Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
| Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
|---|
|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources
BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make major changes like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] to the Bulgaria national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without leaving any edit sums or making any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. This has been going on for quite some time, and has included the using of IP accounts, despite being reverted on numerous occasions by different editors and messages being left at Talk:Bulgaria national football team#Changes being made by BulgariaSources and User talk:BulgariaSources#Major changes to Bulgaria national football team, etc., but still they continue on as before.
Similar edits have been made by the same editor to other Bulgaria related articles, but the editor continues to leave no edit sums and make no attempt to engage in any type of discussion to clarify their reasons for making those edits as well.
For the record, I've been assuming good faith, but I am starting to wonder whether this editor is really not here to help build an encyclopedia. I have notified them of this discussion here, so perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. I feel, however, that a failure to respond here means that some sort of administrator action is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Might be time to throw all of the socks into the drawer. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd go one further and say that a medium length block is in order, considering they've been blocked twice before for this sort of behaviour. (For disruptive editing at the end of July, and for sockpuppetry at the beginning of August). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems as if BulgariaSources has never made an edit outside of the article namespace since their account was created in July 2015. It also seems as if they have not left an edit sum for any of the edits they have made during that time. I am not sure if this means they simply have no desire in engaging in discussion with other editors, or that they feel unable to do so effectively in English. Regardless, no acknowledgment at all of any of the comments directed to them either on their user talk or article talk pages is making it quite hard to resolve these issues through discussion and not administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd go one further and say that a medium length block is in order, considering they've been blocked twice before for this sort of behaviour. (For disruptive editing at the end of July, and for sockpuppetry at the beginning of August). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I think this was archived prematurely and that the matter is still unresolved, so I have moved it back to the main page per the instructions in "How to use this page". I hope an admin will take a closer look at what BulgariaSources has been doing and consider not only my comments, but also the comment of Sir Sputnik as well as that BulgariaSources has not yet responded at all to any of the above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know how admins still couldn't stop him from making this edits...I saw the history of article and its seems he does this from quite long time as not registred user until the page is protected. I hope admins can find a solution and can't believe he is stil not banned. -- Chris Calvin (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
CurtisNaito at History of Japan
CurtisNaito made a grand total of two edits (out of a total of over 5000) to the article History of Japan, nominated it at WP:GAN, and ten days later (after a very superficial review) it was made GA on 25 August. The article's status has been under heavy dispute by a large number of editors since, and after a month long WP:GAR, it was delisted today. Less then 12 minutes late CurtisNaito renominated it, and has editwarred with me to keep it nominated. Despite being told on his talk page that, per Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_1:_Prepare_the_article, the article is to be brought up to quality before nomination. His persistent WP:IDHT response is that "the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality"[6][7]—obviously not the case because the article was just delisted for not meeting the criteria. CurtisNaito has already been warned at ANI to drop the IDHT approach or he'll be sanctioned with a 72-hour block. He continually tries to filibuster any attempt at discussing the article or his behaviour, including currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- My personal belief is that the article is already of good level status, and that is why I chose to nominate it. In general, I think Wikipedia allows nominators to decide whether or not they want to continue with the nomination of a good article. On the good article review FAQ, one rule states, "Nominators have no special privileges over other editors, except that they can withdraw the nomination." Another says, "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."
- During the good article reassessment, there was not a very clear consensus to delist. At least four users or maybe more were in favor of keeping. It is true that user Prhartcom, who delisted the article, stated that the article is only "70–90% there" towards good article status. However, my hope is that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and assess whether or not the article is at 70-90% or greater. If it is at 70-90% or more, then I expect that the future good article reviewer will merely ask for changes, rather than failing the article outright. Naturally though, whether it passes or fails is up to the good article reviewer.
- I'm sure it will take a long time for the article to get picked up for good article review. It usually takes months. In the unlikely event that the article is still very far from good article status right now, all we need to do is improve the article before the review happens. If CurlyTurkey or any other user asks me to make changes to the article prior to the review, then I will make those changes. If any further improvements are asked for, I am ready and able to make them.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also note that, while I did make only two edits before initially nominating the article. One of them was a large edit. I modified almost every section of the article in order to add citations and make the text more concise. I believe that if the article is up for nomination, there will be good incentive to solicit new opinions and to improve the article even further.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- CurtisNaito's disruptive behaviour both here and elsewhere should have resulted in blocks a long time ago. He and I were recently both told not to bludgeon discussions or engage in IDHT behaviour or suffer immediate 72h+ blocks. He almost immediately violated this moratorium by claiming on the GAR that no misrepresentation of sources had been found in the article, ignoring all the talk page discussion to the contrary (Ctrl+F this page for "IDHT" for the specific examples). His recent behaviour since the GAR closed has gone to a whole new level. Full disclosure: CurtisNaito has been monitoring my edits for the past year or so, jumping in any opportunity he sees to get rid of me. There is currently an ArbCom case due to be opened involving me and another editor with whom I am currently IBANned. CurtisNaito has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, but immediately jumped in to badmouth me. However, the need to sanction him for his atrocious behaviour on the HoJ page is completely unrelated to the ArbCom case. If he is blocked but has anything worthwhile to contribute to the ArbCom discussion, he should be allowed do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. During the good article reassessment, it was concluded that the accurate sourcing requirement "is done as much as possible" because "I was able to perform my spotcheck and have my questions answered." It was also noted during the reassessment that the article was at least 70 to 90% towards good article status. There was thus good reason to renominate it. If needed, I will make improvements to the article even before a good article reviewer picks it up, though when the time for good article review comes I'm expecting the good article reviewer may ask for revisions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case
| ||
|---|---|---|
@Curly Turkey: Would you be willing to add this evidence to the ArbCom case, just in case this thread gets run off the rails? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, despite the insistence of editors involved in this discussion, the arbitration committee determines what is and is not involved in the cases presented to them. CurtisNaito has specifically requested the drafting arbitrator that he be made a party to the case on that individual's talk page, and Dennis Brown, in his comment requesting the case be opened, specifically referred to a prior incident of a dispute between Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito. I had attempted to remove the collapsing, but the collapser, I believe Hijiri, has collapsed at least two comments in this thread already, making it more effort than it is worth to revert the multiple collapsings. It is the place of the arbitration committee to determine what is and is not relevant to their case, and I cannot see how it is necessarily reasonable for involved parties to determine on their own, without the input of the arbs, what is and is not relevant to a case before ArbCom. I believe the comment in the visible collapse note, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," while clearly indicating that the collapser considers him or herself qualified to make decisions for the ArbCom without their input, and the rather presumptive judgment contained in it, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," that the parties involved are not in fact the sole determiners of what is and is not related to the case, despite the apparent belief to the contrary, and suggest that the individuals involved perhaps allow the arbitrators to determine what evidence can be considered relevant to the case, considering their greater knowledge and awareness of the policies and procedures involved, than parties and prospective parties to that case. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
- That CurtisNaito's editwarring with me over an invalid GA nomination at History of Japan is irrelevant to an ANI case about Hijiri and Catflap and Nichiren Buddhism is an empirical fact. The scope of an ArbCom case cannot be all of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have moved the end of the collapse template once again above my last comment. The edit warring on the History of Japan talk page has only taken place after roughly a month has passed since the arb request was first made. I realize the extreme situations the arbs have been facing has been a reasonable cause for their delay, but, at the same time, I also think that virtually anyone would acknowledge that had the arbitration opened more quickly, in the normal manner, the individuals who have been waiting for the case to be opened, none of whom have had any direct indication when that might happen, may well have been, in a sense, postponing related action until such time as the case was opened and they presented their evidence. If that were the case with CN, that in and of itself might be seen as accounting for his apparent lack of other activity since the request was made.
- To Hijiri, you explicitly accused me of wikilawyering above, which is at the very least an implicit accusation of bad faith.
- I also point out to Curly Turkey that BMK has specifically indicated on the ArbRequest evidence page that CT be added as a party to the arbitration.
- I personally consider the rather poorly-thought-through, possibly rather GAMEy and OWNy, attempts to stifle any discussion, or even consideration of mitigating factors in the recent events, such as the collapsing of comments, itself extremely disruptive, and I sincerely urge Curly Turkey to refrain from such behavior in the future. Whether he wants that to be the case or not, there is a very real chance at this point that he will himself be made a party to the existing case, and, if that is the case, his own conduct, including attempts to collapse and thus refuse to address concerns of other editors, whether they agree with his own perceptions or not, and the possibility of such actions being in and of themselves inherently disruptive, may very easily be addressed there. And I believe I would be within the bounds of reasonable conduct here to remove further attempts on his part, or the part of anyone, to try to ignore the input of others regarding related matters. Those who may choose to respond to this thread should be given a full indication of related matters, including the matters collapsed by CT above, before being asked to make a decision. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
|
- The one stifling discussion here is you, John Carter, with this filibuster about an entirely unrelated ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say so. I believe that John Carter is simply making everyone aware that this issue is not a straightforward one, as it is scrambled up with the issues in that ArbCom case, which is why I've requested that the scope of the case be expanded to include all the editors involved in the conflict. BMK (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not involved, and if CurtisNaito is in any way involved, his involvement has nothing to do with the conflict here. If the issue were in some way related (which it's not) that would be an awfully strong reason CurtisNaito shouldn't be allowed to renominate the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say so. I believe that John Carter is simply making everyone aware that this issue is not a straightforward one, as it is scrambled up with the issues in that ArbCom case, which is why I've requested that the scope of the case be expanded to include all the editors involved in the conflict. BMK (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The one stifling discussion here is you, John Carter, with this filibuster about an entirely unrelated ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the difference between when the article was delisted from GA and when it's current state (for the purpose of nomination) I see a majority of minor wording fixes that do not appear to resolve the issue with respect to the concerns raised. I suggest that the GA Nominator withdraw the nomination unless they wish their actions to be construed as WP:IDHT/WP:FORUMSHOP as the only reason to re-nominate so quickly after being delisted (especially in light of the cosmetic changes to the article) is to make a disruptive point. Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The immediate renomination against the wishes of the editors sends a clear WP:OWN message and, I am sure, will emphatically discourage all necessary collaborative effort. zzz (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm purposefully ignoring whatever is going on with ArbCom because it isn't necessary to evaluate the local issues here. The rationale behind renominating appears to be based on the reviewer's initial opinion that the article is 70-90% close to fulfilling the GA criteria. Whether that that percentage is accurate or not, a nontrivial amount of work in article breadth and original research evaluation is needed on the article based on the reviewer's close. Those improvements have not been implemented yet (I see mostly copyediting improvements since 21 October), so it's premature to open a GAN so soon after delisting. CurtisNaito, I think it's a good idea to withrdraw the nomination for now and continue to improve the article-- there's no hurry here to renominate. Getting another reviewer for another GAN right away is not what is needed (and frankly, Prhartcom did a fantastic job of facilitating discussion on the GAR). I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) If CurtisNaito removes the nomination of the article and promises to wait for consensus to renominate, the issue here will be resolved. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- He renominated 12 minutes after it was delisted? This sounds like serious WP:OWNership, let alone the continued WP:IDHT comments here. Will an admin please act on Dennis Brown's warning that CurtisNaito would be blocked for 72 hours for violating IDHT? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sturmgewehr88, tell me again about how often you disagree with Hijiri88 and criticize him for his intransigent attitude. I need to be reassured, because without your constant assertions of such, I would start to think that you were a proxy of your fellow "-88" editor, or worse. BMK (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: give me a few hours and I'll add diffs if that's what you're asking? And yeah, I'm definitely a proxy "or worse" since I care so much about ないちゃー poets and he edits extensively on Ryukyu. </SARCASM> ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then a word to the wise: you need to re-evaluate what seems to be your habit of supporting H88 in practically every noticeboard thread he's involved in, because you're creating a specific appearance of off-hand approval of everything he does. Whatever is true or not about him, that's not conceivably the case, and you might want to be more circumspect about your support in public discussions. BMK (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I'll keep that in mind. I have never supported Hijiri's misbehavior, I've actually supported sanctions against him for it in the past. However, I do usually support him in content disputes, because he's usually right, and I rarely see some truth in his accusations. Take TH1980 for example. Hijiri accused him of being a sock almost the instant he noticed him. I have never beleived that TH1980 is a sockpuppet. However, I have seen first-hand an obvious pattern of wikistalking. TH1980 has gone to almost every dispute that involves Hijiri and immediately takes the opposing "side" no matter what the dispute is about. This is a textbook example. Just because Hijiri has a habit of crying wolf doesn't mean that wolves don't exist. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then a word to the wise: you need to re-evaluate what seems to be your habit of supporting H88 in practically every noticeboard thread he's involved in, because you're creating a specific appearance of off-hand approval of everything he does. Whatever is true or not about him, that's not conceivably the case, and you might want to be more circumspect about your support in public discussions. BMK (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: give me a few hours and I'll add diffs if that's what you're asking? And yeah, I'm definitely a proxy "or worse" since I care so much about ないちゃー poets and he edits extensively on Ryukyu. </SARCASM> ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sturmgewehr88, tell me again about how often you disagree with Hijiri88 and criticize him for his intransigent attitude. I need to be reassured, because without your constant assertions of such, I would start to think that you were a proxy of your fellow "-88" editor, or worse. BMK (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please close this section
- Note: AlbinoFerret has a personal beef with me; keep that in mind when wading through this interminable filibuster. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's the second person you've accused of "filibustering". Before you try for a third, I suggest you look up the definition of what an actual filibuster is. If either AF or JC were really "filibustering", no one would be able to get an word in edgewise, and that's clearly not the case here - everyone's having their say. Having facts inconvenient to you or with which you disagree pointed out is not a filibuster, in this case it's an attempt to provide context for the issue at hand. You may not like it, and you may disagree that their relevant, but it is in no way "filibustering", nor is it an illegitimate use of an AN/I report, in which all aspects of the issue reported are subject to examination. BMK (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- They are not "aspects of the issue reported", they are attempts to muddy the waters. This issue is unrelated to the ArbCom case, and this issue needs to be dealt with. Are those facts "inconvenient to you"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's the second person you've accused of "filibustering". Before you try for a third, I suggest you look up the definition of what an actual filibuster is. If either AF or JC were really "filibustering", no one would be able to get an word in edgewise, and that's clearly not the case here - everyone's having their say. Having facts inconvenient to you or with which you disagree pointed out is not a filibuster, in this case it's an attempt to provide context for the issue at hand. You may not like it, and you may disagree that their relevant, but it is in no way "filibustering", nor is it an illegitimate use of an AN/I report, in which all aspects of the issue reported are subject to examination. BMK (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
CurtisNaito is a party at Arbcom case that deals with editors in this area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88 This section should be closed and reopened at a future date if necessary. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret Please demonstrate how CN being a party to the ArbCom case involves this. Yes, Hijiri88 started the GAR but other editors commented and the consensus was to delete. I don't see how Curley Turkey is involved in the ArbCom case and therefore question if this really is connected to the ArbCom case between 2 other editors. Your proposition that being an associate party to an ArbCom case precludes other Dispute Resolution actions on other topics makes a very dangerous precedent that I believe should never be encouraged. Oppose closing this untill concrete evidence can be shown that CN's actions are directly related to the above mentioned ArbCom case. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- While not a named party, Curly Turkey has involved himself in the dispute. Rather than retype, look here.[9] The topic of the nominations has already been added to evidence.[10] AlbinoFerret 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Until a clerk or ArbCom member agrees that Curley Turkey belongs in as a party to the case, I'd suggest we try to resolve this here. I see this dispute as a sidebar to the case, and I suspect with the large amount of reviews ArbCom has recently granted, they'll pass on pulling this into the case. I also note it's only your leap that puts Curley into the case, and therefore doubt the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Careful, Hasteur, if you get on AlbinoFerret's bad side, you'll find yourself a "named party", too. Just look at how far backwards he's bending to try ot get me named—and how hard he's trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. It doesnt matter if Curley is added, CurtisNaito and the nominations already are part of the case. This is close to forum shopping, as this evidence should have been added to the arbcom case because of the place (nominations) and the party involved (CurtisNaito). This was added October 2nd in the case request.[11] AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence of what? CurtisNaito is editwarring against people, therefore Hijiri and Catflap are bad people? No, AlbinoFerret, you're just creating drahmah while trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. AlbinoFerret, you know perfectly well that that is completely untrue. CurtisNaito posted about me on "the noticeboards" because I was already challenging his faulty GA and FA nominations, and had been doing so (successfully, I might add -- I have always remained appropriately focused on article content, which is more than can be said for CurtisNaito) since May. (And if you try to assert that I have been "following" CurtisNaito since May, please bear in mind that he followed me to four other disputes before that over a two-year period.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- The drafting arbitrator has indicated that Curtis Naito, TH1980, and Sturmgewehr88 all be added as parties to the existing case as perhere. Considering that there have been numerous complaints regarding CN and Hijiri88 among others recently, it seems to me that this matter, which is in ultimately the same topic area as that of the Catflap and Hijiri, and involves some of the same principals, as well as others who were asked to be made parties to the arbitration in the opening statements, specifically including Curly Turkey, I think it is reasonable to say that this matter can probably be addressed as part of the ongoing serious of behavior which is being dealt with by that case. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Until a clerk or ArbCom member agrees that Curley Turkey belongs in as a party to the case, I'd suggest we try to resolve this here. I see this dispute as a sidebar to the case, and I suspect with the large amount of reviews ArbCom has recently granted, they'll pass on pulling this into the case. I also note it's only your leap that puts Curley into the case, and therefore doubt the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- While not a named party, Curly Turkey has involved himself in the dispute. Rather than retype, look here.[9] The topic of the nominations has already been added to evidence.[10] AlbinoFerret 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that the comment which was made about the article being 70 to 90% towards good article status was made in the middle of the review, long before many changes were made. In fact, at the very beginning of the review, I was told by Dr. Blofeld that, "it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." Dr. Blofeld said this before several sourcing spotchecks were done, which, according to Prhartcom, left the issue of source verification "done as much as possible". In other words, this article is extremely close to good article status, so much so that Prhartcom recommended that the article be reviewed again "in due course" Although I am hoping that the future good article reviewer will make recommendations for changes, I am already prepared to take suggestions on how to improve the article. I think the argument against renominating would be stronger if there was no one around with the time to improve the article upon request. However, I have the time to modify the article depending on what others users say between now and the many months which may pass before a review begins.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Both of those editors explicitly stated that they had not examined the sources even a little bit, and they also stated that they are not topic specialists and so don't know how comprehensive the article is. Put simply: They didn't say one way or the other whether the article's many critics were right in any of our assertions, since no one was talking about the quality of the prose. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
- Please close after blocking CurtisNaito for 72 hours for his repeated and continuous WP:IDHT behavior so we can all go back to editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose block, support expansion of ArbCom case, support everyone going back to editing. BMK (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Outback
Boomerang for Curly Turkey
|
Curley Turkey has hidden discussion under a double hat.[12] when I removed it to show my comments Curley Turkey reverted it.[13] Then proceed to post multiple ABF comments to the section.[14][15][16] I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Boomerang for AlbinoFerret
|
For drowning this discussion in drahmah unrelated to the issue raised. Note that AlbinoFerret's revenge against my collapsing the attempted filibuster was suddenly to try to name me party to an ArbCom case involving an editor I've never interacted with and areas in which I don't edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Boomerang for LjL
|
I haven't taken part in this discussion. How dare I? Maybe my contributions could have made a change, and now the chance is gone forever. I think I should definitely be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. --LjL (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out that Curly Turkey just removed other people's comments from this section. I can't easily revert that because of intervening edits. LjL (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Stop saying boomerang
|
Perhaps we should let the boomerang cool off for a little while, it is getting hot. It is meant for occasional use and there seems to be a line up to use it here. HighInBC 00:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Proposal
Proposal I understand Curly Turkey's reason for bringing this up here at ANI. Curly Turkey is usually right on target when he feels strongly about any topic; He writes high-quality articles himself and naturally demands high quality from others. I have learned a lot from Curly Turkey over the years. Therefore, Curly Turkey's advice is at least worth listening to, if not outright heeding the advice of, every time.
Curly Turkey observes that the nominator could do more to address the concerns of the community. Challengers in the community care about the article as much as the nominator does, and have access to sources just as the nominator does, and have fiercly but legitimately objected to certain acts of the nominator:
- WP:OWN exhibited by edit-warring to keep role of nominator
- WP:IDHT exhibited by failure to listen to and understand the ideas of the challengers or even to respectfully acknowledge each of their specific concerns.
Eventually, the nominator must either win over the challengers or leave. Truly: If the nominator were able to satify each of the strong suggestions clearly listed by each of the challengers, ensuring that they are ultimately happy, then the nominator can be assured that the challengers will stop their fierce objections and allow the nominator to take the article all the way to good article status.
What I propose is the following:
- An immediate, strong showing of good faith by a specific act of the nominator: immediately withdraw the article from GA status. After all, there is no time limit, and the community is loudly objecting, so it hurts nothing for the nominator to show the community that he is willing to back off; to demonstrate that, from this point forward, there is definite respect for the community: there is no WP:OWN and there will never again be any WP:IDHT. A withdraw at this time does not exclude the nominator from nominating the article again in the near future after community concensus, so the nominator can take comfort in that. This act would be a strong showing of good faith.
- An immediate positive statement from the nominator to the community stating suggested leadership plans for the article; i.e. that the nominator wishes the article to become GA status, and agrees that, of course, others have good ideas, and agrees to listen to and respect other's advice and ideas, and have meaningful content discussions with others, and asks for help implementing everyone's ideas. This begins real steps towards the ability to work with the community in a way that is nearly always postive and constructive. Remember, the nominator cares deeply about the article, and has the sources to improve it, but he is not the only one who cares and has sources. The nominator agrees to immediately state their desire from this point forward to make it right: to listen to the challenger's ideas, type them back out again; repeating them back to show that he understands their communication; and actively participate in the discussions about the content, always exhibiting a desire to implement the ideas that the challengers have suggested, as everyone only wants what's best for the article. The nominator proves with, not only words but actions, that he understands that the article is truly a team effort.
