seems unfortunate, either way. --Aquillion (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection here seems (IMO) needed. While blocking can resolve edit wars, in this case and with this amount of editors, the most appropriate action is to protect (unless we want to block 6+ editors, some of whom have made only one edit). Note I have no opinion in reguards to the dispute (I closed the move discussion, so I'm probably mildly involved here as well). Mdann52 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the edit war? Have you noticed that since it began, there has been an ongoing talk page discussion per WP:BRD yet one team is constantly pushing the disputed change into the article? Have you? Or have you paid as much attention to policy and argument in this case as you did when you closed the RM discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a "threat", but it is not clear that the author means that editors who defy his preference will be "reported/charged" in an external legal setting. bd2412T03:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it is intended as a legal threat - but given that the edit asserts in Wikipedia's voice that a deity exists, I'd already reverted it before seeing this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. This is probably prompted by te international yoga day thing. Some of the user's edits are strongly Hindu nationalist in tone, but some are inoffensive. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this new user is that he started editing the Armenia article after abandoning the discussion on the talk page. The matter is the geographical location of Armenia, an issue which is going on here since years (interestingly, on other main wikipedias there is no problem at all about it), and that causes recurring edit warring bursts. Several lenghty discussions on the talk page (i.e. this one [127]) established consensus that Armenia - altough in many respects can be considered an european country - lies geographically in Western Asia, and that in order to change this info one should find reliable geographical sources (this means geographical institutions, since physical geography is a science) showing a different geographical (not political) definition of Europe. In other words, if the Armenian academy of Sciences adopts a definition of Europe with its south east border at the Persian Gulf, we should take it in the article. Unfortunately, until now all the users pretending that Armenia lies geographically in Europe failed to provide these sources, bringing only sources which define Armenia "Europe" playing on the ambiguity between geographical and political definition of Europe. User:MELB1110 makes no exception to this behaviour. He abandoned the discussion, and edited the article first inserting as source for the geographic location of Armenia the BBC ([128]). After my revertion assuming good faith, he brought a web site with a map showing Armenia in its political boundaries as belonging to Europe ([129]). Unfortunately this web site (www.worldatlas.com) is a commercial web site. The reliability of this source can be determined observing that in the HTML page about Europe there are two maps of the continent, one with Armenia and one below the first one without it ([130]). He ignored my comments on the talk page ([131] and, in response to another user sharing my same opinion [132]) and after my revert assuming good faith he started to edit warring ([133]).
Attempts to communicate on his talk page did not bring much either ([134]).
User:MELB1110 is clearly POV pushing (see also these edits on the same line - [135] and [136] - about Cyprus, both reverted), refusing to get the point, ignoring the lack of present consensus and going against previously established consensus on the talk page (also in other threads in the archives). I would like to point out too that the article about Armenia is subjected to discretionary sanctions by administrators, so that any editor should be very careful in dealing with this article. I brought this case already to the edit warring noticeboard, but there no action has been taken, since the user changed his edits, and altough edit warring at the end, he did only three edits. Alex2006 (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but when but it seems that User:TheRedPenOfDoom is stirring up a lot of commotion. I was surprised to see a userpage that has been blocked from recreating, and I cannot seem to find any logs explaining why. Anyway if this is me going to far too fast, please accept my apologies. BFG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you complaining about? What userpage? Who blocked? What policy violation did TRPoD commit that requires that an admin jump in and quickly take action? You have less than 300 edits, yet you managed to find ANI quick enough, so what is the deal? Dennis Brown - 2¢15:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have been involved in a lot of edit wars, and causing a lot of backlash, I was more interested in feedback than to create an actual case BFG (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRPoD's userpage is protected from re-creation "per user request." I fail to see what is wrong with that. My feedback to you is to either present an actionable case or withdraw, since you appear to be here in response to a single edit by TRPoD at Hydra effect and have made no effort at interaction. Acroterion(talk)16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a user doesn't want to have a userpage, why should they be forced to have one? And if they really don't want one, why allow vandals the opportunity to create one with intent to harass an editor? Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could just be simple retaliation from a new editor over TheRedPenOfDoom removing content from Hydra effect (which was created by the OP) and adding tags noting that the references could be improved and questioning the notability of the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no wanting retaliation. Before I noticed that the user was involved in other edit wars and similar tagging, I never thought this was anything more. I simply wanted advice on how to proceed. If you think this is irrelevant, then surely it is. Let's just close down the issue. ̃BFG (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to underline that I have no agenda. I've reviewed some more of his edits, it might be that he just engages in controversial subjects, and is a really active editor. The issues that prompted me to ask here was Dog meat and Diamond Games, and of course the previously mentioned very strange deletion log which User:Manul put forward a perfectly good explanation for below. There is also Parapsychology and Gamergate controversy in recent days, but these are fundamentally controversial subjects. I have no strong feelings about upholding any complaint. BFG (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed your redirects from your user/talk space. You can't redirect your current account to an unused account. If you are both users and lost the password, or whatever, you need to declare this, otherwise, if you use both accounts without some declaration, you are violating WP:SOCK, which I'm guessing isn't your intent. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, and that's an issue I would very much like to address. I leave that issue for my talk page. If you could help me resolve it, I'd be much obliged. BFG (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of the missing User:TheRedPenOfDoom page: evidently it is create-protected because people kept creating it. If the page existed then the name TheRedPenOfDoom would be colored blue in history pages, causing the Internet to be thrown into turmoil. Manul ~ talk16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
battleground behavior and general uncivility by RGloucester
The latest from RGloucester (talk·contribs) is his refusal to accept the outcome of the Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton move discussion. This was a long drawn out discussion but consensus was quite clearly in favor of moving it. He has since been edit warring over the name in the infobox,[138], [139], [140], [141]. He has now announced his plans on the article talk page to do another move request to change it back. After a chorus of people opposing such an idea, he made this edit [142] indicating he believes that only his opinion is correct and that he WILL eventually get his way.
This is not the first time he has made such statements that things WILL go his way, which I feel is an intimidation tactic.[143] He frequently makes demands and refuses to accept when things do not go his way, such as this checkuser request.[144]
Additionally, he's being extremely uncivil at the Village Pump. He has violated WP:NPA by telling someone they are inferior and to accept their "station" in life [145]. What I find most bizarre is that he stated that "God has spoken to you and your cause through me, and I've said what he intended in a clear manner." [146] He also believes that nobody on Wikipedia has any rights to protest anything [147] (which I suppose he does not feel applies to him). He has been blocked four or five times this year already (despite his claims that "someone who is right can never be blocked.") [148]) and his antics frequently feature on Reddit. I feel something needs to be done about this user, unless he specifically states his willingness to work with other editors, that he will accept consensus when things don't go his way, and that he agrees he is not the messenger of God on Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: it's actually a larger issue regarding one editor in particular and not specific to the Hillary Clinton article - there are other editors involved with the HC infobox argument. I think there is a larger and ongoing issue that needs to be addressed with RGloucester. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with —Мандичка. It's related, but RGloucester's battleground behavior and attitude deserve special attention. I would hope a warning would suffice. --В²C☎17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: Well, there seems to be a cycle where a warning is given or a "break" is imposed every few months or so. Given that's how it seems to be "addressed" on each occasion, I'm not too sure if it will be any different if the thread is down here or merged as a sub-thread into the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:RGloucester is an editor who polarizes the community, who has supporters and opponents. "The community" at this noticeboard has never done a good job of dealing with divisive or polarizing editors. If anyone thinks that this editor really needs to be sanctioned, they can go to ArbCom. I concur with the criticism of his sometimes extreme self-righteousness, as in his statements that he may not be blocked because he is right; but the community at this noticeboard has never dealt effectively with polarizing editors. In the case of his comments at Village pump (miscellaneous), my interpretation is that he has forgotten that, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that being "polarizing" ought to be grounds for any action against an editor whatsoever. In this case, there are plenty of other specific grounds for action, without resorting to a vague charge of polarization, which could be used against any editor who has a mind of his own, and honestly says what he thinks. In this particular situation, RGloucester is simply being dishonest retaliatory. He is planning to move the article not simply because it should be moved, but explicitly in retaliation against "Certain editors [who] have taken to the war path, ignoring Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common sense. They attempt to eradicate the word 'Rodham', as if said word were vulgar." There would be no suggestion to again do an article move but for continuing efforts to remove "Rodham" from locations other than the article title. There is no need to point here to "polarization" because we can point to more specific bad behavior. Retaliatory editing is always bad behavior.