- A strong showing of good faith by a specific act of the challengers: Drop all fierce objections. Change the tone. Never decide to throw a wrench in the works by allowing yourself to be visibly frustrated; that only turns the "complain" volume way up and makes it look like you can't help but behave abominably. Understand that this approach only turns people off, it doesn't work, and it will no longer occur. From this point forward, all communication will be with a definite respect for each other, with a good faith agreement to work with the nominator to help him improve the article. The nominator has demonstrated good faith by agreeing to listen to and resolve your objections. Then why not demonstrate good faith and professionalism by proving your ability to work with the nominator. Objections must be stated, yes: All objections should be stated in list form, very clearly and concisely, then in discussion form, always in a constructive and helpful way. Be helpful, help the nominator work this list in a positive way. Do the work yourself whenever you wish, this will only help the article and will also demonstrate your excellence to the nominator. Remember that the nominator has pledged to listen to and respect your advice, and is competent enough to eventually put out good work, so therefore you promise to be nothing but helpful to achieve that, as it will be best for the article. Exhibit good faith that the nominator desires to read and understand your objections and meet your expectations. Everyone works with each other, all for the purpose of improving the article. When it is clear that the nominator is demonstrating good faith and competent effort, the challengers will allow the nominator to take the article all the way to good article status.
If anyone reads anything above that they kinda object to, and they feel tempted to complain about it below: I wouldn't recommend it. Instead, we are so over all that—stow it. The time has come to ante up. Let's see you do it: become more positive and productive and collaborative and goal-oriented and get this GA done! Comments are welcome. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I very much like Prhartcom's suggestion above, and have brought it up with Curtis on the article talk page.
- @Hasteur: I hope you don't mind, but I slightly altered your collapse parameters. It was messing with the formatting in a manner that damaged the links in the table of contents as well as the edit summaries. I've changed it so all of the text is collapsed, but in individual sections, so the section titles are still visible. Again, I hope you don't mind...
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support proposal. Thanks to CurtisNaito for removing the GA nomination ([22]). I agree that Phartcom's proposal above is the right way for all parties to move forward here, and I especially want to emphasize that both the nominator and reviewers must be careful that communication is done with the purpose of improving the article. The disparagement and accusations, derailing of initially productive discussions and actionable suggestions, and repeated failure to productively engage reviewers' comments and concerns here— none of this is acceptable behavior, and some of that will get reviewed at the present ArbCom case. There are behavioral issues present here, but I see some evidence of productive outcomes and that the involved editors here can work together coming out more recent article discussions. I consider the case closed here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I would say this is an admittance that CurtisNaito does not want to coöperate on the talk page, this is WP:IDHT in the most extreme form, and this is his ego speaking (I'm better than you because I have more GA articles). Exactly how much WP:ROPE are we supposed to give him? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the first diff, I didn't say that I didn't want to cooperate on the talk page. What I said was that discussion could be better facilitated if we only discussed article content, instead of issues not related to article content. I still think that this is a good policy.
- In the second diff, I was only pointing out that Henshall does not say that lifetime employment was a misconception. What he says is that the scale of the system and its historical length have been exaggerated. According to Henshall, lifetime employment was a purely postwar innovation which only covered one quarter of the workforce. However, the system itself did exist.
- In the third diff, I'm merely pointing out that the reason I consolidated the citations was because I figured that I might be asked to do so during a future good article review. I didn't think it was a big deal to cite multiple facts to a short range of pages from the same chapter of the same book covering one period of history.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I believe other users were asked to "Drop all fierce objections. Change the tone." A basic content issue over lifetime employment does not need to be brought up at AN/I.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian
Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian
I have been an editor for now over 3 years now, and this is my first complaint here. I have issues with Iryna Harpy and Faustian, who work as a WP:TAGTEAM. I have had a problem with them on Polish census of 1931 repeatedly deleting the NPOV tag. (I believe this is the only time that I have invoked it on a page, and I did so with good reason, infra.)
Evidence submitted
|
|---|
|
Iryna Harpy was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 Faustian was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 And here for removing maintenance tags by Poeticbent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#November_24 Iryna Harpy was warned for innappropriate conduct on talk pages recently here by Admin Softlavender: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=683692541#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy Iryna Harpy was warned for canvassing on her talk page regarding Ukrainain nationalist POV here by user Volunteer Marek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=683535025#2.2C000_dead_Russian_soldiers Iryna Harpy here is canvassing Faustian here on Ukrainian pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Articles_being_changed Faustian was blocked for edit warring on Polish-Ukrainain issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#March_2014 Faustian was warned by Admin Sandstein of The Arbitration Committee sanctions for violating normal editorial process in pages related to Eastern Europe here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_Eastern_Europe In this case, over a year ago, the editors of the 1931 Census of Poland decided to replace the census results data from a tertiary source, to the published census itself (the secondary source). Faustian here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation and Iryna Harpy here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Removed_original_research Began making claims that citing from the original census document, which is standard practice on WP for a census, was OR, Synth, or a violation of policy regarding primary sources. (Comments from uninvolved editors on the NORNB and village pump policy are contrary to this opinion see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Primary_source_guidelines_on_census_pages ) A year later, percentages were calculated per WP:CALC and data was put in tables. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&diff=next&oldid=684533225 This resulted in POV blanking and more similar complaints from Iryna Harpy, (Faustian also reverted the page,) also claiming that editors cannot translate foreign documents, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Objections_to_the_fidelity_of_this_page_reporting_the_results_of_the_Polish_Census_of_1931 In a discussion on the NORNB, Iryna Harpy, admited that she, herself, translates foreign langue into English in her editing, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 I consider this a tactical play to censor the page. Please note that this census was the last in what had been an extremely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse region before WWII. The census data is an important tool for social scientists and students studying the region now that archives are now open. It is important that the original census be made public. So, to avoid disruptive objections about OR, I took the time to save images of the population totals both nationally and from each city and province and provide links on the page. This resulted in Iryna Harpy, censoring the images in what I consider vandalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685657081 My edits adding the image links has been sustained by other editors and presently remains on the page. I also noticed that the page was giving undue weight to the opinions and contentions of a Communist Party historian Jerzy Tomaszewski that the census itself was somehow rigged, but obscuring that source through citing it indirectly through other tertiary sources, and also not giving equal weight to contemporary sources from the era of the census, or post-communist historians. Therefore, I tagged the article with the NPOV tag. This resulted in the WP:TAGTEAM of Faustian and Iryna Harpy repeatedly deleting the tag, with comments like “no need for tag judt because one single editor has a problem” purporting to speak for all of the remaining editors of the page. See here: here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686103633 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686118684 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686189263 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686359396 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686412518 This is contrary to what the tag itself clearly states, “"The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Thus, there is no rule for a consensus on the page for an editor who see a problem with NPOV to tag the page. Also note that improper deletion of page tags is considered vandalism: “Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd}, {delete}, {sprotected}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {policy} and related tags.” WP:VANDTYPES (NPOV is funadmental WP policy) Since the dispute had not been resolved, repeatedly removing the tag was baseless, and thus vandalism since those who removed it were attmepting to defeat the clear purpose of the tag. If nothing else, it was disruptive to normal editing process. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring or a violation of 3RR. Even though he had engaged in vandalism, Faustian reported me for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule here citing Iryna Harpy in support of his contention., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User_talk:Doctor_Franklin_reported_by_User:Faustian_.28Result:_blocked.29 The result is that I got blocked by Admin MSGJ without giving me an opportunity to respond. I honestly didn't think I had done this. I was not reverting the page content itself, just the tag in accordance with the stated policy. I was acting in good faith, and I believe that some clarification is in order on the NPOV tag if I was incorrect. I then requested to have the block that was placed on me removed. I even agreed to not edit the page again for the duration of the block, and requested to be able to respond to another editor on the noticeboards. This was denied by Admin OhNoitsJamie, who considered this not as a first time possible violation of 3RR, but made a comment about “You don't get to keep ugly tags up until someone joins the discussion who agrees with you.” here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctor_Franklin#You_have_been_reported_for_your_behavior. Well that assumed bad faith on my part, failed to address that another editor, Piotrus, had edited the tag on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 and agreed with my point in the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#What_exactly_is_not_neutral_here.3F. Thus, the NPOV tag worked as intended, despite the vandalism and disruptive editors. Since this was my first citation for violating 33R, I consider the refusal to accept my promise to not edit the page for the duration of the block, and the resulting threats about sanctions for NPOV tagging by Admin OhNoitsJamie inappropriate and punitive, contrary to the policy for blocking a user which did not amount to a violation of 3RR. |
In conclusion, this is my first complaint here. I have had a clean record in this regard, and I believe that there were problems with the other editors cited, and the application or explanation of the relevant policies related to the NPOV tag by admins. I was acting in good faith and trying to address this problem on the noticeboards when I got blocked. Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've collapsed the above for brevity's sake. What exactly are you asking for here? What actions would you like to see taken (in a short two or three sentence reply)?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)- 1. I would like an explanation for the application of 3RR and vandalism of page tags. “Do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” Should mean exactly that.
- 2. I request protection of the image galleries from vandalism.
- 3. I am requesting a WP:IBAN on Faustian and Iryna Harpy editing the same page for canvassing, following each other around and tag-teaming. Alternatively, I request that they be considered as a binary unit for issues of consensus and revert limits, or other sanctions that the admins deem appropriate.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please see this: [23]. Doctor Franklin is involved in a one-man crusade against various other editors and this is part of his disruptive behavior. An example is here: [24] (this also linked to, in the other link I provided)Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would have similarly noted the ethnicity of the individual and Nazi collaboration per RS-biased had the person been a Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Belarussian who collaborated with the Nazis. I object to the insinuations. WP:ASPERSIONS. I didn't inject that person into the page to hide the true source of the claim: A Communist party historian. Nice try. [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive.] Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Faustian This would be a clear WP:BOOMERANG were it not too long to read. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you can't be bothered to read what was written, please consider abstaining from commenting lest you be considered overtly biased.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- What a tl;dr hodgepodge of 'anything I can find to indict a couple of editors by cherry picking stuff I haven't a clue about and am taking out of context because it suits my purpose' (and, my, what a delightful way to start the day).
- Please see this: [23]. Doctor Franklin is involved in a one-man crusade against various other editors and this is part of his disruptive behavior. An example is here: [24] (this also linked to, in the other link I provided)Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Doctor Franklin has already explicitly misused another noticeboard as a venue to conduct a witchhunt - beginning on 9 October here - despite the fact that a number of other editors were disputing his changes, which speaks volumes for the calibre of this experienced WP:SPA. An editor who tries to develop an article introducing this offensive content is WP:NOTHERE, nor should they be. Considering how many editors involved in the article have disputed RS and OR issues, I can't help but wonder why he's targeted Faustian and myself. By the processes of his own logic, wouldn't that make all of the others who disagree with him Ukrainian nationalists? And multiply the number of TAGTEAM-ers by a half a dozen? Ultimately, I believe that the article falls under ARB sanctions. Doctor Franklin's accusations deserve to be met with a BOOMERANG and a block from editing any articles that fall under ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are here, because you removed a gallery of 22 images which I added, and two other editors further edited and wanted on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685629667 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685630808 Should I ping them? After being warned, you removed the POV tag, contrary to its clear wording. I do agree that this falls under ARBEE sanctions, and Faustian has already been warned about that on his page. You raised the claim of OR, so I put it on the noticeboards. The un-involved outside editors disagree with you. One even posted on Faustian's talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Primary_sources.2C_secondary_sources.2C_and_the_census Should we ping him here about your claims of OR? [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive. See above.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- This guy's disruptions continue. You were already blocked for being disruptive and violating 3R by removing the POV tag that you alone wanted at the top of the article, and that 5 others had removed. So now here you are. A note: your comment above was misleading. On of the editors who added the table also stated: [25] "While I agree that the gallery looks kind kinda ugly, IMO it is no harm to keep it until that time some not very lazy Wikipedian copies the relevant info into our wikitable. Of course the tables should not be copied completely; only language totals be enough, so everything fits into a single table: Languages per voivodships." In this discussion Woogie10w (talk observed [26], "A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories." This ANI that Doctor Franklin opened is a perfect example of that.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are here, because you removed a gallery of 22 images which I added, and two other editors further edited and wanted on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685629667 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685630808 Should I ping them? After being warned, you removed the POV tag, contrary to its clear wording. I do agree that this falls under ARBEE sanctions, and Faustian has already been warned about that on his page. You raised the claim of OR, so I put it on the noticeboards. The un-involved outside editors disagree with you. One even posted on Faustian's talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Primary_sources.2C_secondary_sources.2C_and_the_census Should we ping him here about your claims of OR? [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive. See above.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Doctor Franklin has already explicitly misused another noticeboard as a venue to conduct a witchhunt - beginning on 9 October here - despite the fact that a number of other editors were disputing his changes, which speaks volumes for the calibre of this experienced WP:SPA. An editor who tries to develop an article introducing this offensive content is WP:NOTHERE, nor should they be. Considering how many editors involved in the article have disputed RS and OR issues, I can't help but wonder why he's targeted Faustian and myself. By the processes of his own logic, wouldn't that make all of the others who disagree with him Ukrainian nationalists? And multiply the number of TAGTEAM-ers by a half a dozen? Ultimately, I believe that the article falls under ARB sanctions. Doctor Franklin's accusations deserve to be met with a BOOMERANG and a block from editing any articles that fall under ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, addressing Doctor Franklin's enumerated points above:
- 1. Your block for 3RR is correct and their removal of the NPOV tag is not vandalism. The part that you aren't seeing there is that a consensus of several editors are removing the tag and only you are trying to keep it up. Here you need to defer to that consensus and drop the stick. If you want more input from other editors then there are other ways to do it without needing that tag. I would suggest that you place a small concise, neutrally-worded request for more opinions on the talk page of WikiProject Poland...not the TLDR post that is there currently. Please do read TLDR otherwise your posts won't have the positive impact that you are hoping for. People don't like responding to raw data dumps.
- So "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved," actually means that it is OK to remove the tag. (Maybe because it is TLDR.) I make an effort to follow the rules here. This confusion was caused by Admins not explaining that 3RR trumps NPOV policy. That tag still remains on the page because the consensus is that it belongs there. Two editors wanted to remove it to prevent other editors from giving an opinion, which was a clear violation of WP:DICK.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- 2. There is no way to protect only a section of a page. Editors should once again work on the article talk page for consensus on how to handle the copy of the census that you have provided. The better idea would be to link to them but not display them. That way you leave it up to the reader to click through to analyze the data. Primary sources are permissible like that. Showing the whole thing within the article isn't normal or a good writing practice.
- "The results of the census were being published in 39 volumes between 1936 and 1939 in a publishing series "Statistics of Poland"." The editors of the page have concluded, for the present at least until chart summaries might replace them, to use 23 images of population summaries to summarize the 39 volumes. It is hardly a data dump of all 39 volumes, and it summarizes the most important information, much as WP pages from the U.S. census do.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- 3. I haven't seen evidence which leads me to the conclusion that an IBAN is necessary or that tag teaming is going on. This is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand across several noticeboards. I would encourage editors to not try to get anyone in trouble but to continue to try to reach a consensus and work together. If necessary, follow dispute resolution or file a request for comment to gain more input and balance from additional editors.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, this dispute arises from the process of involving other editors to ensure NPOV, (the higher law). Here Admins have decided that keeping order in the nursery (3RR) trumps the higher law (NPOV). This only ensures more problems, rather than creating a framework for resolving disputes among editors. I put this on what I considered the relevant noticeboards, and declined to put it on more lest I be accused of forum shopping or disrupting WP to make a point. This is about how WP handles emotional attachment to ethnicity and nationalism by some editors. At its present course, it may well end up at ARBCOM. Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is the irony of invoking NPOV and finishing on
"Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP."
not lost on you, Doctor Franklin? The dispute continues despite the fact that there are multiple editors (who are not Ukrainian by ethnicity) being drawn in: all of whom disagree with you vehemently on everything from what sources are reliable and what sources are completely and utterly extremist, but cherry picked by you because they agree with your POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)- In a nutshell Doctor Franklin is pushing his own OR/POV on the page, he has yet to cite a single reliable source as backup. He has engaged in an long winded un-sourced blog on the talk page to discredit the reliable sources which support the pages content. His fringe theory about a communist conspiracy promoted by a Polish Jew [27] has been removed from the page. On the talk page he has cited as support for his POV a piece from the Russian nationalist website ruskline.ru by Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev who has co-authored works[28]with Oleg Platonov who has been described as an ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, and a Holocaust denier. Another source is a German map from 1930 of dubious reliability. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is the irony of invoking NPOV and finishing on
- Actually, this dispute arises from the process of involving other editors to ensure NPOV, (the higher law). Here Admins have decided that keeping order in the nursery (3RR) trumps the higher law (NPOV). This only ensures more problems, rather than creating a framework for resolving disputes among editors. I put this on what I considered the relevant noticeboards, and declined to put it on more lest I be accused of forum shopping or disrupting WP to make a point. This is about how WP handles emotional attachment to ethnicity and nationalism by some editors. At its present course, it may well end up at ARBCOM. Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Programmatic Media
Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following contribution to the programmatic media page has been repeatedly reverted by Macrakis and JohnInDC.
"It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code.[1] Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media."
The last revert came with the following warnings on my talk page 
unsourced verifiability. It was suggested that the fact about "Teletext and Oglivy & Mather" was "nonsense" and the "1981" date is inaccurate.
After lengthy conversations, the following link was shared by User:JohnInDC https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19790516&id=DwEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=21gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,14832&hl=en here
It was suggested that I "Forget Joseph & Turow and Yale" (my Joseph Turow citation), which I believe is the integral part of the paragraph.
Following another lengthy conversation, the following link was shared https://books.google.com/books?id=rK7JSFudXA8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+daily+you%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI-fXXp8DRyAIVDJWACh345w5n#v=onepage&q=teletext&f=false this link
This links to the page referred to in my Joseph Turow citation (which was apparently non existent and also the reason that a warning has been placed on my talk page).
I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether the reverted item contained citations or not. If so it would also be useful to gain an opinion on whether citation about O&M being involved with a teletext venture in 1981 is in line with the book.
If The above can be confirmed, it could be suggested that the other editors removed a perfectly relevant paragraph without a reasonable justification and also added unnecessary warnings on my talk page (on numerous occasions).
The users Macrakis and JohnInDC continually revert any content that I add to this page and refute anything that I add on the talk page. The administrator User:Jbhunley does not appear to have a neutral approach, and has been known to use expletives in conversations with me. I am now at the point where I am simply receive deletion threats (sometimes based on make belief rationales).
Please advise. Regards, -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2.
- Not an administrator. Used one (1) expletive. And for the last time stop copying my signature. JbhTalk 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- The problems with the page, Programmatic media, and Jugdev's unrelenting resistance to any changes or improvements to the thing, were previously raised here at ANI, at this link. Macrakis, Jbhunley and I (among others) have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve the prose, clarify the concepts, and generally bring the thing more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Our concerns, and edits, have been extensively discussed (almost literally one by one) on the article Talk page. Jugdev has reflexively resisted all of these efforts, and in response routinely - and persistently - simply restores the text that he authored. Indeed he has been blocked at least twice in the past two weeks for edit warring. I invite interested editors to review the prior ANI filing, and the article Talk page, Jugdev's Talk page, and the current version of the page up against one of the earlier iterations, to permit them arrive at their own conclusions about where the problematic editing & behavior here in fact lies. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I'm here, I'll take a moment to comment on the single substantive issue that Jugdev raises above:
- The passage that Jugdev would like to re-insert (he has done so by my count 8 times already - hence the blocks) is factually incorrect, inaccurately reflects the cited source, and is of no articulable relevance to the article subject. Ogilvy & Mather did not invent Teletext. Teletext was not invented in 1981, but well before that; and Teletext (involving the rote reproduction of ad copy text on TV screens) is not a precursor of programmatic media, which is the real-time purchase and sale of customer-specific advertising space based on computer algorithms. Indeed the cited source says none of the these things, but rather notes that O&M by virtue of a two-year stint in creating marketing material for a Teletext undertaking by Time, Inc., may have had the “deepest roots” in persuading wary clients to purchase ads in the nascent 1990s field of “interactive media”, including CD-ROMs and on line services such as Prodigy.
- The problems with the page, Programmatic media, and Jugdev's unrelenting resistance to any changes or improvements to the thing, were previously raised here at ANI, at this link. Macrakis, Jbhunley and I (among others) have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve the prose, clarify the concepts, and generally bring the thing more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Our concerns, and edits, have been extensively discussed (almost literally one by one) on the article Talk page. Jugdev has reflexively resisted all of these efforts, and in response routinely - and persistently - simply restores the text that he authored. Indeed he has been blocked at least twice in the past two weeks for edit warring. I invite interested editors to review the prior ANI filing, and the article Talk page, Jugdev's Talk page, and the current version of the page up against one of the earlier iterations, to permit them arrive at their own conclusions about where the problematic editing & behavior here in fact lies. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Every one of these issues was extensively discussed on the Talk page (search for “1981” to see a sample). JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- As this is a content dispute I'm not sure the discussion belongs here. Nevertheless - Jugdev, per WP:DISCLOSE, would you like to advise us of any conflict of interest in matters relating to Ogilvy & Mather? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Every one of these issues was extensively discussed on the Talk page (search for “1981” to see a sample). JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are two aspects to this matter: procedural and substantive.
- Procedural: Jugdev does not appear to respect the consensus judgment of three other editors that this particular paragraph is both irrelevant and misleading. He repeats arguments he has made before (many of them generic rather than specific) and which have been answered before. He flatters his own contributions as "technical" and questions other editors' literacy. In general, he acts as though he owns the article, presuming that if he feels his concerns haven't been addressed, there is no consensus. He deploys absurd arguments, like "Are you suggesting that Yale University [Press] would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"[29]; not only are presses generally not responsible for the contents of books they publish, but the issue here is his (mis)interpretation of the text.
- On the substance: Multiple sources (including WP itself) show that Teletext was not invented in 1981, and not by Ogilvy and Mather. His paraphrasing of the source (which two editors have checked) is incorrect. The connection between Teletext as "mechanised media" and programmatic advertising is tenuous at best, since the core defining characteristic of programmatic advertising is targeting, whereas Teletext was broadcast, showing the same content and the same ads to all users. Adding weasel words like "It has been suggested that..." to questionable statements doesn't make it OK to add them. Puffery like "has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media" (even if sourced) doesn't belong in WP.
- Finally, I feel that Jugdev is beating a dead horse, wasting our time, and discouraging other editors (User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:RichardOSmith are no longer editing this article). I have no idea whether this is intentional (WP:AGF), but it is certain disruptive. I only bother to respond at such length because I hope it will keep me and others from having to waste more time on endless, pointless discussions with an editor who refuses to listen to consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jugdev's response to the above
We must not digress from the items that have been noted in my original request to the administrators. We should address any other items in turn so that things do not get lost in translation. All of my contributions to Wikipedia contain citations from the industry and academia. -JG (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- When you bring an issue to AN/I, all aspects of it are going to be examined, not just the ones that serve the purposes of the reporting editor. This being the case, you need to respond to the comments of the editors you've complained about, and of uninvolved editors. For instance, a specific question was asked about your connection, if any, to Olgivy & Mather. You need to respond to these things - stonewalling will not serve you well. BMK (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[30]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have put a lot of time into trying to get my arms around the subject, and in trying to clean up the article, but I have never been comfortable with where we collectively have got with the thing and I have no objection at all to deleting Programmatic media if the topic is already covered, better, elsewhere here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please address the items noted in my original request. anything else in my opinion are another conversation - happy to discuss once we move on from this particular case. -JG (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Proposed deletion of both Programmatic Media and Online Target Advertising, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If the articles are deleted, this dispute becomes moot. As for the Teletext/Prestel/Ceefax issue, those were one-way systems which broadcast data by piggybacking it on TV signals, similar to the way closed captions work. Such broadcast content could not be targeted at all, and hence is irrelevant to "target advertising". Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deleting makes sense to me. We should also delete the 240 SEO-like redirects that Jugdev has made, pointing to this article as I suggested a few weeks ago. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jugdev has removed the template from Programmatic media, so that'll require another avenue. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agree. The article has had a whiff of PR/SEO about it from the beginning, those redirects to everything under the sun have been an issue from the outset. Even the term itself does not seem to be widely used. JohnInDC, Macrakis and all of the other editors who have worked on it have done a yeoman job cleaning it up but it should go. JbhTalk 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deleting makes sense to me. We should also delete the 240 SEO-like redirects that Jugdev has made, pointing to this article as I suggested a few weeks ago. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Proposed deletion of both Programmatic Media and Online Target Advertising, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If the articles are deleted, this dispute becomes moot. As for the Teletext/Prestel/Ceefax issue, those were one-way systems which broadcast data by piggybacking it on TV signals, similar to the way closed captions work. Such broadcast content could not be targeted at all, and hence is irrelevant to "target advertising". Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please address the items noted in my original request. anything else in my opinion are another conversation - happy to discuss once we move on from this particular case. -JG (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have put a lot of time into trying to get my arms around the subject, and in trying to clean up the article, but I have never been comfortable with where we collectively have got with the thing and I have no objection at all to deleting Programmatic media if the topic is already covered, better, elsewhere here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[30]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media JbhTalk 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
-JG, WP:BOOMERANG is worth a read. Despite your accumulation of multiple sanctions, you chose to raise the matter here. Editors will look at what all sides are saying and past history and determine who is really causing the disruption. --NeilN talk to me 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN Thank you sir. -JG (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Adding all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) to the AfD. That's blatant keyword spamming. Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean up the mess. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- John Nagle, its in good hands. The administrators will instruct as required.-JG (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- As an aside, is it just me or, while all/most of those terms make grammatical sense in themselves (and some, like "programmatic media buying", the first one mentioned in the Programmatic media lede, even have some 100 hits on Google Books), "Programmatic media" itself - the article's main title - doesn't really mean anything? LjL (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deep in the Talk page there's some discussion about renaming / moving the article to something a bit more descriptive but I think we figured to attack the substance first. (In short, you're right.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- The talk page is long and tedious to read, but it really does help understand the situation. A clear consensus emerged among several editors for various changes, all of which Jugdev opposed. He seems to see this consensus-building as an attempt to hijack his article. I don't know what to think about the 100+ redirects or the repeated insistence to include certain corporations in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deep in the Talk page there's some discussion about renaming / moving the article to something a bit more descriptive but I think we figured to attack the substance first. (In short, you're right.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- As an aside, is it just me or, while all/most of those terms make grammatical sense in themselves (and some, like "programmatic media buying", the first one mentioned in the Programmatic media lede, even have some 100 hits on Google Books), "Programmatic media" itself - the article's main title - doesn't really mean anything? LjL (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- John Nagle, its in good hands. The administrators will instruct as required.-JG (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Adding all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) to the AfD. That's blatant keyword spamming. Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean up the mess. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP
I propose a boomerang topic ban on the OP, User:Jugdev, from the Programmatic media article and from the Programmatic media topic area, broadly defined, both for ownership attempts at the article, and as a vexatious litigant, whose use dispute resolution raises competency issues. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, there is a consensus on the article talk page, and the OP continues to oppose it. On 5 October, the OP filed a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but failed to identify the other editors. The request was closed by the coordinator, stating it was the responsibility of the filing party both to list and to notify the other editors. On 6 October, the OP filed another request for moderated discussion. This request was even more malformed, failing to identify the article at all, although it did list the other editors in the text of the request. This request was likewise closed. The OP was warned that future incorrect use of dispute resolution, after having the procedures explained in detail, might be considered disruptive editing. On 22 October, the OP filed a third request for moderated dispute resolution, this time listing the other editors, but still failing to notify them. Now on 23 October the OP has filed this request at ANI. It isn't clear what administrative action the OP is requesting, but it is clear that the administrative action to be taken should include a boomerang topic-ban. (A block might be in order, but that is another question.)
- Support topic-ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support, also because I don't know if we can talk about a WP:COI here as it was denied by the editor, but there definitely is something fishy (see Search Engine Optimization) going on. LjL (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I was about to strike this request for two reasons. First, the article has been nominated for deletion, and its deletion will render the topic-ban moot. Second, the subject editor has been blocked for two weeks (longer than the period of the AFD). I won't object to an uninvolved administrator archiving this whole thread, including the topic-ban proposal, as a case of the OP being blocked by his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support site ban. Jugdev has edited other, related articles and indeed his first edit-war block came in connection with another, related article. I'm skeptical frankly whether he will be able to observe the limits of a topic ban, and would be surprised if it turned out to be anything but a rest stop on the way to an indef block, but that's a discussion for another day. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Changing to support for an indef site ban in light of apparent block evasion and his apparent inability to comprehend even the most basic instructions and advice (evidenced by, e.g., his repeated pointless unblock requests). JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment As mentioned above, the article is at AfD and headed for deletion, mooting this specific issue. I can't figure out what Jugdev is trying to accomplish. At first it looked like a COI issue, but it doesn't seem to benefit anybody. All those redirects look like search engine optimization, but why drive traffic to Wikipedia for an article on a general subject? The insistence over a bogus claim about Teletext, a dead technology, remains puzzling. I dunno. In two weeks, their current block expires. WP:ROPE may be appropriate. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - It is a bit of a mystery. I don't think it's a COI, despite the fixation on this Ogilvy & Mather / Teletext issue. I literally think that issue became the focus of discussion because it was toward the beginning of the article and it was the first change he wanted to re-introduce after returning from his prior block. I believe ultimately it's a competence issue - with Exhibit One being his decision to press here at ANI an issue that was linked directly to - and directly contradicted by - a reviewable source. So, yeah, I agree about ROPE. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think this editor should be fully site banned. They clearly aren't here to contribute accurate information to the project. Any ban in any area of the project gets my support.--Adam in MO Talk 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support
topic ban on all advertising related topics.site ban. The obvious block evasion and continued attempts to deflect blame on his talk page tell me this user is unlikely to ever become a positive contributor. More ROPE will lead to more disruption and we will be right back here. I have tried to get through to this editor multiple times. Their behavior is intractable. JbhTalk 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to support site ban. JbhTalk 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC) - Support. The author seems destined for a permanent block and this may be moot, but if they can still edit at all they must not be allowed to continue making such a negative net contribution to Wikipedia. Several well established editors have spent a considerable amount of their time attempting to clear up the article already, a task that is made far worse whilst this editor continues to try to reinstate meaningless and/or factually incorrect content into it. I too cannot fathom exactly what is going on with some of the content issues but I'm pretty sure that if we assume good faith and take it that the editor is actually here to build an encyclopaedia, they lack the WP:COMPETENCE to do so. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Support topic ban, and also indefinite if there's a "majority" for that. Both because of suspicious/fishy editing (possible COI, 200+ redirects pointing to their pet article to make sure that as many readers as possible are led to it...) and because of extreme ownership behaviour. Thomas.W talk 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support after this obvious block evasion. Jugdev is never going to drop the stick, and I see no evidence that he's ever going to listen to the advice that's been given to him. Also, the retaliatory accusations of COI are silly – and they follow previous accusations of vandalism when people attempted to make copy edits. See his talk page for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Site-Ban due to disruption of AFD by COI accusations and socking accusations made by a sock. (As proposer of topic-ban, I have already !voted for that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support topic ban but should the SPI come back positive, I'd support an indefinite block. Zero tolerance for sockmasters. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support site ban - previously I suggested WP:ROPE. Then came the AfD disruption, after three rejected unblock requests declined by three different admins. Enough. On a related note, this mess impelled me to try to clean up the online advertising tree of articles, which has good info but is a bit too specialist-oriented. I've added some graphics and indicated that online advertising is the main article. This area could use help from more editors. See Talk:Online_advertising#Article_set_improvement. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The SPI was closed for lack of evidence. Not how I would have closed it, but I'm not an SPI clerk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The Harvest of Sorrow
I am notifying User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff [31], they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow and Warsaw Pact.-- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Flushout1999 is hitting a trifect on those article. WP:POV - on Harvest of Sorrow, he's got a criticism section which is six times the length of the rest of the article, misrepresenting sources - the sources actually give a positive reviews to the book but Flushout1999 has managed to cherry pick single sentences or out of context quotations to make it seem like the sources are critical of the book, and to top it all of WP:COPYVIO where they copy paste entire paragraphs (cherry picked of course) from the sources. In particular they've been told about WP:COPYVIO, they've been warned about it, but none the less persist in re-adding copyvio material. I suggest an indef block until the user acknowledges that we have a policy on copyright and promises to respect it. Volunteer Marek 22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- A discussion recently started on another page; here is a comment about this. Then an RSNB report was filed by another user. Here is a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone is going to have to through Wikipedia and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to try to discredit Robert Conquest (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. MastCell Talk 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- MastCell, Volunteer Marek, and My Very Best Wishes are correct. Flushout1999 is editing contrary to policy and looks like he isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone is going to have to through Wikipedia and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to try to discredit Robert Conquest (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. MastCell Talk 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- A discussion recently started on another page; here is a comment about this. Then an RSNB report was filed by another user. Here is a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is just looking to me as a cherry picking of old diff in order to put myself in a bad light and imply that I am in bad faith. I ask the administrators to go through the entire talks that have been reported here. The editors here are just now working as a team in order to have my edits deleted definitively, because they share the same point of view on these particular topics.
- My edits were all well sourced with reliable sources, if there was copyvio is because I am still new here and I had not time to read all the policies until few days ago (see my contributions to verify, still few and on few pages). Here all these users are just looking for a way to punish me as I have been too "bold" in their opinion. They actually know and are aknowledging that the facts I reported in my edits are well sourced and real, but nonetheless they are always looking for new ways in order to delete my edits. What happened here is that they never assumed good faith since the beginning, go in Talk:Robert Conquest, you will see a persistent constant attack towards me with allegations of "having an agenda" (perhaps, just to improve the article?) and claims of being marked with a "sin". While what you see in The Harvest of Sorrow it looks to me like just a hidden vandalism (WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages") as they don't delete only what they claim should not stay there (for copyvio and not RS) but everything everytime. And, moreover, they don't improve the page in any form, just reverting it to a stub.
- This is, in actual facts, POV pushing of their own personal point of view and a form of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing as they want to be present in the articles only what is according to their own personal point of view. Moreover User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes are now working as a team in order to delete my edits in The Harvest of Sorrow and discourage me to correct eventual issues on my edits. What I see it's just a distortion and misuse of the wikipedia policies in order to not have others editors going ahead with the edits they dislike (as these edits are not in agreement with their own personal point of view) even if, in the final outcome, these edits would comply with the wikipedia policies. In fact they are just working as political partisans here on wikipedia, in order to not have reported important facts that they dislike while knowing they really did happen. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Boomerang block (48 hours) for forum shopping at ANI and tendentious editing with a refusal to accept consensus or drop the stick. Hard to take you serious when you have refused to follow policies such as copyright under the claim that you are new. You began editing in July 2013. We don't appreciate having our time wasted collectively with such tripe. There is currently an article which is full-protected for a week because of you and I'm surprised that you didn't get blocked then. Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone would leave a neutrally-worded request on the talk pages of the three pertinent WikiProjects for more input into future discussion. This may relieve the editors that have been dealing with this and get more eyes on those articles.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh please...I never went to this noticeboard in order to not be blocked, in fact I was expecting to be blocked because of the copyvio. If the wikipedia rules state that you get a block when you commit copyvio more than one time then it's really fine to me! Mine was not an excuse in order to not be blocked, it was only an explanation of how it happened!
- I did not came here to not be blocked, I came here for a totally different purpose: to address the fact of the presence of "political partisans" who are doing whatever is possible to have important and undisputable facts omitted and deleted from the articles pages, who are distorting and using policies (such as WP:CONSENSUS for example, but also WP:RS) in order to have only their own personal point of view be present in the articles. For this reason, as I have more time, I will continue to write in the talk pages of those articles bringing again and again more new sources and proofs of the facts which I believe deserve to be present in those articles. And of course I will refrain to make new edits on those page if there is no consensus.
- Let's see what happens! Maybe I could be wrong and mine is only a misperception! I would be very very glad to give my apologies if I'll be proved wrong! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I summarise your comment, Flushout1999, it reads as "I'm assuming bad faith until proven wrong." What I am reading in your editing pattern and general behaviour on Wikipedia is that it is you who is the partisan editor here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being here to test other editors on how far you can push your POV before you point your finger at them and accuse them of obstructing your attempts to get at The Truth = you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've just glanced at Flushout's 6500 character change to The Harvest of Sorrow. It's not terrible, he's going to the right source for criticism of Conquest's (inflated) death count, Slavic Review, which is the main American journal for Soviet Studies. Conquest is a controversial figure in the field; he's very, very political with his scholarship, one of the main anti-Communist historians of the 1970s and 1980s. The mainstream of history writing for the Soviet period is well to Conquest's left, but neither would it be accurate or fair to call Conquest a "fringe" historian. There was a huge generational fissure between the Traditionalist/Anti-Communist/Conservative/Political historians of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and the new, post-Vietnam era Social Historians, who tend to be liberal or socialist in their personal politics. The latter group in the 1980s were known as "Revisionists" in contrast to the "Traditionalists" — not to be confused with German holocaust denialists, who use the same word as a self-describer. Bear in mind that I've just glanced at Flushout's stuff and especially have no opinion on the copyvio complaint — but at a glance he appeared to be serious and reasonable. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, with respect to his changes to the Conquest bio, I am far more concerned with the one-shot rollback of 43000 characters of Flushout's generally pretty decent work than I am with the contribution itself — offering no opinion on any potential copyvio. It appears to me that Flushout is being sandbagged by conservative "owners" of the article, who blew up a lot of generally pretty good work with a hand grenade. As usual, it is the wrong version being "protected" by a meddling page freeze. It would be extremely unjust to block Flushout or to topic ban him, he's clearly a serious and grounded historian coming into conflict with people who do not share his interpretations. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The history of Flushout on the Denial of the Holodomor piece is more troubling, resembling an effort to whitewash a section for political reasons (PLP?). Getting to the bottom of this would take more time than I have this evening. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at the version which Flushout wrote myself. It is primarily based on this Village Voice investigation which is a very detailed look at the book and its claims. It is mentioned in Flushout's writing that the Village Voice's article is controversial. Conquest's own response to the piece is given as well: "error and absurdity". Further down in Flushout's writing, there is a review in the journal Slavic Review, which is a very respectable journal of Soviet studies. There is definitely an argument that the criticism relies too much on the Village Voice source. However, the article as it stands now is nothing more than a stub, and all the content added, good and bad has been eviscerated. This is not the way to write an article. The editor is definitely one with a strong POV, but their contributions were not all bad. This needs to be handled with nuance and appropriate phrasing, not sledgehammer tactics. Unfortunately, I am not especially knowledgeable about the topic to do it myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the Denial of the Holodomor article, I again see their edit here as perfectly legitimate. The edit is straightforward WP:OR claiming that the Village Voice article denies the Holodomor. No source is given for this claim, as Flushout correctly state in their edit summaries. The Village Voice article explicitly states that there was a famine, for which Stalin was partially responsible, but states that this did not rise to the level of a genocide. This kind of stuff cannot simply be summarized as "denial of the Holodomor" without any source, as some people on the talk page have discussed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having dug more into this, the entire "Modern Denial" section, one section of which Flushout edited, is one huge WP:OR. Absolutely trash sources, or no sources, are used for wild claims, including a discussion at the mailing list of Left Business Observer (I know the publication and have followed it for a long time, but its mailing list is a free for all, by design). Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the Denial of the Holodomor article, I again see their edit here as perfectly legitimate. The edit is straightforward WP:OR claiming that the Village Voice article denies the Holodomor. No source is given for this claim, as Flushout correctly state in their edit summaries. The Village Voice article explicitly states that there was a famine, for which Stalin was partially responsible, but states that this did not rise to the level of a genocide. This kind of stuff cannot simply be summarized as "denial of the Holodomor" without any source, as some people on the talk page have discussed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at the version which Flushout wrote myself. It is primarily based on this Village Voice investigation which is a very detailed look at the book and its claims. It is mentioned in Flushout's writing that the Village Voice's article is controversial. Conquest's own response to the piece is given as well: "error and absurdity". Further down in Flushout's writing, there is a review in the journal Slavic Review, which is a very respectable journal of Soviet studies. There is definitely an argument that the criticism relies too much on the Village Voice source. However, the article as it stands now is nothing more than a stub, and all the content added, good and bad has been eviscerated. This is not the way to write an article. The editor is definitely one with a strong POV, but their contributions were not all bad. This needs to be handled with nuance and appropriate phrasing, not sledgehammer tactics. Unfortunately, I am not especially knowledgeable about the topic to do it myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Soapboxing/Edit Warring on the Uncyclopedia Article
User Shalir Salim (talk · contribs), has been edit warring on the Uncyc article. They claim that Uncyc is not a part of Wikia anymore, and has removed any reference on the page of there being two wikis, despite the fact that UncycloWikia is still active. Despite being reverted by multiple editors, Shalir keeps trying to claim that there is only one site. In addition to this, they don't seem to take a hint that they're in the wrong, and goes as far to accuse another editor of vandalism. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dittoes. Bottom line (which can be studied on Talk:Uncyclopedia), there is the original website, operated by Wikia and administered in part by me; also a fork begun in January 2013 favored by DSA510 who posted above. The Wikipedia article, after several rounds of drama and discussion, documents both websites and the schism with a careful effort to avoid favoritism. Shalir Salim has recently edited this article to remove all references to the original website. I have told Salim on his talk page that this view is counter-factual. It can be argued that the fork is the "real" Uncyclopedia based on the personalities that assemble there; it can also be argued that if the patrons of Joe's Pub rejoin in the basement of one of them, it is not Joe's Pub. In any case, the Wikipedia article reflected a careful balance of these perspectives, which has been broken for reasons I presume are self-serving. The facts have not changed since that balance was struck. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- PS--Shalir is back on with a new round of revert plus warning/threat on my talk page, while deleting my response from his talk page. Shalir created the account 4-5 days ago, evidently for the primary purpose of vandalizing the Uncyclopedia article in order to promote the fiction that his preferred fork, of the two forks, is not just the better website but the only one. It is annoying having to continue revert the page to the consensus reached earlier, in the aftermath of a new editor who is spending a remarkable amount of time joining and generating drama versus factual editing.
- Shalir's account had few other edits (usual Summary: "Improved"), but did find time to edit Wikia, inserting a paragraph containing: "Wikia has also received condemnation for forcing unwanted features on their community." The controversy is chronic and is one reason the editors there parted ways, but the declaration that something is unwanted is subjective and would at least need citation, and the edit reveals a motive: an animus against the (PS: host of the) Uncyclopedia fork to which Shalir is removing references. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The editor has cited me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, comment removed by Materialscientist citing "unactionable." Edit summary of my edit of Uncyclopedia as "spam" was reverted by Clpo13 with a request to take it to Talk:Uncyclopedia, which with luck Shalir will read in its entirety before posting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue is resolved. Theres nothing wrong with the Uncyclopedia aritcle. It refers to Wikia site as a fork of main site. All social media links and official Uncyclopedia links link to Uncyclopedia.co not Wikia. I think a topic ban is in order if it carries on. Mr Salim made the good edit himself. 5.151.197.195 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Anon, the issue is not resolved by reverting to one of the two alternatives that favors one website over the other. Spike-from-NH (talk)
- The fork is branched off of Wikia, NOT the other way around. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I think a topic ban for DunegonSiegeAddict510 and Spike-from-NH is in order if this keeps on. They are clearly favoring the Wikia branch. Mr Salim added references to Wikia and maintained it was an alternative site but Spike and Dungeon keep removing them. Mr Salims edits were neutral. 5.151.197.195 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa, David Biddulph, Jayron32, and GiantSnowman:request oversightMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- None of the 4 people whom you have pinged here are oversighters. The criteria for oversighting are very strict, see WP:Oversight, and it isn't clear why you are requesting it in this case. In general requests for oversight should not be made in public, because that further draws attention to the problematic material. Use one of the methods explained at the top of WP:Oversight. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: please stop pinging us, unless it's something we're actually involved in. GiantSnowman 09:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jayron32, GiantSnowman, and David Biddulph:admin can block unblock user, protect page, topic ban so ping admin past time. pinger apologizeMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
IP user 175.32.97.37
175.32.97.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The IP user 175.32.97.37 continuously edits numerous television related articles without adding any references for his/her additions. While the edits are indeed usually constructive or relevant, the user has been constantly reverted with edit summaries explaining that he/she needs to add reliable sources for the additions made. Additionally, the IP user's talk page has numerous warnings on it about adding unsourced content, yet the message still has not got through to this user. I also requested an edit notice on the article Border Security: Australia's Front Line which the user has repeatedly copied episode synopsis word for word from copyrighted material, yet the user has continued to do so despite the notices on this and other pages.