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be noted that American political edits are under discretionary sanctions per the new ArbCom ruling. To quote, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If RG has been made aware of these sanctions I just informed him of the discretionary sanctions ([149]), WP:AE would be the appropriate venue to air grievances and allegations of wrongdoing. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 17:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain exactly what this means to me? Does this mean that all post-1933 U.S. politics articles are under 1RR, or what?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is a nonsense. First of all, I have not "edit-warred" with anyone over anything. I've not edited the article in a week, and have no involvement with the development of its content (I have never edited an "American political article"). I opened a talk page thread ages ago, which was promptly ignored by the likes of Calidum, who continued edit-warring with other editors over the infobox header, leading to the article's protection. Second of all, I am preparing to open a new RM because no moratorium was enacted, and because I believe that the evidence shows that the other title should be the title of the Wikipedia article. This is what those who "moved" the article did (such as well-known title warrior Born2cycle), filing new RMs at every juncture for years, so I do not see why I should not be allowed it? What is the reason for this apparent double standard? Furthermore, I find it absurd that I'm being taken to task over people who dislike my character. I have committed no wrong-doing, other than that some people here seem to have a visceral hatred of my very being. There is no justification whatsoever for an AN/I thread, or anything else. Yes, I oppose liberal activism on an encylopaedia that is supposed to be a bastion of neutrality. It isn't supposed to be a soapbox, or so I thought. Was that not the foundation of the project? And yet, merely voicing an opinion on the matter of these banners has brought fellows out of the woodwork, trying to sink my every act. What is the meaning of this? Why has this come to pass? Why are these editors able to go about unabashedly attacking the likes of me, incessantly playing at political advocacy, and yet I'm the one that's being chastised with a paddle? Explain, dear AN/I. Explain. RGloucester — ☎17:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Uninvolved editor comment, aka. unsolicited advice) Bad idea, RGloucester. Even if you are "right" on the merits, back-to-back RM's never go down well, and yours will surely be voted down (not on the "merits") if you try this. You are best advised to wait about 6 months (or until Hillary!! gets elected – whichever comes first) and try again then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting. EvergreenFir notified RGloucester of discretionary sanctions, and RGloucester deleted the notification, saying that he has never edited an American politics article. Hilary Rodham Clinton is an American politician. To respond to Anythingyouwant, I agree that being polarizing or divisive should not be grounds for sanctions against an editor. Anythingyouwant stated that RGloucester has engaged in dishonesty and retaliatory editing, which are conduct issues. I meant that "the community" at this noticeboard has difficulty in dealing with identified conduct issues by polarizing editors, and that conduct issues by polarizing or divisive editors should be dealt with either by Arbitration Enforcement or by the ArbCom. RGloucester hasn't responded to my comment about dripping sarcasm on the Internet, which is a waste of pixels. I recommend that this thread be closed by an uninvolved administrator, and that any conduct issues be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AE does not apply, as I wasn't notified of the sanctions until mere minutes ago. As such, I wasn't made "aware" of the sanctions until after the supposed "violations" occurred. Not that there were any "violations". You'll note that the sum total of my involvement with the HRC article is with regard to the title, not with regard to anything political. I have no involvement in "American politics", and know nothing about them, praise God. I do not consider the few edits I made to restore the infobox header to the consensus version a week ago to be "editing an American politics article". Insofar as "sarcasm" is concerned, I do not understand as to what you are referring. Please be clearer, and perhaps I can furnish you with a reply. RGloucester — ☎18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps my reference to sarcasm with respect to RGloucester's comments at Village pump (miscellaneous) telling other editors to stop challenging the will of the ruling classes and the will of God and to stop being so self-important was too kind, and perhaps either he was trolling or he actually believed what he said. It is true that those comments do not fall within the scope of Arbitration Enforcement because they have to do with European politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, I don't know exactly what "polarizing" refers to in this sense. I don't see anyone on the other side supporting RGloucester. The closest thing was the suggestion that he was being sarcastic when he