Again, the user is not vandalising or deleting content for no reason, which I know makes the situation difficult, but none of the talk page, reverted edits or page edit notices seem to have gotten through to him/her. Some examples are [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36]. Thanks for your time, User:Whats new?(talk) 05:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The IP user has just made another unsourced edit to Border Security: Australia's Front Line. User:Whats new?(talk) 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Spambot attack
We are under attack by IP spam bots from China. Please click on "recent changes" to locate these IPs. I have to get ready for work now, need help here. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Examples: 125.124.252.75 (talk · contribs) is one of them 125.124.247.51 (talk · contribs) another, creating a mass of user talk pages. Maybe there's a rangeblock? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Going by 183.166.145.134 (talk · contribs) and 114.104.183.22 (talk · contribs) we're going to need either a few more, or a filter. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I placed a couple more. Looks like it slowed down a little. I'm going to see if I can minimize the ranges. Elockid(BOO!) 14:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- We have a new IP here: [37]. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's 114.98.138.189 (talk · contribs) I presume. They keep trickling in. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's back! I have reported two to WP:AIAV so far. Stephenb (Talk) 10:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This editor, also known as Wikiwatcher1, was placed under a topic ban prohibiting image uploads less than a year ago Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community, after an extensive copyright investigation and an essentially unanimous ANI discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Long-term_copyright_concerns:_User:Light_show). The topic ban has not been lifted or relaxed. Nevertheless, Light show resumed uploading images here on October 17. User:Moonriddengirl blocked Light show earlier today. A review of Light show's contributions shows that they both continue to disregard the extensive copyright concerns that have been expressed in the past, and have otherwise violated image use policies. Their recent uploads, in particular, show a complete disregard for the serious concerns that led to their topic ban:
- File:Sharon Tate 1966.JPG, No evidence of prior publication, or of the date or location of the supposed publication. This may have been the most serious problem; as Moonriddengirl stated in the ANI discussion, Light show "was advised by one of the WMF attorney that for us to be certain of copyright he needs to verify on upload whether an image contained a copyright notice, how the exact image was released, and whether the release was 'general' or 'limited'". Yet Light show is, yet again, disregarding these simple, basic requirements. Same problem with File:Sharon Tate still.JPG.
- File:Mamie Van Doren.jpg. This image carried no indication of US publication (or, really, of any publication). Instead, the back carried a Spanish-language stamp indicating it had been sold through a retailer in Latin America. To the extent there was any evidence of publication, it indicated that the image was published outside the US and that neither a copyright notice nor copyright renewal was needed to protect copyright.
- Polanski and Tate 1968.jpg. This photo was taken in London, and while distributed for promotional purposes, was intended to publicize a UK event. There was no evidence of US publication. It was offered on ebay by a Canadian seller. There was absolutely no basis for concluding that US law applied and the photo was public domain.
- Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence. Many of these requests show the same disregard of copyright issues that led to their topic ban, including items 1-5 and 7 here [38]. While requests at this board may technically not breach the topic ban, it borders on improper proxying requests and, given Light show's recalcitrance, amounts to more, and cumulatively substantial, timewasting for editors who understand and accept our copyright policies. It's also clearly not what that process was intended for.
- On August 17 and 18, 2015 -- barely two months ago -- Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images [39][40][41] [42] (not a complete list) to Jack Nicholson, which is, of course, a BLP, and is amply illustrated with free images. Compounding the violation, Light show, despite being experienced with our image use policy, did not provide article-specific use rationales for the images. I removed the violations about a month later [43], but didn't realize at the time that Light show was behind the violations.
I therefore propose that Light show's topic ban be expanded, to prevent further waste of other editors' time and efforts in necessary scrutiny of their edits, as follows:
- Light show may not post requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload;
- Light show may not add nonfree images to any articles;
- Light show may not edit file description pages to change file descriptions from nonfree to free.
Copyrights may be a complex subject, but that that cannot justify ignoring simple, basic rules. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- He also mistook being technically able to upload images with being allowed to upload photos. I'm not sure what's unclear about an indefinite ban on uploading images. clpo13(talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Light show claims that he misunderstood something about the ban when uploading the files. If there was a simple misunderstanding, then I do not think that an indefinite block is appropriate.
- One problem with many of Light show's uploads is that he often states that files are in the public domain without providing any evidence of this. If we want him to learn from his mistakes, it may be better to arrange a solution where the editor can ask for assistance before an image is uploaded. Therefore, I am not sure if banning the user from using files for upload is a good idea, as that page is meant for editors who need help uploading images. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I assume the indef block will be lifted (or made limited duration) by Moonriddengirl as soon as Light show agrees to abide by their topic ban. The problem with allowing Files for upload requests is that Light show has not been using the page for requesting help, but for rearguing the same issues over and over. After the mess they made at the Nicholson bio, I've lost any hope that they're ready to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- An indefinite block is nothing more than a block without a set expiration. It is not a forever block and could last mere minutes. I've unblocked him after reiterating that the topic ban remains in effect so he can contribute here. However, I do not believe that this resulted from confusion between the two projects and their rulings. Light Show was blocked on Commons for nearly a year before he was topic banned, as I noted here, and continued uploading images to Wikipedia throughout. He knew then the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. (As he should, being a contributor of nearly 8 years.) That he has an agreement whereby reviewed images may be uploaded to Commons after they are preapproved does not mean that he can upload to Wikipedia any more than his block on Commons meant he could not upload here (a fact he understood). Beyond this, he was cautioned on Commons by the admin who unblocked him that he could not assume tacit approval on 14 October. Three days thereafter, 17 October, is the day he started uploading images to Wikipedia - for none of which he had approval here or on Commons: File:Vincent Sherman.jpg (10/17); File:Polanski and Tate 1968.jpg (19 October); File:Sharon Tate still.JPG (20 October); File:Suzanne Somers - Three's Company.jpg (20 October); File:Mamie Van Doren.jpg (20 October); File:Walter lippmann.jpg (22 October); File:Maureen-OHara and Walter Pidgeon-1941.JPG (25 October). Prior to his block, Light Show understood quite well how to upload images to Commons (as distinct from Wikipedia) and more recently since his unblock has managed to upload modifications to older images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- For someone to have been on Wikipedia for nigh on 8 years to not know that bans of any sort, excluding site bans, cannot be enforced by admin tools except by blocking the account smacks of BS. Blackmane (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I assume the indef block will be lifted (or made limited duration) by Moonriddengirl as soon as Light show agrees to abide by their topic ban. The problem with allowing Files for upload requests is that Light show has not been using the page for requesting help, but for rearguing the same issues over and over. After the mess they made at the Nicholson bio, I've lost any hope that they're ready to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support proposal - I remember the thread linked above from a year ago. In response to a query to WMF's copyright lawyers, the community advised Light show that they should follow certain simple criteria when uploading photos; Light show's response was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal, and that led to what I thought was already an indefinite ban on uploading images. An indefinite topic ban recognizes a severe problem, which copyright of course is, but gives the banned user the opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes and learn to edit according to community standards (and in this case, the law). Light show's recent actions show continued flagrant refusal, so a block for violating their ban and a discussion about extending it are appropriate. We're not talking about a few mistakes by a new user, we're talking about thousands of unacceptable contributions. And Light show continues to insist that their own novel interpretation of copyright law is correct, when they have been told that they are wrong by lawyers. I think that Hullabaloo's proposal is quite reasonable - this is a user who has shown up to this point that they should not be allowed to participate in Wikipedia images at all, and Light show shows no signs of even trying to improve. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of note: I didn't think of it, but since Light show is currently blocked, they cannot reply here, but they have replied on their talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Clarifying the current state of the ban
Given this comment, I want to be sure we are clear here:
- As as I understand it, approval that an image is okay by editors on Wikipedia (or even administrators) does not make it okay for Light Show to upload images to Commons. Light Show needs approval on Commons in order to comply with the terms of his unblocking. I will ask User:Revent if I have misunderstood this.
- Approval that an image is okay by anyone does not make it okay for Light Show to upload images to Wikipedia. Light Show is banned from uploading images to Wikipedia.
Again, Light Show knows the difference between projects. After this deletion on Commons, he knew to upload the same image to Wikipedia as non-free content at File:Lumet-TV-1953.jpg (I'd like more information on how that use clears WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI).
Just looking at the article where that image is used to see if there is sourced commentary on the magazine picture raised concerns with three older images on Commons:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-1950s.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-Caine-1982.jpg. Perhaps those images are fine, but lack of accurate information makes an assertion that they are speculative. Speculation has always been the problem here.
Instead of focusing on uploading new images, I think we'd be much better served by a demonstration on Light Show's part that he understands standards on Commons and English Wikipedia by reviewing and correcting information on content already uploaded. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just verifying here that, yes, this understanding of Light Show's Commons unblock is correct...he must obtain explicit prior agreement on his Commons talk page (though the subpage is established is fine, as long as he links it) that he has demonstrated that a work meets the requirements of the Commons licensing policy, and the precautionary principle, before he uploads any new work. A discussion or approval on another project is not fine, for several reasons...the projects have different policies, Commons users will not be notified of discussions on a project they do not edit, and the discussions need to be in a central location where they can be referred to easily. Light Show is aware that he must seek approval on Commons...both his unblock request, and my note when approving it, stated that the discussion would take place on his talk page. I indeed hope that he will work on cleaning up his old mess.. the ability to do (as well as an agreement that would avoid copyvio uploads) was a major consideration when I unblocked him. If he wants to upload, on Commons, he needs to find knowledgeable editors there who are willing to work with him.....so far it does not, to be honest, look particularly promising. Reventtalk 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by User:Light show, reposted from their talk page
- As noted above, I have last year proposed on User:Moonriddengirl's talk page and last month on Commons that I would add a special talk page with links to potential images in order to get them reviewed and pre-approved. I was therefore unblocked. MRG and a Commons admin both also suggested I try to find other editors to pre-approve them, since a wide broadcast of my request wasn't getting any feedback. As far as I can see, the only other place to request an editor's review and feedback was at Wikipedia:Files for upload, in which case they would review and upload an image. I use the term "broadcast," since MRG has nearly 700 watchers on her talk page and the Commons Copyright group has 750! My photo proposal pages got 250 reviews. Yet not a single editor could or would review any bio-related images. Therefore now banning me from even requesting another editor's help seems contradictory in the extreme. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment at the ANI, "Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images...", I think that while the use of the images on Jack Nicholson could have been disputed, but weren't, they were in no way a "major" violation. That's plain silly. For example, I added a supporting image to Nicholson's page, directly relevant to the commentary. Not only was the image used to support the entire subject discussing the particular film, but the image supported the descriptive details. The other non-free images were likewise included alongside commentary discussing the particular films. And while I wasn't going to argue the point after your deleting the images, their use is only slightly less relevant to their use on the film article's pages, none of which discuss either the image or poster itself. And FWIW, most of the other free images are recent event candids which really add little or nothing to the commentary. The article could clearly benefit from some descriptive relevant images besides snapshots of him at a recent party or holding a wine glass somewhere. --Light show (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding another comment, "Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence," that makes little sense. My very first upload request, for Rod Steiger, explained that because I was unable to respond to a deletion request, I had already asked that the proposed image be uploaded by someone else. Seems a bit melodramatic, to me at least, to say I was "trying to escape" a ban. --Light show (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding User:Ivanvector's comment that my response to MRG about the copyright lawyer's reply "was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal." If anyone cares to read it, my reply was essentially the opposite of a refusal. Not only did I agree with most of what they said, I actually expanded on their reply by saying that they didn't go far enough. I wrote, "The result is that the attorneys have included "production stills," including movie posters as usually PD, when the opposite is the case."
- In other words, while they allowed "production stills" as PD, I pointed out that they in fact needed permission. I was adding restrictions to PD claims, not removing or "refusing" them. And FWIW, I have made multiple requests to have the WMF find a U.S. copyright attorney go over this issue, since part of the disputes relate to Europe's lack of laws about pre-1989 copyrights. --Light show (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Battlefield behaviour at Movement for Socialism (Britain), and other pages in past - many warnings, and history in deleted comments on user talk page. Clearly a new editor with much to learn, but polite warnings are having zero effect. Some intervention needed, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The editor concerned is currently at 6RR at that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This Ghmrytle (aka Guy Hamilton) is pursuing an editing vendetta against me since I successfully managed to modify the BBC page of the obviously right-wing bias in his edits. He started the "battlefield behaviour" with his sneering, pompous put=down to my initially cordial reply to a post by another editor. This individual is obnoxious, arrogant and pompous and deserves a lesson in netiquette. I am deleting the content of the disputed page (and not the page per se)because there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of the Movement for Socialism. The MASTER EDITOR III refuses point blank to post any evidence for its existence and yet he lets its supposedly factual content pass unchallenged. If Wikipedia is replete with master editors like this, then heavens help us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- "I am deleting the content of the disputed page (and not the page per se)" - all you left was the title? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel that he article in question here does not meet Wikipedia's standards, you can always list it for deletion at WP:AFD. However, just because you don't link the tone of the article does not give you the right to completely delete all of the content from it. That's considered page blanking and seen as vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've given Greengauge121 a 31 hour block for edit-warring. You could also have filed a complaint at WP:ANEW. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did file a report there, I guess that's moot now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest this thread could now be closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I suspect we may need to revisit the issue in a day or two's time. Hopefully I'm wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You could be right, but we have to adopt WP:AGF and assume the editor has seen the error of their ways? I must admit the tone used in responses and the use of multiple usernames does not bode well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this editor has engaged in battleground behaviour before, against editors who tried to help them at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- You could be right, but we have to adopt WP:AGF and assume the editor has seen the error of their ways? I must admit the tone used in responses and the use of multiple usernames does not bode well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I suspect we may need to revisit the issue in a day or two's time. Hopefully I'm wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest this thread could now be closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did file a report there, I guess that's moot now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've given Greengauge121 a 31 hour block for edit-warring. You could also have filed a complaint at WP:ANEW. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
2.27.x.x / 2.24.x.x (Orange Home UK) persistent transport system vandalism
Hi, got a problem with a person or group of people in the 2.27.x.x / 2.24.x.x (Orange Home UK) ip range performing persistent vandalism on transport articles/templates (changing numbers and colours mostly). I had been reverting (those I've found), warning and reporting to WP:AIV. However they are now changing IP addresses frequently without even being warned (so maybe a group of local friends) and I'm not sure I've caught it all - and not sure what can be done if anything?
Today I found Special:Contributions/2.27.214.244, Special:Contributions/2.27.206.246, Special:Contributions/2.27.215.53, Special:Contributions/2.27.214.64 and Special:Contributions/2.27.206.144 at it.
Others:
- 13 Oct: 2.27.206.224
- 14 Oct: 2.24.122.252
- 15 Oct: 2.24.143.250, 2.27.206.35
- 18 Oct: 2.27.204.161, 2.27.205.145
- 20 Oct: 2.27.213.238
- 24 Oct: 2.27.204.194
- 25 Oct: 2.24.143.29, 2.27.207.123, 2.27.206.39
- 25 Oct: Special:Contributions/2.27.214.244, Special:Contributions/2.27.206.246, Special:Contributions/2.27.215.53, Special:Contributions/2.27.214.64 and Special:Contributions/2.27.206.144
- 27 Oct: 2.24.126.138
- 27 Oct: 2.24.126.221
There may be others I didn't make a note of as well, as it's taking me longer to find, fix, report, track than it does for them to vandalise. (Also I haven't bothered to inform all of the above of this report as it seamed like a pointless exercise - let me know if it must be done!)
Can anything be done to combat this? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's likely one person on a dynamic IP rather than a group of people. The ranges are 2.27.192.0/19 (covers 8192 IP addresses) and 2.24.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses). It doesn't look like the second range has been used by your guy since the 15th, so there's no point blocking it. But it looks like we can block 2.27.192.0/19 without a lot of collateral damage so I am going to block that range for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Diannaa, I think its half-term this week many places in the UK hence the up-scale in activity today - hopefully after a week blocked they will find something more worthwhile to do with their life. Ta KylieTastic (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Diannaa that didn't work they are back 2.24.143.146 just reported to WP:AIV 19:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing at MEDRS
Hello, recently there was an RfC that was closed with a consensus reading that stated a particular change was warranted. However, there have been a couple of editors who objected to the reading and have been disruptively edit warring this change off completely, User: Alexbrn, User: QuackGuru and User:CFCF. See diffs 1 2 3 If they have a problem with it, there are other routes to take, but it appears they have chose disrupting and edit warring. LesVegas (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The closer was not clear how it should be worded and is it clear there are specific countries where journals are of low quality such as Chinese journals. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Country_of_origin for current discussion. Without context LesVegas continued to add "country of origin" to the MEDRS guideline page.[44][45][46][47][48] LesVegas claims what he added was the "best compromise". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#User:LesVegas for previous discussion involving LesVegas. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- One thing the close was clear on is country of origin is not a valid reason to exclude high quality sources.[49] Its the wording afterwards that some want to use to create a loophole. I think it is possible that the simple "country of origin" could have been added to MEDRS list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources and the remainder could have been worked out. Simply removing things that have a consensus close isnt a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is qualifying low quality sources such as Chinese journals when "country of origin" is added [50][51][52][53][54] without any context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thats part of what I was refering to. The "country of origin" wording is clear in the RFC close. The rest is not. Taking that out with the rest is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- During the RfC evidence was shown that Chinese journals are low quality. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC was asking if we should add "country of origin" to that particular sentence. The consensus read was "yes". By the way, the closer came back to answer QuackGuru's objections with a reply stating you have an odd interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Get the point. Discussion closed. And for everyone's information, QuackGuru was also recently topic banned from a topic related to this discussion and his presence on this current discussion might be an attempt at border lining, the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. LesVegas (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think Chinese journals are low quality or high quality? QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's off topic. But the consensus reading clearly said that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin. That this addition has been removed, is disruptive and is the only purpose of this thread. LesVegas (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is germane to the topic. Do you think journals from China are low quality or high quality? What you added was claiming there is no problem with country of origin. There is publication bias from certain countries. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I go along with consensus and therefore, I believe that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin which was a problem that was occurring on a topic you have been topic banned on. LesVegas (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thats a tangent QG, the RFC was about high quality sources, the section the edits are in is about high quality sources. Bringing up low quality sources is besides the point. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does anyone think it is possible that there is publication bias from Chinese journals?
- Please read "The outcome of the RfC is not constrained to be binary. It's intended to gauge consensus, and the closer found consensus to include 'country of origin', but with the caveat that it might be a legitimate consideration where "hard data" demonstrate a concern about biased literature." Including the phrase "country of origin"[55][56][57][58] without the caveat was a direct violation of the close IMO. LesVegas, do you think you had consensus for your change after reading the comments by others? QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is germane to the topic. Do you think journals from China are low quality or high quality? What you added was claiming there is no problem with country of origin. There is publication bias from certain countries. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's off topic. But the consensus reading clearly said that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin. That this addition has been removed, is disruptive and is the only purpose of this thread. LesVegas (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think Chinese journals are low quality or high quality? QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC was asking if we should add "country of origin" to that particular sentence. The consensus read was "yes". By the way, the closer came back to answer QuackGuru's objections with a reply stating you have an odd interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Get the point. Discussion closed. And for everyone's information, QuackGuru was also recently topic banned from a topic related to this discussion and his presence on this current discussion might be an attempt at border lining, the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. LesVegas (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- During the RfC evidence was shown that Chinese journals are low quality. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thats part of what I was refering to. The "country of origin" wording is clear in the RFC close. The rest is not. Taking that out with the rest is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is qualifying low quality sources such as Chinese journals when "country of origin" is added [50][51][52][53][54] without any context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- One thing the close was clear on is country of origin is not a valid reason to exclude high quality sources.[49] Its the wording afterwards that some want to use to create a loophole. I think it is possible that the simple "country of origin" could have been added to MEDRS list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources and the remainder could have been worked out. Simply removing things that have a consensus close isnt a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
QG, we are waiting for the closer to clarify, bringing it up here is starting to look like forum shopping the question. AlbinoFerret 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- It may–but QuackGuru was not the one who started this discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 23:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, QG did not start this section. But LesVagas did not ask for the language or RFC to be reviewed or make suggestions of what it should be, that is not the purpose of AN/I. He came here because some editors are reverting contrary to consensus from a RFC close. AlbinoFerret 05:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE The closer of the RfC has just responded on the talk page for clarification, reiterating that these editors modifying and rejecting this close are out of line. To recap, there was a RFC at WP:MEDRS the question was "to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline." If "country of origin" should be added to the list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources. The RFC ran 30 days the result was YES, it was closed by someone who was not involved. The closer said consensus was that "country of origin" should be added. There are a group of responders who wanted to comment on the RFC and mentioned low quality sources. But that was not the question. The closer made a policy- based close and mentioned WP:RS and WP:V and that we cant override them, meaning that low quality sources would not be allowed anyway. It appears some editors here still don't understand this fact and are blindly going against a policy based consensus reading. It is a waste of everyone's time to have to put up with edit warring and disruption. If the editors here can agree to not only cease going against consensus readings at MEDRS, but also such readings in the future, then I suggest they be warned and let's move on. If they aren't willing to do that then blocks may be necessary. LesVegas (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes
ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. If anyone here wants ANI to deal with a user behavior issue, please post evidence in the form of diffs that establishes the behavior in question. Otherwise, this should be closed and referred to one of the content dispute resolution venues listed a WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, one editor here is trying to turn this into an off-topic content dispute so I can understand your confusion. This matter is purely behavioral with editors disruptively edit warring a phrase that had consensus to be added following this RfC. The closing reader also was asked to clarify and stated that the discussion was closed, yet some editors persisted in changing the wording to their liking or removing it entirely 1 2 3. That's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The point is the upshot of RfC is not clear: the "behaviour" problem lies with axe-grinding editors falsely saying it is and trying to ram home their preferred text in support of such misrepresentation. And that would include you. Probably better this is discussed further in Talk, we shouldn't be trying to decide our WP:PAGs through edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is incorrect, there is a clear finding, and a unclear part. The closer will probably clear up the unclear part. But there is already consensus from the RFC for adding country of origin to the list of things that should not be considered when looking at high quality sources. The close can be found here. [59] The words of the closer are "There was consensus however that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source (and no more valid than "funding sources") hence for the change." This isnt a case of a content dispute, this is a case of some editors not liking the close of a RFC and reverting contrary to consensus mentioned in a close. I will grant that some have added things that are unclear, and that should have been removed, but not everything. AlbinoFerret 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not clear; you are oversimplifying it since nobody is arguing that country per se should disqualify a source. The point at issue is how to deal with sources when there are material grounds for supposing their national origin compromises them (so not "per se", but based on distinct evidence). But this is all better discussed in Talk rather than trying to "win" through misrepresenting the situation here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually in the section above this one QG is very clearly saying "Chinese journals" = "low quality", and he links some examples of papers that supposedly prove this absurdly sweeping claim to be true.Herbxue (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- If QG is linking to papers in support of the claim then it is not an objection "per se", but per external evidence. There are well-known issues with Chinese research into Chinese medicine, are there not? Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- QG did not say anything as simplistic as that. QG posted this link a couple of times to show that there is good reason to be wary of certain studies. I don't see a response. RS issues always involve a balance of various factors and it will never be possible to apply a rule that country-of-origin is always relevant, or that it is never relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually in the section above this one QG is very clearly saying "Chinese journals" = "low quality", and he links some examples of papers that supposedly prove this absurdly sweeping claim to be true.Herbxue (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not clear; you are oversimplifying it since nobody is arguing that country per se should disqualify a source. The point at issue is how to deal with sources when there are material grounds for supposing their national origin compromises them (so not "per se", but based on distinct evidence). But this is all better discussed in Talk rather than trying to "win" through misrepresenting the situation here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is incorrect, there is a clear finding, and a unclear part. The closer will probably clear up the unclear part. But there is already consensus from the RFC for adding country of origin to the list of things that should not be considered when looking at high quality sources. The close can be found here. [59] The words of the closer are "There was consensus however that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source (and no more valid than "funding sources") hence for the change." This isnt a case of a content dispute, this is a case of some editors not liking the close of a RFC and reverting contrary to consensus mentioned in a close. I will grant that some have added things that are unclear, and that should have been removed, but not everything. AlbinoFerret 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The point is the upshot of RfC is not clear: the "behaviour" problem lies with axe-grinding editors falsely saying it is and trying to ram home their preferred text in support of such misrepresentation. And that would include you. Probably better this is discussed further in Talk, we shouldn't be trying to decide our WP:PAGs through edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User deliberately provoking arguments at Talk:Jews
The article Jews and its talk page is a sensitive topic even at the best of times, permanently semi-protected and under WP:ARBCOM-protection. Given this, it's highly problematic that No More Mr Nice Guy treats it as a battleground and repeatedly violates WP:SOAP and WP:AGF with multiple comments only directed at provoking other users and not even an attempt to discuss the article. These are some of the most recent comments by No More Mr Nice Guy:
- "It's news to me" says the one-stater. What a joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [60]
- Another self-serving anecdote about Jews? What a surprise! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [61]
- That is all very obvious. Why do you think all these "anti-Zionists" have suddenly shown such an interest in this article? Check out who's participating in the NOR board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% violation of WP:AGF) [62]
As a previously uninvolved user, I already removed these obvious policy violations once, and informed the user about the policies and warned them about this behavior on their talk page [63]. The user's response was to immediately revert me to reinsert all the above provocations once more [64]. It's obvious this user is only here to treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Already the name (No More Mr Nice Guy) is indicative, and repeatedly inserting (and reinserting) numerous comments only meant to provoke other users on the of the more sensitive talk pages shows that this user is WP:NOTHERE for the right purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kindly note that Jeppiz did not find any fault with another user telling me to "try not to be an idiot" or calling other editors' comments "useless" and "stupid", not to mention the general SOAPboxing my comments above are directly responding to. I'll leave the obvious "why would he focus only on one editor?" question open. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in the whole dispute, but I left a notice to all users to discuss the article, not each other. No More Mr Nice Guy was by far the most disruptive. The comment above is of course irrelevant as a defense, as the fact that other users may violate a policy is never an excuse. While other users also used inappropriate language at times within comments about the article, No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be the only user with several comments that only are aimed at other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Let me help you out here: my "It's news to me" comment was a reply to this comment. Kindly explain why you thought the comment I was responding to is relevant to the Jews article, why you don't consider it SOAP and why you didn't remove it and warn the other editor on his talk page, like you did with me.
- My "self-serving anecdote" was in reply to this comment. Can you see the self-serving anecdote (SOAP) in there? Can you explain why you didn't remove it or warn the editor on their talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I can explain it. I read it, considered it, didn't think it added much of value, but thought it at least addressed the topic. I never remove talk page comments unless they are obvious violations, like yours. The whole reason I, as an uninvolved user, filed this report was because I noticed you treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and you deliberately seek to provoke arguments, as shown in the diffs I posted. Your repeated insinuations here that I have some hidden agenda only strengthen that impression. You're reported here not because of your views ( the last two users I reported related to the Middle East were Pro-Palestinians so I really think I'm neutral in this matter) but because you're behavior is disruptive. Worse, it's deliberately disruptive, you continue to engage in it even after being warned. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Really? The "it's news to me" comment addressed the topic? How very interesting. I think we've gone about as far as we can go here. Let's see what other editors think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I can explain it. I read it, considered it, didn't think it added much of value, but thought it at least addressed the topic. I never remove talk page comments unless they are obvious violations, like yours. The whole reason I, as an uninvolved user, filed this report was because I noticed you treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and you deliberately seek to provoke arguments, as shown in the diffs I posted. Your repeated insinuations here that I have some hidden agenda only strengthen that impression. You're reported here not because of your views ( the last two users I reported related to the Middle East were Pro-Palestinians so I really think I'm neutral in this matter) but because you're behavior is disruptive. Worse, it's deliberately disruptive, you continue to engage in it even after being warned. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in the whole dispute, but I left a notice to all users to discuss the article, not each other. No More Mr Nice Guy was by far the most disruptive. The comment above is of course irrelevant as a defense, as the fact that other users may violate a policy is never an excuse. While other users also used inappropriate language at times within comments about the article, No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be the only user with several comments that only are aimed at other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a sensitive topic. What ARBCOM protection? Not seeing any indication that this article is under any sanctions, general or otherwise.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Due to the content of the discussion it would seem that WP:ARBPIA would apply to the discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
NMMNG's antipathy to Nishidani is widely known and long-standing. Even in unrelated discussions, he will bring them up. Nishidani has at times snapped at NMMNG but the vast majority of their comments are content based. If Nishidani is not involved, NMMNG can be sometimes reasonable. Otherwise, all reason goes out of the window, with WP:ABF being the default. I see that editors on the WP:NORN page are being referred to by NMMNG as "all these anti-Zionists", which probably refers to me, since after Nishidani, I wrote the most number of comments there. Apparently, suggesting that the lead should summarize the article, in particular that the definition of a Jew should summarize the section "Who is a Jew" can only be done by someone with an ulterior agenda of destroying Israel. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Kingsindian; WP:ABF seems indeed to be the default option, which I find problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Three days on ANI, not one admin commenting, and the problem goes on
I find it surprising that a report can be on ANI for three days without even one admin commenting. If the situation had calmed down, fine, but it just goes on. As I pointed out in my initial report, and as Kingsindian confirmed, No More Mr Nice Guy is constantly going after Nishidani with endless comments that are just snide remarks in violation of WP:SOAP. I posted some in the original post three days ago, here are some further diffs from today. [65], [66]. Just as with the diffs I first reported, these comments have nothing to do with how to improve the articles, just one user endless commenting on another user. Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Consider the topic, and the intractable history of the I-P dispute both IRL and here. Compare and contrast with an IP scrawling profanity on an article. This will be on the final.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Long-term disputes in a contentious area with the unclean hands defense being deployed? Far fewer are willing to touch that compared to a nice open-and-shut IP vandal case. WP:AE is probably a better venue for this. I predict the result being all parties enjoined to grow up, but I can see a case being made for an interaction ban. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I'm not involved, I don't claim to know their history, I just saw a user being entirely focused on another user rather than the subject, and across several articles. I'd say it's a rather clear WP:TPNO. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll ask again why you aren't reporting the obvious SOAP and personal attacks I'm responding to. Your concern about TPNO seems very one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Three things. (1) I don't find anyone else violating TPNO even close to as much as you're doing it. (2) Even if others were violating it just as much, it would still not be an excuse for you to do it, so it's completely irrelevant here. (3) Your repeated insinuations I have some hidden agenda only underlines the WP:AGF-accusation Kingsindian made against you. I've answered you're "why" already; I reported you because of your frequent violations of policies, I didn't see others violate it nearly as much. That's why. Do you have anything to say about your behavior? This is a report about you, and this far you've only confirmed it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Repeating yourself doesn't make your case any stronger. You seem think the fact I said "yawn" at someone's SOAP+NPA violation is more a TPNO violation than the actual SOPAboxing and personal attack. I disagree. I really don't have anything to add at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you think your behavior is correct and you intend to continue with the same behavior? Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think this report is deliberately one sided and that you're now following my contribs to articles you never edited before, which is a form of harassment. Like I said above, I think you and I have gone as far as we can go on this subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've been editing I-P related articles for years, nothing to do with you. I notice you did not answer my question about whether you will continue, nor did you address your own behavior. You just keep avoiding the subject to discuss me, just as you discuss other users' on article talk pages instead of the topics there. Thanks for so vividly illustrating the problem! Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think this report is deliberately one sided and that you're now following my contribs to articles you never edited before, which is a form of harassment. Like I said above, I think you and I have gone as far as we can go on this subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you think your behavior is correct and you intend to continue with the same behavior? Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Repeating yourself doesn't make your case any stronger. You seem think the fact I said "yawn" at someone's SOAP+NPA violation is more a TPNO violation than the actual SOPAboxing and personal attack. I disagree. I really don't have anything to add at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Three things. (1) I don't find anyone else violating TPNO even close to as much as you're doing it. (2) Even if others were violating it just as much, it would still not be an excuse for you to do it, so it's completely irrelevant here. (3) Your repeated insinuations I have some hidden agenda only underlines the WP:AGF-accusation Kingsindian made against you. I've answered you're "why" already; I reported you because of your frequent violations of policies, I didn't see others violate it nearly as much. That's why. Do you have anything to say about your behavior? This is a report about you, and this far you've only confirmed it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll ask again why you aren't reporting the obvious SOAP and personal attacks I'm responding to. Your concern about TPNO seems very one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I'm not involved, I don't claim to know their history, I just saw a user being entirely focused on another user rather than the subject, and across several articles. I'd say it's a rather clear WP:TPNO. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Long-term disputes in a contentious area with the unclean hands defense being deployed? Far fewer are willing to touch that compared to a nice open-and-shut IP vandal case. WP:AE is probably a better venue for this. I predict the result being all parties enjoined to grow up, but I can see a case being made for an interaction ban. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Consider the topic, and the intractable history of the I-P dispute both IRL and here. Compare and contrast with an IP scrawling profanity on an article. This will be on the final.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd close this, but as I commented, I had better not. Could someone else please oblige? There's nothing useful being generated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review my block
Please can I get a quick review of my block of Blethering Scot (talk · contribs) - partly because I was the one of the subjects of his insults here and here; and partly because I will not be around that much over the last week and don't want to be seen to be 'blocking and running.' FWIW he's probably attempting death by admin and has also tagged all of his sandboxes/usrpages for deletion. It all stems from a dispute he has had at 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season. I've not been involved in that but I have been involved in a subsequent discussion (which is where the insults were made). GiantSnowman 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like 36 hours was warranted, the language was pretty unacceptable and seemed to stem from a very minor dispute. From my experience of the editor it seemed quite out of character so a cooling off period would probably be for the best. To be honest I'm not sure how genuine the requests are given how quickly this seemed to escalate so I declined the speedy of the main space article on the grounds that it was difficult to assume genuine good faith given the way wider related discussions had progressed. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I support the decline of speedy. It's a deletion request - doesn't mean we have to abide by the demand. As all contributions are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, there's no requirement that we abide by a G7 request, only that we consider it. In this case, as 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season is well sourced and is widely linked, I see declining to be perfectly acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note, the user is also insisting that User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force be deleted. In all fairness, this template should have been moved to be a subpage of the related Wikiproject long ago. As all edits to Wikipedia are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, they have no ownership of it - but they have the right to disappear and not have the template lingering in their userspace. By moving it to a subpage of the Wikiproject, the users in that project can just update the usage on their userpages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If anyone needs a wider explanation of my involvement in this, it can be found here. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- A bit of general advice: if you are unsure of a block, it is better to ask for outside input before rather than after blocking. Perhaps what you really wanted to say is, "I made this block and the user might appeal, but I will be away. Feel free to amend as you see fit." Jehochman Talk 16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you come here for reassurance, GS? We can pat your hand or something but in the meantime we're down a content contributor who is a human being. What are you doing to ensure content doesn't suffer because of your actions? The reader doesn't care about our conflicts, he wants information, information, information. You have helped ensure he won't get it. Well done (pats hand).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
De-prodder
- 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:F07A:973D:2CFD:EEE6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This SPA has de-prodded about 20 articles in 15 minutes (as of this moment), the ip has no prior editing history... Vrac (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I know anyone can remove a PROD for any reason, but I think mass-removals like this should be considered vandalism, especially since they haven't justified any of their PROD removals. clpo13(talk) 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I had already asked them on their talk page, but it doesn't look like they're gonna respond. Vrac also reverted one of their edits, and they immediately reverted it without comment. Rchard2scout (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now they've moved on to adding {{old prod full}} to the articles they removed PRODs from. clpo13(talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I had already asked them on their talk page, but it doesn't look like they're gonna respond. Vrac also reverted one of their edits, and they immediately reverted it without comment. Rchard2scout (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This SPA doesn't look much like a SPA. Deprodding has a set of requirements. One of which is giving a reason for your objection either in the summary or on the talk page. Absent this it can't be considered deprodded I feel.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting which says, in part, "You are encouraged, but not required,..." It may be annoying but there is nothing wrong it what they are doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Technically, they're not breaking any rules, but that doesn't really matter. Removing PRODs from such a high number of articles without any explanation is clearly disruptive. And while we're on the subject, I strongly disagree with the fact that an explanation is not required. Just like you can't place a PROD without a reason, you shouldn't be able to remove one without a reason. JDDJS (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP 48 hours for disruptive editing. Since the removals of PROD were not in good faith, in my opinion anyone who believes the PRODs were justified can restore them. A brand-new IP who knows how to use the Template:old prod full is presumably a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The user hasn't been active since the question was first put to them. They're clearly an experienced user, but there's no evidence that they're a sock, rather than just a user who doesn't use an account (which is not required). This block is wholly baseless in policy, and appears to be vindictive. The user isn't doing anything, and hasn't been online since questions were first put to them. Absolutely inexcuseable. WilyD 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The user did over fifty-prod related edits after the question was put to them and they were informed of this thread. --NeilN talk to me 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The user hasn't been active since the question was first put to them. They're clearly an experienced user, but there's no evidence that they're a sock, rather than just a user who doesn't use an account (which is not required). This block is wholly baseless in policy, and appears to be vindictive. The user isn't doing anything, and hasn't been online since questions were first put to them. Absolutely inexcuseable. WilyD 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP 48 hours for disruptive editing. Since the removals of PROD were not in good faith, in my opinion anyone who believes the PRODs were justified can restore them. A brand-new IP who knows how to use the Template:old prod full is presumably a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Technically, they're not breaking any rules, but that doesn't really matter. Removing PRODs from such a high number of articles without any explanation is clearly disruptive. And while we're on the subject, I strongly disagree with the fact that an explanation is not required. Just like you can't place a PROD without a reason, you shouldn't be able to remove one without a reason. JDDJS (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I remember back when the Prod process was first implemented, a number of editors went around mass deprodding articles because they opposed the entire process itself. Nothing was ever done to those editors dispute repeated reports to ANI as those editors were within their rights dispute any prod. So why should this be any different? What evidence is there that the deprodding wasn't done in good faith? —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That thing you describe seems very very WP:POINTy to me, and the fact nothing was done back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right, or that circumstances haven't changed due to the fact that PROD is now a much more established process. LjL (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @LjL: While it may seem POINTy at first, the rational for not issuing blocks for mass removes for pods was that it was simpler and less disruptive to start an AfD using the same rational rather than arguing over whether a prod removal was valid or not. Also, a disputed prod is still disputed no matter what the circumstances are. The only exception were cases of pure vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That thing you describe seems very very WP:POINTy to me, and the fact nothing was done back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right, or that circumstances haven't changed due to the fact that PROD is now a much more established process. LjL (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I remember back when the Prod process was first implemented, a number of editors went around mass deprodding articles because they opposed the entire process itself. Nothing was ever done to those editors dispute repeated reports to ANI as those editors were within their rights dispute any prod. So why should this be any different? What evidence is there that the deprodding wasn't done in good faith? —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explicitly states that even bad faith removal of prod tags is allowed. Any editor who reads Template:Proposed deletion/dated will quickly discover Template:old prod full. I do not see any policy-based reason for this block. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Proposed deletion can say what it wants (although condoning things done in bad faith seems like a very strange policy), but how does that make admins suddenly not allowed to block someone who's disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith? WP:Proposed deletion merely states that the template can't be re-added, anyway, not that administrative action can't be taken if it was removed inappropriately. LjL (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are two issues here. One, is the removal of prod tags without giving any reason allowed? Yes. Two, can editors simply ignore good-faith concerns from other editors and simply continue on their way? In my view, no. Some response, however brief, is needed as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've undone the block per objections here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think that there is an ARBCOM ruling that says making mass edits against consensus, or when you have reason to know that they are objected to and do not discuss them, is itself disruptive editing. (I would have to search to find the exact ruling.) Other than that, I think TheFarix and Kusma are correct, there is no evidence of socking here, and not much of bad faith, IMO. But that ruling might be the basis of a block. DES (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are two issues here. One, is the removal of prod tags without giving any reason allowed? Yes. Two, can editors simply ignore good-faith concerns from other editors and simply continue on their way? In my view, no. Some response, however brief, is needed as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Proposed deletion can say what it wants (although condoning things done in bad faith seems like a very strange policy), but how does that make admins suddenly not allowed to block someone who's disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith? WP:Proposed deletion merely states that the template can't be re-added, anyway, not that administrative action can't be taken if it was removed inappropriately. LjL (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explicitly states that even bad faith removal of prod tags is allowed. Any editor who reads Template:Proposed deletion/dated will quickly discover Template:old prod full. I do not see any policy-based reason for this block. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I note that not so long ago, a user who dePRODded articles in a particular subject area with no explanation or with a clearly spurious explanation, was allowed to continue. The editor disagreed with the applicable SNG and was attempting to disrupt the deletion process to frustrate enforcement of a consensus guideline. If that was OK, there shouldn't be a block here. There is a prehistoric ARBCOM case that said that you could be blocked if enough editors disliked your dePRODding criteria, but that goes back to the days when ARBCOM was infested with sockpuppetteers, impersonators, and other bad actors, and should probably be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think that this shows we need to have a discussion about the current policy dePRODing articles. It does not make sense to even have PROD if an IP address can just massively remove them from articles without offering a reason. You can't PROD an article without a reason, so you shouldn't be able to de-PROD without one. Can somebody steer me in the right direction to start this conversation? JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Probably Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discussion is buried in the archives. clpo13(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the logic of being able to remove PROD tags is that PRODs are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletion. If the deletion is contested, the discussion has to go to AfD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Define "contested" though. One thing is "contesting", as in, being against the deletion of a particular article; another thing is "contesting" the idea itself that articles can be PROD'd; yet another is mass-dePROD'ing likely so that you can grab popcorn and watch admins and others wikilawyer over policy at ANI. LjL (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the logic of being able to remove PROD tags is that PRODs are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletion. If the deletion is contested, the discussion has to go to AfD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Probably Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discussion is buried in the archives. clpo13(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Removing PRODs for no reason is usually fine, but mass removing is clearly disruptive. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good block- a quick spot check satisfies me that most, if not all, of the deprodded articles are completely hopeless. The IP can not have done any kind of actual evaluation on these articles before deprodding them. This is just pointy nonsense. Reyk YO! 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps instead of arguing over if the block was legit or not (under current PROD/DEPROD it is clear and unambiguous that no reason is requried to DEPROD at all.) people should do something useful and go change PROD/DEPROD so that it states a De-prodder is required to leave a reason. If you can get consensus for that change, then you will have solved the issue. Then you can all get started on what constitutes a valid reason for deprodding of course... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your statement. The entire purpose of the PROD process is to lessen the burden on editors and admins when it comes to articles that are obviously deleteable. Given how few editors are even involved in AfD discussions these days the burden is even heavier for the few active there. There is nothing "easy" about creating and administrating a significant uptick of unnecessary deletion discussions should one editor take it upon themselves to start stripping the PROD template from articles with no explanation or discernible concerns raised. If there is a loophole allowing for this type of disruption then suggestion the process be reviewed is sensible.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Block evasion from sockpuppet disrupting Good Article nominations
WP:DUCK case of sockpuppets performing WP:BLOCK EVASION to disrupt Wikipedia's Good Article nominations process.
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.
Bringing here, as problem is ongoing, right now.
Would appreciate admin action on this.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Question for administrator
As the User:Marchjuly told me, i created the temp section for Keith Sequeira's Section Personal life in my own words. I request all administrator, OTRS and clerk For the rewrite of Keith Sequeiras personal life section and removal of the copyright violation tag as soon as possible. --kartiktiwary3 (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure what you're asking to be removed, but it does seem like this would be a better question asked at the help desk. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone is spamming the name Gautam Mrinaal in Bollywood pages.