proclaimed to speaks the word of God and insulted someone, which he has denied. He's also denied edit warring and apparently feels editing the politician's name in the infobox falls outside of ArbCom sanctions as it is not political content. Do you still suggest taking it to arbitration? You work in arbitration, correct? —МандичкаYO 😜 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Robert, but I read his suggestion to mean taking it to WP:Arbitration Enforcement, not to WP:Arbitration. AE is where admins evaluate possible violations of ArbCom decisions, includng those involving discretionary sanctions, while Arbitration is a much more involved and time-consuming process which is generally used for new cases. Take a look at the content at WP:AE and see if you think it's an appropriate place to deal with your concerns. BMK (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint about RGloucester is regarding their ongoing behavior, incivil approach and general diva behavior that is approaching infamy outside of WP (like this unwarranted absurd attack on Drmies) that was on reddit). AE is just about people violating arbitrary sanctions. I haven't studied everything RGloucester has ever written, but it appears they've never made any admission or indication of meeting people halfway, just a ragequit when they demanded to be blocked. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation was in particular to take the issue of move-warring or title-warring about an American politician to arbitration enforcement. The name in the infobox is the name of a candidate for President of the United States, and that is certainly American politics. If RGloucester thinks that he can persuade the uninvolved admins at AE that that isn't political, he can try to persuade them of that. If someone wants to propose sanctions for incivility with regard to a European political issue, they can do that here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Firstly, there is nothing "uncivil" about stating that it isn't Wikipedia's business to be interfering in matters of law or government. Secondly, it seems that you, Mr McClenon, despite being being an Arbitration clerk, are not aware of WP:AC/DS procedures. I cannot be taken to AE in this supposed "American politics" topic area for anything that occurred prior to having been made aware of the sanctions. Given that I've not edited any American politics pages since that notice, mere hours ago, there are no grounds for an AE request in that topic area. Regardless, there would not be anything actionable even if AE was a possible route. I would remind Mr McClenon that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for certain political views. I understand that he may endorse the liberal views expressed in the discussion on the matter of the banners, but that does not mean he is able to initiate a sanctioning of editors who have different views, or view the neutrality of the encylopaedia as sacrosanct. RGloucester — ☎00:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I would like to note that Miss Wikimandia's mention of certain off-Wikipedia websites of ill-repute does not do her any service. It makes it clear that she is part of a long-running off-Wikipedia harassment campaign against me as an editor, started late last year during the Cultural Marxism deletion debate. Said campaign has been ongoing, and has made editing nigh impossible in some cases. If anything, I recommend that she be sanctioned for participating in this campaign of harassment, and for participating in what has essentially been stalking. RGloucester — ☎00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not part of any campaign to harass or stalk you. If your behavior has gained the attention of the wider world, that has nothing to do with me. I don't care about the "Cultural Marxism" page and have never made any comment about it nor have I ever edited it. You're entitled to your opinion and there's nothing uncivil about saying you oppose the banner idea... notice the many other people who expressed that opinion who are not being discussed at ANI??? However, you're not entitled to be rude. What is uncivil is your insults and inability to work with other editors, which is part of an ongoing issue you have of seeing yourself as superior to everyone (except God, who speaks through you, of course). —МандичкаYO 😜 01:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? What "insult"? I never "insulted" anymore. I merely said that one should know one's place, as one should do. Mind you, this was in response to an outpouring of passion on the part of one editor, whereby he was in anguish over the fact that many of the photographs he has taken will cease to be in his ownership if the mentioned law passes. I was simply making it clear that he has no right to decide whether the photographs are his own, and that Wikipedia is not a place for passionate advocacy. It isn't for us to decide. That's a matter for the ruling class, for our betters. If they decide that these photographs shan't be able to be used, then they shan't be able to be used. We have no right to challenge the law. The law is the law, and it must be respected. RGloucester — ☎03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has been brought here before by me (see links below). He has a very big WP:OWN problem with Jackson High School (Michigan) and to a lesser extent, Lumen Christi Catholic High School, the two high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence to his constant and unchecked WP:GAME and WP:IDHT have, IMO, risen to the level of WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for an indeff per NOTHERE, or lacking that, broadly construed editing restrictions on topics connected to high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence follows. I leave the rest to the community.