First it started in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (check my reverts) and the next revert by Peppy Paneer. After that I found it exists in many pages. This is not a website that can be added in spam blacklist.1 2 , All Ips start with 182.66/ range. 3 , 4--The Avengers (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Adding [5]. The Avengers (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Today , second. --The Avengers (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Avengers, the IP range is way too wide for a rangeblock. The best we can do is block and protect some favorite targets. --NeilN talk to me 15:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit war on Scarsdale diet resuming within hours of release of EW block
It looks like Anmccaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) resumed an edit war over at Scarsdale diet almost immediately after release of previous block for edit warring. Diffs:
- [67] (less than 3 hours after release of EW block)
- [68] (less than 3 hours after release of EW block)
- [69] Anmccaff blocked for edit warring on a different article
- [70]
- [71]
- [72]
- [73]
- [74]
- [75]
While not a 3RR violation, it seems like a continuing pattern. The Dissident Aggressor 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was the admin who blocked Anmccaff for edit-warring on the other article. DissidentAggressor was also edit-warring. I didn't block them, though (the reasons are complex). DA, unlike in the other article, has nothing to do with the Scarsdale diet article, and, frankly, I don't trust their motives in bringing this to ANI. If you look at the history of the diet article, you'll quickly note that there was an edit war in September, a discussion on the Talk page, and no consensus as to what was appropriate. For whatever reason the last version in play was Anmccaff's on September 28. Then there was a blissful one-month break, and then Alexbrn reverted (while Anmccaff was blocked, which may of course be pure coincidence). That then triggered some back-and-forth between the two users. This issue should not have been brought here, and certainly should not have singled out Anmccaff. The involved editors need to spend more time on the Talk page, and DA needs to stay out of it unless they want to join the discussion based on content.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also see WT:MED#Scarsdale_diet. There's also been trouble at South Beach diet in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that you and others have been reverting back and forth on 'reducing diet' versus 'fad diet' as the best description of the Scarsdale diet. For instance here. If this is important to you, consider opening a WP:Request for comment or use WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User Unbuttered Parsnip
Hello. Unbuttered Parsnip blanked large section of Ryōtarō Okiayu which I reverted on AGF. Despite warnings, he then engaged in edit warring and I cautioned him accordingly. This user has a history of disruptive editing, edit warring and has been blocked previously also. User has a track record of not leaving edit summaries and has been warned several times. His talkpage and it is full of warnings, notices and then hostile comments by the user: here he used term "f**k off. And now, in response to my comment here, he responded with quote "Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks...." unquote. Several other aggressive comments can be found on his talkpage. Several edit warring notices have been issued to him but he does not seem to be slowing down. Incidentally, he was attempting to delete filmography from this page in discussion, and in Apr 2015 he was issued a 3RR warning for exactly the same reason (but for Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards). Not only is he abusive, he refuses to learn too. Please check here. This user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE and his userpage reflects that. Kindly consider a block on this user. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming you're talking about this edit, I'd consider the removal entirely correct. His language could be better, but it's understandable to occasionally lose your cool when you're trying to uphold Wikipedia standards and someone keeps edit-warring with you. ‑ iridescent 19:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- iridescent, help me understand this. Are we advocating abusive nature of someone (that too with multiple people on several occasions)? I have edited more that him and not once have I abused anyone. What about Wikipedia:Civility? Don't tell me you are encouraging bad behavior? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- AKS.9955, what is the difference between your edit warring and Unbuttered_Parsnip's edit warring? You both have reverted 3 times now and neither one of you have made a single edit to the article's talk page. You have been warned before about edit warring also. Your response to Unbuttered Parsnip's edit warring warning was wrong. You are edit warring also but your response is that Unbuttered Parsnip was just out for revenge. Take it to the talk page. -- GB fan 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are both edit-warring and before I placed a comment on the article talk page, it hadn't been used since 2008. The filmography on this article is ridiculous and needs serious pruning. As for Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks, I would not be offended as I find it completely undecipherable gibberish. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even gibberish can be insulting and offensive, Liz. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kumquat allopecia nickoldeon pork sausage hat trick, Kemosabe. BMK (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can someone revdel this egregious assault? Admins plz. clpo13(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can someone revdelete what? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Lemon curry!! BMK (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can someone revdel this egregious assault? Admins plz. clpo13(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kumquat allopecia nickoldeon pork sausage hat trick, Kemosabe. BMK (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even gibberish can be insulting and offensive, Liz. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are both edit-warring and before I placed a comment on the article talk page, it hadn't been used since 2008. The filmography on this article is ridiculous and needs serious pruning. As for Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks, I would not be offended as I find it completely undecipherable gibberish. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Morning folks. Here are my final comments on this matter (unless specifically asked for comments by one of the users).
- Yesterday, whilst working on STiki I reverted a mass blanking with inapt comment that obviously did not support the blanking.
- User Unbuttered Parsnip reverted the changes without bothering to provide edit summary, leave alone discussing.
- I again reverted his blanking and issued him two different notices.
- User ignored both the notices and reverted the changes - again without any edit summary and discussion.
- I then posted a detailed (and personalized message) on his talkpage, advising him what my objection with his blanking was and what next steps we need to take to perform the edit. If you read here, you will be able to see that I requested him for a discussion and also advised him in advance that I will be reverting the changes so that discussion can take place.
- I had no intention of bringing this to ANI till I saw his reply here. Upon checking, I noticed that this user has a history of being abusive, not providing edit summaries and engaging in 3RR. I hence opened a discussion here.
- What I did not expect was that being non-responsive, hostile, and being abusive will be totally ignored or taken lightly in this forum. This is very discouraging. I have enough experience to understand that edits can be disagreed upon but then there is a civil way to go about it. On similar lines, I had two (other) similar instances yesterday when the original editor reverted the changes made by me but in both cases the myself and editors communicated with reach to a conclusion, which in-turn improved the articles under discussion. See talkpage of ChoudharyPrerna and her comments on my talkpage here. She attempted to update (twice) death of a politician which was reverted by me twice and later when the sources were found, it was me who went and updated the page. Also, please see this (word "shit" was used in the article which was reverted by me originally). In both case, all editors communicated with each other (without being abusive) and discussed the issue (unlike in the case we are discussing where only one party communicated and other abused). If someone gets frustrated so easily and starts abusing, then perhaps that person should not be editing on Wikipedia at all.
- Dear GB, you asked for the difference - I hope my reply above explains the difference. WP:3RR looks like a double edged sword to me where the person not erring gets cut more than the person erring. If we are strictly going by number of reverts, then there is no need of 3RR notices and discussions and a bot can simply do the job by issuing notices to anyone reverting any edits 3 times + also block them for sometime. The very reason that does not happen is there is always a different reason behind two people reverting the same edits. Now my point is, rather than blindly looking at the revert count (like a bot), lets please also look at the reason and the approach (plus the abuses) behind the reverts.
- In any case (and as I wrote above), the primary reason I opened this discussion was the perennial abusive nature and non-responsiveness of user reported. Whilst we all discuss this here, there is not a word from the user anywhere and ironically there are attempts by senior editors to justify his abusive history & present (and encourage bad behavior).
- I thank everyone for their time on this matter. Have a good day / evening. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Talking about non-responsive, have you responded to the substance of the first reply in this thread (by iridescent)? I see the comments about CIVIL and so forth, but what about the substance? By the way, it can be very irritating when someone uses semi-automated tools to revert edits and issue warnings with meaningless edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Both of you were erring in your approach. Someone needs to stop the edit warring even if it does not leave it at their preferred version, neither one of you could do that until you both got to three reverts and it ended up here. You say that "there is always a different reason behind two people reverting the same edits", I have to disagree with that. Usually both sides of an edit war have the exact same reason for what they are doing, they think their edits are correct. That appears to be what both of you thought. Neither one of you were correct. As others have said above the material needs pruning, but the edit war was all or nothing, no middle ground, no compromise or discussion on the article's talk page, just warnings and reporting. -- GB fan 13:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hrrmph.(Uninvolved) I'd like to note that Unbuttered Parsnip does seem to have a somewhat disturbing habit of blanketing sections instead of fixing them, apparently without even bothering to check the results. First I had to clean up this one [76], which left the refs in smoking ruins, and now I've just stumbled upon this [77], which just excised the refs altogether. Both of these could easily have been fixed with a little thought, but they decided to just nuke the entire section instead. So yes, I'd suggest some tender criticism might be directed their way.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- AKS.9955 (talk · contribs), I understand where you're coming from, but I can't possibly see how you think you're helping by blindly reverting and templating a regular and then reporting them here. This user has difficulty communicating due to a stroke and I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to have to explain why you're removing a bloated, severely-excessive, unsourced bullet-list. As you can see by the current re-work, it needed a complete refactoring and severe pruning just to be acceptably retained. I can't see any particular reason you would jump into this conflict during the course of vandalism patrol, but you're not doing it right. I fail to see where they habitually blank sections. Maybe we can stop harassing them for working productively here. Swarm ♠ 00:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've rebuilt and sourced the filmography. But the complaint still stands that the editor in question has used a WP:BATHWATER approach. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Variety of issues with editing
I had a look at the Fritzl case, checked a few refs and found they all did not contain the info as claimed. I tagged the ones I'd checked as failed verification, and tagged the article accordingly. I left a note on article talk explaining that the refs I'd checked were all wrong, and that I'd marked those before giving up in disgust (this is the worst article I've seen for a long while). User:Harry the Dirty Dog seemed to be the main named editor of the article, so I checked his other contributions. The first two articles I found he'd added text to were pure copyvio [78] and [79]. Then I found that (just minutes later) he'd already removed all of the tags from the (very long) Fritz case article, with the "explanation" on talk diff (edit sum "What exactly is wrong with it?") and diff. This example edit by Harry the dog (reverting an edit) restores wrongly cited info, with the somewhat ironic edit summary "Not what the refs say". I would guess this editor's history needs looking into. Cheers zzz (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I explained on the article TP. You don't tag a whole article because of a couple of duff refs. One of the tags was incorrect. Some refs have multiple pages, e.g this one [80]. You need to click through all the pages before you decide something isn't there. It took a few minutes but I was already going through and fixed the unsupported assertions. If there are any more errors, please tag them or better still fix them. Thanks. Harry Let us have speaks 06:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just counted, it was five refs that I tagged individually. As I explained on talk, those were just the ones that I happened to check. Not "a couple". zzz (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- And two of those tags related to the Spiegel article were incorrect, as the information was on page three of the article. So that leaves three which I have fixed. Feel free to look for more, but as I said, you don't tag a whole article as being factually dubious because of two or three duff refs. Harry Let us have speaks 07:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming (for the sake of argument) you're right that 2 out of the first five refs I randomly checked were actually correct, that indicates a problem: a BLP that is at least 60% wrong. I have no idea why you would remove failed verification tags before correcting the content. As if the tags are the problem. zzz (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No assuming needed. Look more closely at the refs. In any event that's three out of 65 (and one of those, the Spiegel ref, was actually accurate in two of the three instances you tagged). You cannot extrapolate that 60% of all the refs are problematic based on your sampling. As I said on the article's TP, there will inevitably be slippage in refs. Links go dead, and the content of refs can change since they were first used. So it is good to be vigilant. In removing the tags I have fixed the issues that you highlighted. If you find more, either tag them and someone will look at them or better still fix it yourself. Harry Let us have speaks 07:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is precisely how sampling and extrapolation work. 60%+ out of 65 refs. You do the maths. Tagged refs should at least be fixed before tag removal, without the need for ANI, as a matter of courtesy. The copyvio is another issue: 100% of a sample of your last two content additions. zzz (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I simply restored the article to make it easier to work with. You need a representative sample to make an extrapolation. If you had found problems in all the sections then I would say that is representative, but as I said, a few problems in an article that old is not unusual. To tag a whole article you need to be sure there is a major problem, not extrapolate from a few duff refs that as I say are not uncommon in longer, older articles and I am grateful that you spotted the errors in the refs so they could be fixed.
- That is precisely how sampling and extrapolation work. 60%+ out of 65 refs. You do the maths. Tagged refs should at least be fixed before tag removal, without the need for ANI, as a matter of courtesy. The copyvio is another issue: 100% of a sample of your last two content additions. zzz (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No assuming needed. Look more closely at the refs. In any event that's three out of 65 (and one of those, the Spiegel ref, was actually accurate in two of the three instances you tagged). You cannot extrapolate that 60% of all the refs are problematic based on your sampling. As I said on the article's TP, there will inevitably be slippage in refs. Links go dead, and the content of refs can change since they were first used. So it is good to be vigilant. In removing the tags I have fixed the issues that you highlighted. If you find more, either tag them and someone will look at them or better still fix it yourself. Harry Let us have speaks 07:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming (for the sake of argument) you're right that 2 out of the first five refs I randomly checked were actually correct, that indicates a problem: a BLP that is at least 60% wrong. I have no idea why you would remove failed verification tags before correcting the content. As if the tags are the problem. zzz (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- And two of those tags related to the Spiegel article were incorrect, as the information was on page three of the article. So that leaves three which I have fixed. Feel free to look for more, but as I said, you don't tag a whole article as being factually dubious because of two or three duff refs. Harry Let us have speaks 07:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just counted, it was five refs that I tagged individually. As I explained on talk, those were just the ones that I happened to check. Not "a couple". zzz (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- As for the copyvio claims, there is nothing wrong with using a small part of a ref verbatim (or nearly verbatim) especially when you are quoting a public statement that is itself quoted in the ref. And I wonder how you can claim that:
In July 2015 Asker was found guilty on all charge and was sentenced to over four years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution. The other four pleaded guilty. Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Two franchisees were given prison sentences and a third received three years probation.
- is a copyvio of:
Happy Asker, president and founder of the Farmington Hills-based Happy’s Pizza chain, was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison Friday and ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution for tax fraud. Asker, 38, of West Bloomfield was convicted of more than two dozen crimes, including filing false federal individual tax returns aiding and assisting the filing of false returns and engaging in a corrupt endeavor to obstruct and impede the IRS code. Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Yaldo, a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $314,078. Summa, also a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $199,847. Tagrid Bashi, a franchise owner, was sentenced to three years’ probation.
- The one sentence that is verbatim a) comes under fair use and b) is simply a statement of facts. My addition is otherwise a rewrite of what the source says. But again, if you feel that the whole sntence is a copyvio, why not just rewrite that one sentence rather than a wholesale removal of sourced information that is pertinent to the article. Harry Let us have speaks 08:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Your text: "On 24 October Talk Talk issued a statement saying that the amount of customers’ financial information stolen by hackers was “materially lower” than first thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts."
Ref:"Firm says customer data stolen ‘materially lower’ than thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts"
Your text: "In July 2015 Asker was found guilty on all charge and was sentenced to over four years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution."
Ref: "...was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison Friday and ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution"
Followed by:
Your text: " Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Two franchisees were given prison sentences and a third received three years probation."
Ref: "Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Yaldo, a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $314,078." zzz (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Talk Talk quote is from a public statement so perfectly OK to use. The Happy Pizza addition is a fundamental rewrite of the source with one small part quoted verbatim, as shown above in the block quotes. As I say, both fall under fair use as they comprise a tiny part of the text in the ref. If you disagree, rewrite the text rather than deleting wholesale sourced pertinent information. Harry Let us have speaks 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with all of what you just said. I disagree with everything you've said, in fact, here and on the article talk page. These are just your last two content additions, I haven't checked any more. I'll leave this for admins to look at. zzz (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Let me get this strait. You found two edits that may have copyright issues on one article and a possible source issue on another. So instead of fixing the issue, then opening a talk page section saying you fixed it, and explaining the problem, you open up an AN/I section? I will point out on the Happy pizza talk page there is not one discussion. [81] On the Fritzl page you made one comment and when the other party responded, nothing from you. [82] Looks like a fish is headed your way. AlbinoFerret 16:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with all of what you just said. I disagree with everything you've said, in fact, here and on the article talk page. These are just your last two content additions, I haven't checked any more. I'll leave this for admins to look at. zzz (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I should have been more specific: I'll leave this here for administrators and not AlbinoFerret to look into. zzz (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Members of the community commonly respond to sections here. I am uninvolved with either of you or the topic. But we will wait for others to chime in. AlbinoFerret 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Uninvolved": 24 October 2015, 25 October 2015. (This page, this week) zzz (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, I didnt know you made those posts. They happened long after I stopped paying attention to that section. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you opened a new section and then immediately stopped paying attention to it. Fair enough. zzz (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The section was just getting out of hand, and looking at it now, the lack of community involvement shows that I was right. AlbinoFerret 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you opened a new section and then immediately stopped paying attention to it. Fair enough. zzz (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, I didnt know you made those posts. They happened long after I stopped paying attention to that section. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Uninvolved": 24 October 2015, 25 October 2015. (This page, this week) zzz (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Members of the community commonly respond to sections here. I am uninvolved with either of you or the topic. But we will wait for others to chime in. AlbinoFerret 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fairly confused what "The Talk Talk quote is from a public statement so perfectly OK to use" means. The fact that something is a "public statement" doesn't mean it was released under a free licence that is compatible with the CC. If it isn't under a free licence that is compatible with the CC, then copyright concerns arise. (And even if it is, you need to make sure you comply with any possible terms, such as attribution.). If copyright concerns arise, then you need to be very careful with copying verbatim. If you believe the content can't be reworded, while it may sometimes be acceptable to leave it, you should consider whether direct quotation is a better alternative. Note that whether or not the content comes from a public statement or something else is not that relevant to copyright concerns. If you didn't already know any of this, you probably should take a more careful read of our copyright policies and guidelines, and any parts you don't properly understand, try asking somewhere appropriate. 19:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- A public statement is de facto in the public domain. Also many articles use small parts of the source verbatim. You cannot copyright facts. I am sure that somewhere you can find a source that says "Barack Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States". That does not preclude the Wikipedia article from using exactly those words. Because it's a fact. And fair use: "Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases (for example, in some situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject is not possible), but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use, and in accordance with Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria as set out below." wp:Non-free content
- In the Happy Pizza example I have shown how I created a substantial rewrite of the source text. A single phrase appeared as it did in the source, but it was a factual statement. In the Talk Talk article, as I said, because what was quoted was a de facto in the public domain as a public statement, the same way an open letter is, I saw no problem using it. In any event, both cases were very minor excerpts from the sources and easily covered under fair use/no copyright over facts.
- My concern is that having identified what he believed to be copvios zzz simply deleted sourced content that was pertinent to the article and opened this AN/I rather than fixing it and/or contacting me or putting a note on the article talk page. In the mean time, I have fixed what people feel is a copyvio and in future I will put all such direct quotes from sources in quotes if there is no practical way of rewording the text. Harry Let us have speaks 19:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Those two flagrant copyvios above are just your last two additions to articles (I have no idea how many more there are). Apparently you don't recognise them as copyvios, and you expect others (me) with no interest in the subject to "rewrite the text rather than deleting". zzz (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- As noted, Wikipedia does allow for use of non-free content, including fair use which I believed this falls under. You disagree. I have no particular interest in either Talk Talk or Happy Pizza but in reading the articles I saw gaps that needed filling and sought refs in the interest of building an encyclopaedia. If you didn't feel like fixing it, a note on my TP saying "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added to that article" would have been a lot more constructive (and collaborative) than simply removing a block of text and returning the article to a different kind of unsatisfactory state. Harry Let us have speaks 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added". I suggest you go back through all your contributions and fix them. Unless you think they are all "fair use", of course, in which I suppose case someone else will have to. Or failing that, just delete them. zzz (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- As noted, Wikipedia does allow for use of non-free content, including fair use which I believed this falls under. You disagree. I have no particular interest in either Talk Talk or Happy Pizza but in reading the articles I saw gaps that needed filling and sought refs in the interest of building an encyclopaedia. If you didn't feel like fixing it, a note on my TP saying "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added to that article" would have been a lot more constructive (and collaborative) than simply removing a block of text and returning the article to a different kind of unsatisfactory state. Harry Let us have speaks 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- General comments: A public statement is not automatically assumed to be in the public domain. If it was delivered from prepared remarks, then there's a copyright on the sheet he read from, and if you watched a recording of the statement, there's a copyright on the recording. It is true that you cannot copyright facts, but if a factual statement has creative elements of presentation, which can include word choice and word order, then the statement can itself have a copyright. Since WP's copyright policy is deliberately tighter than copyright law, the best approach to take is to assume anything is copyrighted unless you can find a positive release under a free license. CrowCaw 20:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough but under Wikipedia policy an article will only be deleted "if substantial content is duplicated". That means it is acceptable for a small portion to be duplicated when re-writing would result in convoluted prose. Credit is given by citing the source. As noted the problem phrases have been rewritten to alleviate the concerns and I will be more careful in future. Harry Let us have speaks 21:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Those two flagrant copyvios above are just your last two additions to articles (I have no idea how many more there are). Apparently you don't recognise them as copyvios, and you expect others (me) with no interest in the subject to "rewrite the text rather than deleting". zzz (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Out of the edit "On 24 October Talk Talk issued a statement saying that the amount of customers’ financial information stolen by hackers was “materially lower” than first thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts.", the 2-word phrase “materially lower” is a direct quote from a public statement, and is fine. The remainder is just words copied verbatim from an article in The Guardian. zzz (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Yes, the article will only be deleted if there is so much copyvio that it is unsalvageable. And also yes, if the content cannot be worded any other way without venturing into absurdity, that suggests that the text in question was not creatively worded. "A is the first letter of the alphabet." Not much you can do there. "Among all letters, only the majestic A stands alone atop the list." Well.... you get the idea! I do agree with ZZZ that the Talk Talk statement could have been paraphrased without losing any meaning, and equally without extraneous circumlocution. CrowCaw 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Granted but in the context of both the Wikipedia article and the Guardian article that phrase does not constitute "substantial" duplicated content. WP:Non-free content only prohibits "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts". So it is acceptable to quote verbatim. My mistake was not to put it all in quotes. As noted, I have now rectified this. The Happy Pizza excerpt is clearly a substantial rewrite of the sources with one factual statement which I didn't bother to rewrite as fair use. Again fixed. As I said, this hardly needed an AN/I. A simple heads up from an editor who felt I had not sufficiently respected copyright on a given edit would have been sufficient. I am sure that if any admin has any other problems with my specific edits they will let me know. Harry Let us have speaks 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
When discussing whether someone is a regular copyright violator or nor, often the best method is to look at some large article contributions they made, obviously. So, looking at Harry the Dirty Dog's contributions, I noticed this from 30 September.
Added text:
"Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham on 28 September 2015 referring to Saudi media reports that say have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom, described the reports as "incorrect" and "hasty", saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat."
Source ([83] given in the article):
"Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham on Monday described as “incorrect” and "hasty" reports claiming that Saudi authorities have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom for performing Hajj rituals, saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat."
A clear and obvious copyright violation. The fact that they added the source indicates that this is probably more caused by not understanding our copyright rules and/or laziness, and not malice. A final warning to change their approach to using texts is sufficient. Fram (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I clearly changed the word order there, but again facts are facts. so of course there may be the odd matching phrase, as the phrases used in the source are the best way of stating those facts, and are indeed quotes. I doubt you'll find many longer Wikipedia articles that don't have some matching phrases from sources. It's pretty unambiguous that "have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom for performing Hajj rituals, saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat." is a quote not from the source but from the ministry spokesman, so if it is a copyvio here then it is a copyvio in the original source. In any event I have now rewritten it a bit to show good faith. We all work in a hurry sometimes and we have lazy moments (as the editor who opened this AN/I did when he didn't read sources properly and decided that they didn't support what was in the article on at least two occasions when they actually did) so it's good that other editors are vigilant. As I said, I will put such future quotation in quote marks to ensure that they are not seen as copyvio. Harry Let us have speaks 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User:David8302: Possible and suspected subtle long-term (and possibly cross-Wiki) abuse, vandalism or trolling
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Matter dealt with elsewhere privately.
|
|---|
|
David8302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obvious Meat-puppetry. See here--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Alessandro was also vandalizing and edit-warring the article of the independant republic of Northern Cyprus with the help of other corrupt meat puppets such as User:Materialscientist. See here.--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- If that diff is what you're going by, I don't see what's "obvious" about it at all. Notifying an editor of a concern is far removed from consciously organising a meat puppet. GRAPPLE X 12:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- he called upon another "Greek" editor (EtienneDolet) to help him in his edit-war. This is the absolute definition of meat puppetry.--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- No it's not. All that diff shows is that they notified another user of something. There was no request to act or !vote in a certain way, just a notification of something happening. Assuming that it's nefarious with no actual basis for that assumption is counter to a pretty core tenet of the project, to be honest. GRAPPLE X 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The OP is an obvious sock of the Unmovable33, Unblackable434 and Unchangable455 sockfarm which has been disrupting the article of Northern Cyprus. The account has been blocked by Bishonen. I suspect the latest socks belong to older master Alexyflemming who in turn was a sock of Justice Forever. Dr. K. 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- No it's not. All that diff shows is that they notified another user of something. There was no request to act or !vote in a certain way, just a notification of something happening. Assuming that it's nefarious with no actual basis for that assumption is counter to a pretty core tenet of the project, to be honest. GRAPPLE X 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- he called upon another "Greek" editor (EtienneDolet) to help him in his edit-war. This is the absolute definition of meat puppetry.--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Probable trolling
User:Jamiebijania has a history of leaving nonsensical notes and warnings on people's talk pages (I got one before in 2011), and s/he appears to be at it again: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]). It may also worth checking if this user is a sock; I've been back on Wikipedia for only a week, and am surprised to again be this user's first target. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'm not quite sure what to make of it. WP:AGF seems to be unclear, as is WP:DEADHORSE, but giving someone a barnstar can hardly be called trolling. WP:NOTHERE is not applicable, since the users history includes quite a lot of useful contributions. All that remains are two (civil) requests top refrain from vandalism, which is odd, since there's no history of that, but not really actionable. Simply ignoring him/her seems the best policy. Kleuske (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, the user previously received a 48-hour block for leaving fake warnings on others' talk pages, and then created a sock to continue doing so. But s/he appears to have gone silent following this report so perhaps no action is needed until their next appearance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Jamiebijania has a strong history of trolling, as such, it surprises me that User:Khazar2 is making a mountain out of a molehill. Apologies, grain of sand into a mountain. This user has also made several constructive additions and edits to Wikipedia, and has made no unconstructive edits to Wikipedia pages for a period of 5 years. Jamiebijania (talk)
- Jamiebijania, the positive contributions you made between your last block for trolling and this round of trolling are appreciated. That said, I'd appreciate it if you didn't ping me again or post further on my talk page; we don't seem to have any real business with each other, so let's just get back to building an encyclopedia... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Jamiebijania has a strong history of trolling, as such, it surprises me that User:Khazar2 is making a mountain out of a molehill. Apologies, grain of sand into a mountain. This user has also made several constructive additions and edits to Wikipedia, and has made no unconstructive edits to Wikipedia pages for a period of 5 years. Jamiebijania (talk)
- FWIW, the user previously received a 48-hour block for leaving fake warnings on others' talk pages, and then created a sock to continue doing so. But s/he appears to have gone silent following this report so perhaps no action is needed until their next appearance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Action needed at Mark Shapiro (sports executive)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fireshapiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Someone's asleep at the switch at WP:AIV apparently. Very active and persistent vandal attacking pages related to the Blue Jays' new executive, not to mention violation of the username policy, needs to be blocked, and page maybe semiprotected since other people have been posting the vandalized edits on Twitter. Sprotsfans gonna sprotsfan. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
User:TX6785 appears obsessed
A quick look at Special:Contributions/TX6785 will show a pattern that can be considered unusual at best. When asked about his obsession with creating redirects to Schutzstaffel, TX6785 responded by querying whether there was a limit on the number of redirects. Now, I know that redirects are cheap, but this seems excessive, and might simply be a ploy to up his edit count. Most of the redirects appear to be rather useless. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess that's where you and I disagree. I think they are all plausible search queries. We're talking about the most notorious organization that ever existed. Could you please give an example of one that is "useless"? You didn't really talk much on my page before resorting to a report. - TX6785 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @TX6785: To pick just one, I'd go with Heinrich Himler's Nazi Shutsztafel. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Himmler was sort of the head of it. I think that a German surname and a German name are often misspelled in the English-speaking world when searching for the most notorious of organizations. - TX6785 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @TX6785: I find it extremely unlikely that a user would search for an article about the Schutzstaffel under the specific search term "Heinrich Himmler's Schutztafel". And if they did, lacking a redirect, Wikipedia's search function would very likely suggest Schutzstaffel as the first result anyway. You can argue all you want for the usefulness of these redirects, but with the excessive number, it just looks like your gaming the system for some reason. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Himmler was sort of the head of it. I think that a German surname and a German name are often misspelled in the English-speaking world when searching for the most notorious of organizations. - TX6785 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since the user asked for the limit to the number of redirects to one article, the answer is 586. The user has created 587. (Seriously, this is really excessive and not constructive.) General Ization Talk 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was an editor last week who had created over 200 redirects to the article they were working on...I thought that was a record but I guess not. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is the third episode I have seen this week about redirects that include every conceivable phonetic, grammatical or typographical combination of linking. I'm thinking that WP:Redirect could do with some additional guidance and explanation about how the search system picks up the vast majority. Nthep (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- This, Special:Contributions/TX6785, is really insane. I think it's crazy to have that many redirects. Can they be mass-nominated to RfD? Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is the third episode I have seen this week about redirects that include every conceivable phonetic, grammatical or typographical combination of linking. I'm thinking that WP:Redirect could do with some additional guidance and explanation about how the search system picks up the vast majority. Nthep (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was an editor last week who had created over 200 redirects to the article they were working on...I thought that was a record but I guess not. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: It's not clear that the redirects need to be deleted. As pointed out at WP:CHEAP, a deleted redirect actually takes up more disk space than an existing redirect. I just think TX's motives need to be examined in creating so many redirects. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think that TX is highly misguided. Firstly, as a corollary to Assume good faith we should not assume that our readers are idiots and that we need to predict and accommodate every possible misconstruction of a search term, or that this accommodation is really helpful in the long term versus using consistent naming conventions and training new users how to search properly. Secondly, even the correctly spelled "Heinrich Himmler's Nazi Schutzstaffel" makes it sound almost like a theatrical production (think "Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine" or "Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles") rather than the murderous criminal organization it was. I think this is highly unencyclopaedic. General Ization Talk 20:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it's a lot but at least we aren't seeing "Heimlich" for "Heinrich". JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's actually one redirect I might support (though not with this target), but even without it if you search for "Heimlich Himmler" the correct article Schutzstaffel is the first listed in the results (though currently by way of one of TX's redirects). General Ization Talk 20:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- A look at User:TX6785/sandbox indicates that TX has many more redirects in mind before they're done. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- This behavior is nearly identical to another recent user. Compare: [100] CrowCaw 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- A look at User:TX6785/sandbox indicates that TX has many more redirects in mind before they're done. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's actually one redirect I might support (though not with this target), but even without it if you search for "Heimlich Himmler" the correct article Schutzstaffel is the first listed in the results (though currently by way of one of TX's redirects). General Ization Talk 20:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it's a lot but at least we aren't seeing "Heimlich" for "Heinrich". JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've now cleaned up their excess redirects to the best of my ability, leaving articles and plausible redirects alone. -- The Anome (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
CFCF gaming changes to MEDRS guideline
There is currently a dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Clarifying_.22biomedical.22 regarding the meaning and importance of the word "biomedical" in the guideline WP:MEDRS.
CFCF (talk · contribs) took it upon themselves to edit the guideline towards their preferred interpretation[101][102] while discussion on this exact issue was ongoing, and consensus was completely unclear. I have asked him to self-revert these changes,[103][104] to which he has not responded.
He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed[105] in support of his position in a content dispute at Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men#Wikipedia_policy. Per WP:TALKFIRST this should be considered WP:GAMING. I am not asking for any specific outcome, but my hope is that greater attention from the community will at least convince CFCF that he may not act unilaterally in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The change from medical to biomedical was made in July of this year and seems to have snuck under the radar [106]. The recent changes were merely restoration to the original interpretation of policy, and are not intended to do anything beyond clarify the position of the guideline. Of note is that the essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information has been present in the lede for the entire duration of this discussion. Consensus is clear, and I have responded to requests by this user by stating that the changes are fully due and supported. Multiple discussions can be found, notably at WT:MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't know that this really needs an ANI report at this point, especially since there are currently ongoing discussions at the MEDRS talk page, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the talk pages of Domestic violence and Domestic violence against men. At this point, I assume CF's participation in the discussions and edits to the guideline are made in good faith, as are yours Rhoark. But there is obviously some misunderstanding about the guideline and its application -CF seems to be saying that all content related to statistics and prevalence must be sourced according to MEDRS and that is just wrong, and it's being used to exclude content that is reliably sourced. I think it's time for a full bore RfC on the MEDRS guideline and the scope of its application. I have never started an RfC before, but I can try to do that - or someone else can? Minor4th 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The purpose of the section is not to settle any questions about MEDRS, but to address the behavior of changing a guideline in order to play it as a trump card in an existing content dispute. The fact that it read similarly three months ago is not sufficient justification. If it "flew under the radar" then, that's because it was not actively disputed at that time. The bottom line is that edits to policy and guideline pages need to come from consensus, not be used to strongarm consensus. Rhoark (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: CFCF is correct; like I recently stated, he was simply restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. Like I also noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, to MastCell, who recognized the same thing, "[Y]our comment touches on what I stated above about men's rights editors; the domestic violence articles, and similarly related sex/gender medical articles (such as reproductive coercion), have been burdened by these editors wanting to forgo higher-quality sources so that they can push a particular POV (in the case of the domestic violence material, it's usually the POV that men are affected by domestic violence more than women are or more so, or that there are just as many women who commit domestic violence as there men who do so). A lot of editors are drained because of this, and many have walked away from these articles because of this. We have Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, but that isn't always enough, especially considering that these editors commonly pop back up with new registered accounts and/or coordinate off-Wiki to gang up on Wikipedia editors." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, this is not the place to recapitulate the whole MEDRS discussion. I have to state the correction though that you are the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations. There is nothing about the way the guideline was edited three months ago that gives license to ignore talk page consensus right now. Rhoark (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your assertion that I am "the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations" is incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- And this thread is a complete waste of time. CFCF will not be blocked or sanctioned for restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. And this noticeboard is not for such disagreements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- A person who is advocating a particular interpretation of a Wikipedia policy and seeing significant opposition should never be allowed to edit the policy so that it supports his interpretation while the discussion is ongoing. CFCF should be warned, and if he does it again, blocked. Please note that Flyer22 Reborn advocates the same contentious interpretation of policy that CFCF does, and thus may be biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Needless to state, my view contrasts Guy Macon's view. He is yet another editor from the contentious group trying to get CFCF sanctioned. I invited him to report me here at WP:ANI, but, alas, no such report was filed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- And as I keep reminding Guy Macon, WP:MEDRS is a guideline; it is not a policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- "They" act upon it as if it is holier than the Bible. And it is often misused to shut out inconvenient parts like positive sources about organic subjects. The Banner talk 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- My main concern about applying MEDRS to "non-biological medicine" or "anything related to human health" is that MEDRS was written to cover subjects like whether cholesterol-lowering drugs improve lifespan. It was not written to cover basic safety (please look both ways before crossing the street), refrigeration (please don't drink spoiled milk), car wrecks (bad for your health!), discrimination and poverty (both of which are also bad for your health). When we say "health", some people then misunderstand it as being the primary guideline for all of these subjects. When we say "biomedical", they are more likely to get it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am with WhatamIdoing 100% on this one (great minds think alike...). The key here is that a Wikipedia reader can reasonably be expected to use our site when deciding whether whether to accept a doctor's advice to take cholesterol-lowering drugs. Because of this, any information we give out on cholesterol-lowering drugs must be referenced to the higher MEDRS standard. Readers can not reasonably be expected to use our pages on safety, refrigeration, car wrecks, discrimination or poverty to help them to make medical decisions, even though, as WhatamIdoing correctly pointed out, they all have major effects on public health. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- My main concern about applying MEDRS to "non-biological medicine" or "anything related to human health" is that MEDRS was written to cover subjects like whether cholesterol-lowering drugs improve lifespan. It was not written to cover basic safety (please look both ways before crossing the street), refrigeration (please don't drink spoiled milk), car wrecks (bad for your health!), discrimination and poverty (both of which are also bad for your health). When we say "health", some people then misunderstand it as being the primary guideline for all of these subjects. When we say "biomedical", they are more likely to get it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- "They" act upon it as if it is holier than the Bible. And it is often misused to shut out inconvenient parts like positive sources about organic subjects. The Banner talk 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Aj8815647
User:Aj8815647 has made six edits in his/her 20 hour existence here. In one article, he/she removed a paragraph with the edit summary "Fixed typo" diff. In a second article, he/she removed another paragraph with the summary "Added content": diff. I will take care of reverting these edits, but I'm wondering if an admin can keep an eye on this. Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this up, Location. I also noticed issues with Aj8815647's edits. I reverted changes that were not improvements. That was before you reverted his/her subsequent edits, so it looks like this could (although it's technically not yet) turn into an edit war situation. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and further harassment by user Iryna Harpy
User Iryna Harpy (IH) [107] has made this disruptive edit here [108].
User IH has also continued to harass me by falsely claiming that I was engaged in soapboxing here [109] when I was not, and also falsely claiming that my talk page edit was not within the Wikipedia talk page guidelines here [110] when it was within those guidelines. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything disruptive in the first two edits, nor in the warning. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you're calling user IH's edit to my talk page falsely accusing me of not being within talk page guidelines a "warning" then that explains why you're also not seeing "anything disruptive" in their first two edits.96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the edit made by the OP that started this sequence: [111] GABHello! 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- 96.24.75.223, talk pages should be focused on ways of improving Wikipedia content and not used as a forum or for soapboxing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the edit made by the OP that started this sequence: [111] GABHello! 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Liz:, I was using that talk page for improving Wikipedia content and not as a forum or for soapboxing.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- In fairness, I think the IP was objecting in their original edit to what they saw as a "disimprovement" of the article by inclusion of the content they mentioned. I don't agree, for the reasons explained by another editor in the linked Talk page discussion, but even so I think the accusation of soapboxing by the IP is misplaced. However, I don't see that the IP has made any real effort to discuss with IH and I don't think there is really any issue to be dealt with here at ANI.General Ization Talk 23:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Legacypac:I specified the necessary justification on the talk page. Removing a POV tag without much justification is disruptive.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- General Ization, you don't think this is soapboxing? Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, I think the IP was objecting to what they thought (mistakenly) was soapboxing by another editor. General Ization Talk 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- General Ization, you don't think this is soapboxing? Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Liz: So can you explain objectively how you think this is soapboxing?96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Given that the editor has actively edited the article before (see this, this, this, this, this and this labouring under the illusion that their changes made to the content were WP:NPOV), I find myself unable to assume good faith to a piece of WP:ADVOCACY posted on the article's talk page and trying to turn this into a personal vendetta against me immediately after a two week block for being disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- What is are "alleged Palestinians" in those edits? Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Given that the editor has actively edited the article before (see this, this, this, this, this and this labouring under the illusion that their changes made to the content were WP:NPOV), I find myself unable to assume good faith to a piece of WP:ADVOCACY posted on the article's talk page and trying to turn this into a personal vendetta against me immediately after a two week block for being disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I asked for an objective explanation of the accusations against me, I got back a new bucket-load of accusations. This is not how Wikipedia should work.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Addendum: Please note that the IP is carrying on a vendetta against me as I was responsible for a WP:BOOMERANG coming back at them after a previous ANI accusing me of harassment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is true that I have been blocked by various admins sympathetic to IH in retaliation for my previous ANI report regarding IH. However, IH was not really responsible for that block, as it would not have happened if Wikipedia had enough fair and honest admins. I was actually glad I was blocked, as that only exposed the proliferation of biased Wikipedia admins. I do not have a personal vendetta against IH, just against their harassment, which is mildly annoying. The biased admins are the much more serious problem, and I'm doing this as part of my research project into the viability of Wikipedia as an unbiased source of information and how its systems could be improved to minimize bias.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would that be your own independent project? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has repeatedly been shown as a poor source of accurate information. It should be treated as only a starting point for finding good information. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- For IP 96.24.75.223's edification, it's known as WP:WINARS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has repeatedly been shown as a poor source of accurate information. It should be treated as only a starting point for finding good information. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would that be your own independent project? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is true that I have been blocked by various admins sympathetic to IH in retaliation for my previous ANI report regarding IH. However, IH was not really responsible for that block, as it would not have happened if Wikipedia had enough fair and honest admins. I was actually glad I was blocked, as that only exposed the proliferation of biased Wikipedia admins. I do not have a personal vendetta against IH, just against their harassment, which is mildly annoying. The biased admins are the much more serious problem, and I'm doing this as part of my research project into the viability of Wikipedia as an unbiased source of information and how its systems could be improved to minimize bias.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- IP, my problem with that explanation is that if you are engaged in any kind of scholarly research project, you do not engage in activities (such as posting on the Talk page, and here) that have the potential to influence the results of your study. If you are engaged in a study, you are doing it the wrong way. General Ization Talk 00:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call IP's edits soapboxing per se (that to me would entail much more verbiage) but there's little doubt they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If it keeps up, a WP:ARBPIA topic ban would be more than warranted. Rhoark (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- In all honesty, given the IP's editing history, I believed myself to be courteously assuming good faith when I left the simple missive under his/her comment on the article's talk page, plus left a gently worded template on their talk page. I don't know how the comment can be read as being constructive as it's an assertion that the article is evil and the product of calculated bias that no one should trust in any shape or form. If the comment isn't intended as a call to arms against corrupt content, I'm stumped as to how it's designed to improve the article.
- As regards the IP's research project, I don't of any institution that would even consider such methodology for gleaning data viable. No Ethics Board would give it so much as a look in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't read through this entire thread, but I'm having a bit of a deja vu. Less than a month ago the same IP brought Iryna to ANI over the exact same article. Drmies ended up blocking that IP for two weeks. Is the IP a glutton for punishment? Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Suspected new sock of User:Futurewiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs). Suspected new sock of Futurewiki (talk · contribs). Their many socks include User:Futuristic21, User:Dragonrap2, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Futurew, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, and User:Futurew.
Both Futurewiki and 104.243.167.109 have made edits to such obscure articles as List of Cities, Towns and Villages in Ark-La-Tex, KQID-FM, Ark-La-Tex, KKST, Capital District, K265FB, WEZB, Bobby Jindal, Acadiana, and Chainsaw Gang.
I also recall that one of the previous socks--which I couldn't find--was an IP address located in Natchitoches, Louisiana. So is this IP address. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- More info here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive. JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked two weeks for failing the quack test. Katietalk 01:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Having a problem at the Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless) page. User:MrKing84 really likes that character and is known for coming to the page whenever he logs on to wikipedia and, if he doesn't like something, regardless of being told where the conversation happened that what he doesn't like is the correct way, he just reverts and reverts until we end up here or somewhere else.