I believe the above, along with a browse of his talk page and contributions, shows amply evidence of a WP:SPA who has no interest in conforming to the community standards for either content or civility. Thanks. Notifying him next edit John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely aggravating how literally every mistake I make on here you bash me. A lot of those things you're complaining about were noob mistakes. I do not how to contact other users and you refuse to help me but instead you refer to me with vulgar language such as "bub". Second, every single edit I make is reverted by John too. I say he gets off my back. JacksonViking (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're not able to read a diff or if it's a deliberate misrepresentation of it, but all John from Idegon did in that edit, and what he referred to, was removing a duplicated section header... Thomas.W talk08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean to misrepresentation. In the prior paragraph, HE referred to me as "bub" (not at all vulgar BTW) in the diff above labeled "further user page vandalism..." and I replied "So it's not bub now?" It's just another example of GAME. John from Idegon (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently Schiff has posted a YouTube video requesting corrections to balance out the liberal bias of Wikipedia on his article. There have been a fair number of edits from IP and new accounts pushing a very pro-Schiff viewpoint on things. The article does have Pending Changes enabled, but I'm at or darn close to 3 reverts unaccepting various changes. Would a couple of other folks mind reviewing what's pending and helping out? Alternative, it may make sense, given Schiff's call for edits, to semi the article for a day or two to force talk page discussions on requested changes. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. I've adding a talk page discussion for one of the targetted areas, inviting some discussion and pointing out the need for good sources. Ravensfire (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After reverting the most recent edit from the above IP, I looked at a few earlier contributions and see other vandalism from the same address going back to 2010. I didn't look at enough to see if there are also good edits, or to form an opinion of whether the edits are all from the same person. I also didn't check whether any of the old vandalism is still around needing reversion. I may look into it later but have other things going on right now. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely a long-term pattern of... uh, "unhelpful" edits (peppered with what looks like the occasional good-faith edit). But, ironically, I'm not sure if they are persistent enough to merit a block. They edit (much less) than once a month, on average. I think an actual "final" (personalized, gentle?) warning message from a bona fide Admin that any more of this nonsense will lead to a block might hopefully lead this IP down a different, more constructive path... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked for 3 months. 3 months would ordinarily be too long for the first block of an IP, but given the long term pattern, and particularly the more recent clear BLP Violations, I think it is necessary. Hopefully it will be long enough that they try to edit while still blocked, and maybe get the message. Unfortunately, our normal counter vandalism practices can let vandals this intermittent slip through the cracks. Monty84520:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lucd13(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) just recently created a user page that generally personally attacks users on Wikipedia and Wikipedia itself (or possibly me). This was created after they made an edit [150] where they added a source for the number of episodes at CSI: Cyber(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The video was unfortunately inaccessible for me, therefore the source was temporarily wrong until another user was available to confirm the said content. It was an Australian website, so it must only be available for Australian residents. Based on that, I reverted them [151]. They reverted my edit [152] saying that the video is in fact accessible and the said content is truthful. I cannot confirm it since I can't access the video. Then they said that I "should be careful in the future before deleting people's honest contributions." (??). I eventually reverted them [153], stating that the video is unavailable for me. Thus, I can't confirm what they're adding is truthful or not. Then the userpage full of personal attacks was created shortly after. The user page generally attacks other users, but it was created after the little spat mentioned above so I may be the lead on the attacks. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No admin action called for. The angry userpage is hardly polite, but there's nothing personal about it. "Generally personally attacks", as you say, is a contradiction — if it's general it's not personal. Nobody in particular is mentioned by name nor hinted at. Even if you feel sure that it was the spat with you that caused the remarks, and that you are in some sense "meant", your feeling about the motivation in the individual's head is not something we can sanction or even reproach them for. I for my part am not prepared to ask them to remove the sentiments, either. People traditionally have wide latitude on their userpages, including the freedom to criticize Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It can be a useful page, Callmemirela, but it's not relevant here. WP:POLEMIC is about a) "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia", which this isn't — it's related to Wikipedia — and b) "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors", which this also isn't — no specific editors are alluded to, individually or as a group. The user is letting off steam, and I'm not sure I even blame them. Bishonen | talk20:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Mirela, our verifiability policy contains a section (WP:SOURCEACCESS) stating that sources are not required to be accessible to all users. If the user asserted that they saw the video and it verified the information they inserted, you should leave it at that, unless you have a verifiable reason yourself to dispute the claim (in which case you need your own sources). The SOURCEACCESS section has some other suggestions for how you can verify a source that you can't access. None of this is an excuse to run amok and throw tantrums, but Lucd13's response was pretty tame compared to some I've seen, and I would agree did not violate WP:POLEMIC (though probably did violate WP:NOTFORUM). It's been blanked now anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Callmemirela, it's rather dubious to close a section you opened yourself, ensuring that you get the last word. I'll let your close stand (moving Ivanvector's pertinent comment into it), as it was a storm in a teacup anyway, but please think of this for the future. Bishonen | talk21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I am not trying to get the last word. I am sorry I am giving that impression. You, an admin, said no action was required and so on. All I wanted to know, based on the situation, if anything could had been done. You said no and I closed it. I got an answer and that was it. I don't know how this is getting labeled as I want to have the last word? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑21:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just reverted him at the same place for the same thing. Based on the length of time that this has gone on, a 72-hour block for disruptive/nothere editing seems appropriate. GregJackPBoomer!22:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it on his talk page. If he does it again, a short block would likely be in order as it was made perfectly clear that his activities are unacceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adds unsourced material, eg. [156], despite warnings. Never adds edit summaries, despite requests to. Does not respond to talk page requests from other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw the one revert, but he is actually right. Took me 10 seconds to find the citation for it at [157] The best thing is to just put it back with that reference. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the person's edit analysis. Behold and be awed.Yeah, discussed this person here a while back. The general consensus of the admin corps was leave him alone, he makes occasional minor mistakes and won't talk, but his overall contributions are net positive by far, so let him carry on. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cliff1911 has more than 40,000 edits and it looks like every one of them is mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits, and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, much of it potentially useful, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever. This is the world's worst case of WP:IDHT. How do you deal with an editor who refuses to follow policy and refuses to communicate about not following policy? Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, IPs have gotten blocks around here just because they won't respond to Talk page comments. I've got to think the same would apply to account-holding editors. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment, and not responding to queries, etc. pretty much destroys that. The other editor I can think of in this vein is basically a Wikignome, and about 80% of his edits are constructive, while the other 20% are more unhelpful, but their edits are so gnomish that no one has pursued it further in that case. But I'm of the opinion that not responding to queries at all is unhelpful, no matter the "quality" of the edits, and can and should be the basis for Admin action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors don't edit or create content in a vacuum. Is an editor really adhering to the fourth pillar if they never communicate... well, ever?! Look, I'm not saying to block for not communicating in this instance. But the discussion on their Talk page is entirely correct – the first time this editor commits an infraction, possibly even an inadvertent one, they're likely to end up indef blocked because the Admins will have no other choice if they never communicate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably recommend an attention getting block. I can't remember the name of the editor but I remember a similar case from a year or so back where an editor refused to reply to comments on talk pages. If I remember correctly, it took 1-2 blocks for him to realize that people meant business and he eventually began responding to comments and leaving edit summaries. Honestly... at this point he's been getting so many warnings that at this point the only way to show him that we're serious about talking with other editors is to actually back up our words with actions. While he may have made beneficial edits, he's also made some non-beneficial edits and he's continued to do this despite several very clear warnings about a lack of sourcing. I'm of the mind that his continued actions (despite warnings) shows a refusal to follow the rules. If this were any other editor he'd have been given at least 1-2 warning blocks by now. The only reason he hasn't received them is because he hasn't responded to anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support attention-getting block. If he were just making helpful edits, it would be no issue. But there's some problems with his edits. Looking at his talk page, he doesn't just add info, he removes it without explanation, and does not respond/correct various problems like disambiguation links he adds. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support attention-getting block. If he doesn't want to communicate with people that is absolutely fine, but that does not mean that he can continue editing in a way which, whilst it is not going to break enWiki, has received sufficient attention here and on his talk page from numerous editors that it is now disruptive. I don't really see a material difference between his behaviour and point 5 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. His behviour is taking up more and more of other editor's time. I don't really see why he should not be blocked until he states, however briefly that he will act on the repeated suggestions of the community as I don't see a single post on his talk page that could be deemed to be a positive reaction to his editing. If he then wishes to return to silence that is his choice Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. We've had a few of these lately, which inspired me to write WP:ENGAGE. The key here is asking how much disruption has he caused. One or two recent reverts is not enough. I've put him on notice, pointed him to the information that he can get blocked if he continues to revert without talking about it, the fair thing is to wait and see if he stops reverting. No one is required to talk here, as long as they aren't doing something that requires talking. The last thing we want to do is run someone off when it isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Not yet"? "Leave him/her alone"? Cliff1911 has made 40,000 edits in seven years, refuses to leave edit summaries, refuses to communicate and -- most fundamentally -- refuses to add sources for anything. If either Dennis Brown or Anthonyhcole would follow every one of Cliff1911's edits and add the reliable and verifiable sources required for these edits, I'd have no issue. Until then, we have an editor who refuses to follow bedrock Wikipedia policy and who seems to be operating in their own encyclopedia, not ours. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this is that he's done this for years and he's been receiving warnings about his various edits since 2008. This post from 2011 shows that he'd been warned several times. He's clearly been warned dozens upon dozens of times about his editing and at this point he should be clearly aware that we want him to at least respond when people have issue with him. I mean, he's been brought to ANI TWICE, both in2013. He never responded in either circumstance and he was never blocked. At this point he's extremely unlikely to pay any attention to further warnings. I mean, at this point our lack of action is pretty much giving him the message that not only are his actions OK, but that Wikipedia is condoning his actions because he made a lot of edits. I mean, that's the message I'm getting from all of this, that an editor can be problematic and have the same problems over a period of six years and never actually have to face repercussions for repeatedly going against people's requests and Wikipedia policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it this way: if he'd responded to us and basically told us "no way, I'm going to keep doing this, forget you guys" then we'd have at least blocked him temporarily. Well, that's pretty much what he's telling us with his outright refusal to even respond to anything. I mean, what does he care? If we continue on the way we have, he has nothing to fear - he doesn't have to change since people will argue that his amount of edits gives him immunity. (And yes, that is essentially what is being said here.) The length and amount of edits are nothing to sneeze at, but right now this is pretty much setting a dangerous example, that Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to problematic editors if they exist long enough on Wikipedia and edit enough. I mean, come on guys- this guy isn't going to change unless we make him pay attention and if he's not going to change then he's going to continue to make problematic edits, leave no edit summary, and refuse to talk with other editors. I'm not saying we should hang his head on a spike and never allow him to edit again, but clearly he's not going to change or respond unless he's at least given a 2-3 day (or even a week) block that forces him to stop and respond. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I get time, I'm going to try to count how many of his last 50-100 edits have been unsourced. I'd say that the bulk of them (like 70-80%) appear to unsourced and while these aren't huge BLP concerns (ie, he's not saying that Cher married a fish), they're still BLP concerns because they're unsourced. He's fully aware that we require sources, yet he also refuses to source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to add citations to your edits. If someone challenges what you add without a good citation they may delete your contribution. I'm fairly sure edit summaries aren't mandatory either - at least, they weren't the last time I looked. Perhaps I misunderstood the above, but I thought his/her contributions were good faith efforts and generally good. I thought he/she wasn't vandalising, edit-warring or in any other way harming the encyclopaedia. If I've got that wrong, I apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to talk isn't a violation of policy, and specifically, a person can NOT be compelled to participate at ANI. He's been put on notice: if he edit wars (an actual violation), then he will be blocked. Blocking him solely because we want him to talk isn't supported in policy. Unless someone can point to a specific policy that he is violating, then a block won't stand, as it would blocking to force them to do what we WANT them to do, not what policy requires. We aren't here to do that. There are many, many individuals like this here at Wikipedia, who act in good faith but won't talk. I'm not prepared to get into the psychology of it, but it is common enough. If he edit wars, I will happily block for 24 hours the first time, and otherwise follow normal procedure for behavioral issues. Not talking, by itself, is not a behavioral policy violation. It is a pain, but not a violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've spun through the last couple of hundred edits by this editor, and I cannot see any obvious clear policy violation other than possibly mild violations of WP:BLP through adding unsourced content. Most of the work seems to be insignificant plot summary gnoming. As Dennis says, if he starts to edit-war or violate real policies that can be backed with diffs, we'll look into it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the defense of the page move, it looks like Murbarak the Great is a nickname/title that's used (see this article at Britannica.com, although it's not the common name and as such the article should remain at Mubarak Al-Sabah. I've left him a warning on his userpage about responding with hostility. If he does anything else that's hostile then I'd recommend a cautionary block, depending on how he responds or acts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked that he not move any pages without trying to get a consensus, mostly because he's a new user and because sometimes pages are under specific names for specific reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... that would definitely explain the POV move. It looks like there's still a redirect so if nobody objects I'll delete this. I'll give it a few minutes to make sure that nobody minds before doing this, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely worth keeping an eye on Khaleejian's edits. He has made some very questionable edits, some of which could be seen as disruptive and some of which are POV-pushing. In my view, this instance of incivility is overshadowed by his inappropriate article contributions. Elspamo4 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like he's done much work on them but make userboxes to stick ok his userpage. He also wants to rename the ISIL article to Islamic State (despite recent failed rename proposal). —МандичкаYO 😜 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Huhshyeh has a single purpose account for Popular Front of India, since 2011 he is exclusively or mainly editing this page see his contribution. Given article is subject of discretionary sanctions by arbitration committee. The organization is alleged to be militant organization but claimed to be social organization. User Huhshyeh is exclusively editing this article since 4 years and he adds only "social work" of organization that too from unreliable sources like "Muslim mirror" "two cirles" etc. He is probably activist of that organization or paid editor for that organization. He has been involved in edit wars on the page. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I'd like to request a self-recall, i.e. comments and opinions as to whether I should remain an admin just a touch more than eight years in the role. Recent events have demonstrated that there are serious question marks over my ability to conduct myself as an admin, and that I may be bringing the rest of the "admin corps" into disrespect; indeed I have often been cited as "one of the worst admins" and that I have "no credibility" on Wikipedia. While I fully accept my approach in many places and discussions has been abrasive and sometimes unnecessarily fighty, but I have never knowingly abused the tools afforded my by the admin bit. For openness, I have, in the past, been temporarily blocked for transgression of an IBAN and I was recently blocked by a fellow admin for a BLP violation (the outcome of which is discussed in some detail in sections above). The latter, and its subsequent fallout has determined this course of action.
The time has come that I do the right thing and submit myself to the community (well, this community) for scrutiny. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep the bit in order to continue to help out as and when necessary, and will endeavour to moderate my "snippiness" in either case. Naturally, I will stand by the result of the consensus as closed by an uninvolved admin. Thanks to all those who take the time to comment, pro or con or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
, That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
![[83]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DrRogerLibbyin2014-200.png#File:DrRogerLibbyin2014-200.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