His newest thing is not liking the characters last name in the photo caption:
It's silly, really, but... it's not going to end. That page has had to deal with him before.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that something should be done, especially since MrKing84's talk page contains related warnings from various other ediots. But Cebr1979, be careful; both of you have exceeded WP:3RR. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, we haven't.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have two reverts for today, one from two days ago, and, prior to that, I hadn't been to that page since July.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't "really like" the character. I made edits to this character's page in the past because his last name needed to be updated and a few other editors (Cebr1979 being one of them) for whatever reason didn't what the characters last name to be updated. After a long process, the name was updated because of Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy. Now Cebr1979 for whatever reason seems to have a bad attitude (from looking at his history he's attacked other editors and left snide remarks on the talk pages of other editors), and now tells me I have "a problem" apparently and that I need to "deal with it." Now I ask is this the proper and civil way for an editor to act? Telling another editor that they have "a problem" and they should just "deal with it" (it being Cebr1979's edit). Cebr1979 is attempting to cite some "decision" made on some other page. But he gave no link to the page where this "decision" was made. I went to Talk:Phyllis Summers and found no discussion about the name underneath a picture on another character's page. Plus if you look at the picture itself it is listed as "Garrett_Ryan_as_Kyle.jpg". So the picture in dispute here doesn't even have the character's last name on it. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you go to that page's talk page, I was actually on your side for the whole last name thing and... what a picture is named, does not a caption make (and you know that). If you go to the page's edit history, I also agreed with you about the caption. However, a decision was made and we have to live with it... including you. That's just how things work.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was in the Phyllis edit history, not the talk page (and if you really wanted to know that, you could've asked). Go look. It's right there.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You said "the Phyllis page" not "the Phyllis edit history". How am I supposed to know what you're talking about? When somebody says go look at a discussion on a page on Wikipedia, it's only natural to think that this discussion happened on the talk page. But why is it even necessary to have the last name in the picture's caption? Especially considering there was much dispute about the character's last name as a child when Garrett Ryan was playing the role. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not getting into a content dispute with you. The fact is, others have deemed it necessary and just because you don't like that, doesn't mean you get to throw your edit wars around and try to make the page your way. Can I go put it back now and we can call this done or do you need this to be dragged out longer?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2015
- There is nothing in that discussion about the character's name in the caption of the picture. Which is why we are here. That discussion is about the relevance of the photo itself. Again that discussion says nothing about why the caption on the picture must have the last name and not just the first name. So I will be reverting it back, just so you know. Again there is no discussion about the character's last name being part of the picture's caption. Which is what the problem (and a ridiculous one at that) we have here. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, my goodness. Guess I spoke too soon about you giving up. The edit summaries at both the Phyllis and the Kyle pages state, "caption should match the common-name to avoid confusion within article."Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not even going to bother looking at pages and pages of edit summaries on the Phyllis page, it's irreverent and they are two different characters with two different histories. The edit summaries on the page at issue here say nothing about picture captions last names. Now when it comes right down to it, to "avoid confusion within the article" the picture of Garrett Ryan should be removed from the article all together. There is no reason for it to be there anymore anyway. And the discussion on that only ended on the talk page because the editors on the page who wanted to get rid of the Ryan picture dropped out of the discussion. But we can continue that discussion about that (removing the Ryan photo) over there as well. You know, in an effort to avoid confusion within the article. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are no "pages and pages" of anything: you're just being difficult because you don't want to look. Here and here. Both were easy to find, I even gave you what to control-F to get to them. As for your starting over a conversation just 'cause you think it's gonna upset me, go ahead. There were no "editors" who wanted to get rid of the picture: there was one. Myself and the other one both agreed the picture should stay... and we both still will. But, if you wanna go and start something just 'cause you're mad that I won't let you continue to own the page (like always), start it. It'll end... again. And please don't re-hash this "it doesn't say anything about the last name" nonsense... it says it should match the common name and the common name has the last name. You know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are the only one here making this personal (for whatever reason). You're constantly referring to me, but this has nothing to do with me. I will say though that your personal attacks and snide remarks against the posters at Wikipedia should really stop. You appear to be the only person around here that takes edits that you don't like personal. It would probably be in your best interest to relax and take your personal feelings out of your edits. For someone who is accusing somebody else of trying to "own the page", maybe you should ask yourself if that is what you are trying to do. --MrKing84 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't need to be asking myself anything. I'm stopping you from having your way because your way isn't the right way. It's time to drop it.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Once again this isn't about me, or about somebody "having their way" as you put it. No you are making this too personal and attacking another editor (again). The only thing those links you provided show is you in an edit war with another editor (again). It doesn't show any official Wikipedia policy. You can't really cite a previous edit war you were involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption. Nothing in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption. Your own words are not a credible source.--MrKing84 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhm... first of all: there was no edit war between me and anyone else? I agreed with that other editor once he explained himself. It's you who now doesn't agree. Second of all: you really need to read Wikipedia:Consensus, especially this section where it states: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." When myself and that other editor came to an agreement while editing, we reached a consensus on the matter. Your edits have been disputed. So... I actually can "really cite a previous edit I was involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption." Everything "in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption." Like I said, it's time to drop this.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- See what you are not getting is those previous disputes you are trying to use as examples do not apply here. Which last name (Jenkins or Abbott) is not what is at issue here. The reasoning as to why the last name is needed in the caption at all, is what is at issue. You continuing to bring up that "consensus" you had with that other editor has nothing to do with the topic here. There is no reason why the character's last name has to be in the caption. The character's first name is sufficient. Just like the first name is sufficient in the Hartley Sawyer caption. Again just to make in clear for you, unlike in the Phyllis edit history and Kyle edit history you cited. The issue is not what the characters last name is (that's been resolved). The issue is the relevance of the the last name being in the caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here you go with more of your "*insert whatever suits you today* doesn't apply heres." Everything always applies and you've been told that before. I've never said anything about the Jenkins last name. I've told you what the current consensus is and the current consensus is that the caption should include the common name and the common name is Kyle Abbott. First and last name. Quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. The only one "not getting" anything: is you.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You really need to stop with the personal attacks. It's really uncalled for. I can't explain it any better than I already have. Nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it. Kyle is his common name. Believe me I know the common name policy. I was the one saying it was the reason the page's title should be changed. When you and others disagreed. His common name is Kyle and that is in the picture's caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- There have been no personal attacks. You're attempting to create sympathy by attempting to create drama. It's an old tactic and most see through it. I've shown you what the current consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached. I've also mentioned stopping with the "nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it" nonsense. I've shown you what the caption consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached... making it a real wikipedia policy. Couldn't be more real, in fact. I've also stated you need to quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. You haven't, though. You're still doing it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No attacks? "Stop doing that! This discussion was had at the Phyllis page. You weren't a part of it, that's your problem" also A decision was made, deal with it. So those are the condescending remarks. Your constant claims that I'm trying to do this or that are attacks. I've said before that this is not about me, but yet you continue to try to imply that I'm trying to "own the page". That isn't necessary. Now you are trying to say I'm am trying to create "sympathy" for myself. That is just a ludicrous accusation and is beyond ridiculous. Why would I even care if somebody here had sympathy for me. You are REALLY making this way too personal and I wish you would stop. The consensus you and the other person came to was which last name was the correct one, NOT whether it belonged in the picture caption. It's just not there no matter how many times you want to claim that it is. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you two different links where the current consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name. I'll show you again: here it states "Captions should mirror the common-name for consistency" and here it states "caption should match the common-name" and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus by editing is reached. A consensus that you are refusing to follow because you don't think you have to which is an example (a BIG example) of attempting to own a page.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and as I've said before that you came to consensus on which last name was the common name (Jenkins vs. Abbott). NOT on whether the common name was "Kyle Abbott or Kyle". THAT is the problem here. The common name is in the caption. But there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption. There is no dispute over the common name being in the caption. The dispute is over whether the last name is required and needed in the caption. The last name is neither required or needed. This is not me "changing the conversation," that is what I've been saying from the very beginning. I've been consistent on this from the beginning of all this. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have to ask: Are you trolling? Is that what's happening here because there's no way a reasonable editor could be making these arguments you're making. What the character's last name is... whether it's Jenkins or Abbott... is not what we're discussing. That's not what we were discussing when we were discussing photo captions. That's not what was being discussed in the consensus links I gave you. His common name is Kyle Abbott. We know that. You spearheaded that campaign! The consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name and the character's common name is KYLE ABBOTT! First and last name!!!! I have said that... I don't even know how many times now??? Do not make a personal attack claim, that's not what I'm doing. I legitimately want to know: are you trolling? Because there just is no way a reasonable editor could continue making these ridiculous statements! I show you this, I show you that, and you just come back with nonsense. Every time. I'm just at a loss. You say, "there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption..." The last name is part of the common name and the common name needs to be the caption! You answered your own question and then you still come back with nonsense! Cebr1979 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No from looking at some other edits you've made, you appear to just like to argue with people and try to use Wikipedia as a forum to do so. Now you want to imply that I'm trolling. Really? I've been here for almost 10 years, but apparently I've just been a troll in reality and waited 10 years to become one. As I've said before and I'll say it once again, there are multiple articles all over Wikipedia where the last name is NOT in picture captions (like in the Hartley Sawyer picture for example). So once again, there is not a policy that states that the last name must be in a person's/character's picture's caption. I don't know how you can't understand that after all this. This is beyond ridiculous now. --MrKing84 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you've been here ten years, you should know that what happens at one page can't be used to influence another. I've shown you the Kyle Abbott photo caption consensus. That's what it is. It applies. It's real. And I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you everything you need to see. Everything. So continue on with your "such and such doesn't apply here" and whatever else. I've shown you everything. That's it.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You have shown nothing but the discussion about which last name was the correct one NOT if the last name needs to be there at all. You just want to argue (yet again) that is really what this is all about. You can talk about that "consensus" all day, and I will continue to point out there is nothing in there that says the last name needs to be in there. Kyle is his common name. Other pictures (on that article and many others all across Wikipedia) have just the person or character's first name. You just want to make a big deal out of keeping the last name in there.--MrKing84 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you've been here ten years, you should know that what happens at one page can't be used to influence another. I've shown you the Kyle Abbott photo caption consensus. That's what it is. It applies. It's real. And I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you everything you need to see. Everything. So continue on with your "such and such doesn't apply here" and whatever else. I've shown you everything. That's it.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No from looking at some other edits you've made, you appear to just like to argue with people and try to use Wikipedia as a forum to do so. Now you want to imply that I'm trolling. Really? I've been here for almost 10 years, but apparently I've just been a troll in reality and waited 10 years to become one. As I've said before and I'll say it once again, there are multiple articles all over Wikipedia where the last name is NOT in picture captions (like in the Hartley Sawyer picture for example). So once again, there is not a policy that states that the last name must be in a person's/character's picture's caption. I don't know how you can't understand that after all this. This is beyond ridiculous now. --MrKing84 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have to ask: Are you trolling? Is that what's happening here because there's no way a reasonable editor could be making these arguments you're making. What the character's last name is... whether it's Jenkins or Abbott... is not what we're discussing. That's not what we were discussing when we were discussing photo captions. That's not what was being discussed in the consensus links I gave you. His common name is Kyle Abbott. We know that. You spearheaded that campaign! The consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name and the character's common name is KYLE ABBOTT! First and last name!!!! I have said that... I don't even know how many times now??? Do not make a personal attack claim, that's not what I'm doing. I legitimately want to know: are you trolling? Because there just is no way a reasonable editor could continue making these ridiculous statements! I show you this, I show you that, and you just come back with nonsense. Every time. I'm just at a loss. You say, "there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption..." The last name is part of the common name and the common name needs to be the caption! You answered your own question and then you still come back with nonsense! Cebr1979 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and as I've said before that you came to consensus on which last name was the common name (Jenkins vs. Abbott). NOT on whether the common name was "Kyle Abbott or Kyle". THAT is the problem here. The common name is in the caption. But there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption. There is no dispute over the common name being in the caption. The dispute is over whether the last name is required and needed in the caption. The last name is neither required or needed. This is not me "changing the conversation," that is what I've been saying from the very beginning. I've been consistent on this from the beginning of all this. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you two different links where the current consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name. I'll show you again: here it states "Captions should mirror the common-name for consistency" and here it states "caption should match the common-name" and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus by editing is reached. A consensus that you are refusing to follow because you don't think you have to which is an example (a BIG example) of attempting to own a page.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No attacks? "Stop doing that! This discussion was had at the Phyllis page. You weren't a part of it, that's your problem" also A decision was made, deal with it. So those are the condescending remarks. Your constant claims that I'm trying to do this or that are attacks. I've said before that this is not about me, but yet you continue to try to imply that I'm trying to "own the page". That isn't necessary. Now you are trying to say I'm am trying to create "sympathy" for myself. That is just a ludicrous accusation and is beyond ridiculous. Why would I even care if somebody here had sympathy for me. You are REALLY making this way too personal and I wish you would stop. The consensus you and the other person came to was which last name was the correct one, NOT whether it belonged in the picture caption. It's just not there no matter how many times you want to claim that it is. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- There have been no personal attacks. You're attempting to create sympathy by attempting to create drama. It's an old tactic and most see through it. I've shown you what the current consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached. I've also mentioned stopping with the "nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it" nonsense. I've shown you what the caption consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached... making it a real wikipedia policy. Couldn't be more real, in fact. I've also stated you need to quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. You haven't, though. You're still doing it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You really need to stop with the personal attacks. It's really uncalled for. I can't explain it any better than I already have. Nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it. Kyle is his common name. Believe me I know the common name policy. I was the one saying it was the reason the page's title should be changed. When you and others disagreed. His common name is Kyle and that is in the picture's caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here you go with more of your "*insert whatever suits you today* doesn't apply heres." Everything always applies and you've been told that before. I've never said anything about the Jenkins last name. I've told you what the current consensus is and the current consensus is that the caption should include the common name and the common name is Kyle Abbott. First and last name. Quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. The only one "not getting" anything: is you.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- See what you are not getting is those previous disputes you are trying to use as examples do not apply here. Which last name (Jenkins or Abbott) is not what is at issue here. The reasoning as to why the last name is needed in the caption at all, is what is at issue. You continuing to bring up that "consensus" you had with that other editor has nothing to do with the topic here. There is no reason why the character's last name has to be in the caption. The character's first name is sufficient. Just like the first name is sufficient in the Hartley Sawyer caption. Again just to make in clear for you, unlike in the Phyllis edit history and Kyle edit history you cited. The issue is not what the characters last name is (that's been resolved). The issue is the relevance of the the last name being in the caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhm... first of all: there was no edit war between me and anyone else? I agreed with that other editor once he explained himself. It's you who now doesn't agree. Second of all: you really need to read Wikipedia:Consensus, especially this section where it states: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." When myself and that other editor came to an agreement while editing, we reached a consensus on the matter. Your edits have been disputed. So... I actually can "really cite a previous edit I was involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption." Everything "in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption." Like I said, it's time to drop this.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Once again this isn't about me, or about somebody "having their way" as you put it. No you are making this too personal and attacking another editor (again). The only thing those links you provided show is you in an edit war with another editor (again). It doesn't show any official Wikipedia policy. You can't really cite a previous edit war you were involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption. Nothing in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption. Your own words are not a credible source.--MrKing84 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't need to be asking myself anything. I'm stopping you from having your way because your way isn't the right way. It's time to drop it.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are the only one here making this personal (for whatever reason). You're constantly referring to me, but this has nothing to do with me. I will say though that your personal attacks and snide remarks against the posters at Wikipedia should really stop. You appear to be the only person around here that takes edits that you don't like personal. It would probably be in your best interest to relax and take your personal feelings out of your edits. For someone who is accusing somebody else of trying to "own the page", maybe you should ask yourself if that is what you are trying to do. --MrKing84 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are no "pages and pages" of anything: you're just being difficult because you don't want to look. Here and here. Both were easy to find, I even gave you what to control-F to get to them. As for your starting over a conversation just 'cause you think it's gonna upset me, go ahead. There were no "editors" who wanted to get rid of the picture: there was one. Myself and the other one both agreed the picture should stay... and we both still will. But, if you wanna go and start something just 'cause you're mad that I won't let you continue to own the page (like always), start it. It'll end... again. And please don't re-hash this "it doesn't say anything about the last name" nonsense... it says it should match the common name and the common name has the last name. You know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not even going to bother looking at pages and pages of edit summaries on the Phyllis page, it's irreverent and they are two different characters with two different histories. The edit summaries on the page at issue here say nothing about picture captions last names. Now when it comes right down to it, to "avoid confusion within the article" the picture of Garrett Ryan should be removed from the article all together. There is no reason for it to be there anymore anyway. And the discussion on that only ended on the talk page because the editors on the page who wanted to get rid of the Ryan picture dropped out of the discussion. But we can continue that discussion about that (removing the Ryan photo) over there as well. You know, in an effort to avoid confusion within the article. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, my goodness. Guess I spoke too soon about you giving up. The edit summaries at both the Phyllis and the Kyle pages state, "caption should match the common-name to avoid confusion within article."Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing in that discussion about the character's name in the caption of the picture. Which is why we are here. That discussion is about the relevance of the photo itself. Again that discussion says nothing about why the caption on the picture must have the last name and not just the first name. So I will be reverting it back, just so you know. Again there is no discussion about the character's last name being part of the picture's caption. Which is what the problem (and a ridiculous one at that) we have here. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not getting into a content dispute with you. The fact is, others have deemed it necessary and just because you don't like that, doesn't mean you get to throw your edit wars around and try to make the page your way. Can I go put it back now and we can call this done or do you need this to be dragged out longer?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2015
- You said "the Phyllis page" not "the Phyllis edit history". How am I supposed to know what you're talking about? When somebody says go look at a discussion on a page on Wikipedia, it's only natural to think that this discussion happened on the talk page. But why is it even necessary to have the last name in the picture's caption? Especially considering there was much dispute about the character's last name as a child when Garrett Ryan was playing the role. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was in the Phyllis edit history, not the talk page (and if you really wanted to know that, you could've asked). Go look. It's right there.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you go to that page's talk page, I was actually on your side for the whole last name thing and... what a picture is named, does not a caption make (and you know that). If you go to the page's edit history, I also agreed with you about the caption. However, a decision was made and we have to live with it... including you. That's just how things work.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't "really like" the character. I made edits to this character's page in the past because his last name needed to be updated and a few other editors (Cebr1979 being one of them) for whatever reason didn't what the characters last name to be updated. After a long process, the name was updated because of Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy. Now Cebr1979 for whatever reason seems to have a bad attitude (from looking at his history he's attacked other editors and left snide remarks on the talk pages of other editors), and now tells me I have "a problem" apparently and that I need to "deal with it." Now I ask is this the proper and civil way for an editor to act? Telling another editor that they have "a problem" and they should just "deal with it" (it being Cebr1979's edit). Cebr1979 is attempting to cite some "decision" made on some other page. But he gave no link to the page where this "decision" was made. I went to Talk:Phyllis Summers and found no discussion about the name underneath a picture on another character's page. Plus if you look at the picture itself it is listed as "Garrett_Ryan_as_Kyle.jpg". So the picture in dispute here doesn't even have the character's last name on it. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
K, so it's been a half hour and he's disappeared so I'm gonna go put it back (which still won't put me past the 3RR, Erpert) and I think this can just get closed (hopefully not) until next time.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Seeking indef ban of User:Second Dark
Hello, I'm seeking to have the user Second Dark (talk | contribs) indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Their account was created in May this year, and is solely aimed at disrupting The Frankfurt School page. This user has so far been warned for violating WP:TPG, WP:CANVASSING and has previously received a 24 hour ban for WP:EDITWARRING - such is the composition of their talk page. More recently the account has adopted the tactic of WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING against the editorial consensus. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and to my mind this is an open and shut case that would have been resolved the first time I raised it - but wasn't due to a distracting sock puppet investigation (the user was found not to be a sock, but is still worthy of a ban). Literally every edit to The Frankfurt School page this user has made has been reverted by other editors (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5), all of whom have made their best efforts to explain the situation to this disruptive user. Please make sure this matter gets resolved this time, as it risks falling into the category of WP:LONG long-term abuse --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You neglected to inform them of this discussion so I've placed a notice on their user talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Recommend BOOMERANG. From his contributions history, Jobrot is a battlegrounding edit-warring SPA who is here to make Wikipedia describe cultural marxism as a right-wing conspiracy theory (it is neither) in violation of the neutrality pillar as well as the civility pillar since Jobrot is calling the other editors in the content dispute conspiracy theorists. Second Dark is also an SPA but he is not breaking policies.
Anyone interested in the subject in dispute can refer to p.189-190 of Great Ideas, Grand Schemes by Paul Schumaker et al which describes 20th-century communist philosophies as calling for "a total and revolutionary transformation of society", "transforming human consciousness", and "cultural revolution" to "break down political and social institutions and customs on a continual basis." Examples are given of the Soviet Union and Maoist China. The content dispute is over whether everyone who is aware that this history happened should be described in Wikipedia's voice as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and associated with the mass murderer Anders Breivik. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The page and section isn't dealing with
"communist philosophies"
in general - and the key proponents of this conspiracy theory are specifically claiming its aim as "destroying Western culture and the Christian religion" - the conspiracy theory is associated with Breivik as he championed it in his manifesto as reported in various WP:RS sources. In fact, all the sources in the current section meet WP:RS.
"Second Dark.. ...is not breaking policies."
ignoring consensus, repetitively performing WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING without consulting or even listing any complaints on the talk page, disruptive edits to the talk page, WP:IDHT and not being WP:HERE for the right reasons (in this case, comming here only to break policies) are all policy violations. Besides which Second Dark is a repeat offender and has already been warned several times in several ways by several different admins as well as users. Their time here is over, and they have proved their disinterest in community, policy and consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by User:Walter Görlitz
User:Walter Görlitz has repeatedly reverted my edits to Major League Soccer related articles. A consensus was established here that "FC" and "SC" were used too often in team names within Mrelated articles, and I'm trying to edit these articles to reflect this consensus, but I keep getting reverted. See these reverts, for example:
This seems to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, based on this discussion on my talk page and the comments that accompany his reverts. He insists that the consensus supports his position when it clearly does not. It's become distruptive: I'd like to move on this issue and work on improving these articles, but his reverts aren't allowing that. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm tired of Bmf 051's combative editing behaviour. The consensus was clear and he's removed almost every mention of "FC" in article. That's not "less often" it's unconstructive edits. Not only did I hear it, I'm tired of him yelling about it. I'm happy for him to to have a topic ban. And it's not my position, it was a position that was agree upon when the Whitecaps entered the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus changes. IF there was an agreement made when Vancouver entered the league (I don't think you've ever shown that such a discussion took place), this new consensus changes that. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- As an example of his "less often" edit I offer this edit where he states "YOU need to read the discussion. It says FC and SC should NOT be used as much. Quit defying consensus." Yet, "less often" here means not at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- My edits have left several instances of "FC" and "SC". I have not removed all them. See here for example. The discussion talks about bringing it inline with other soccer/football articles as far as the usage of "FC" and "SC". I've removed some instances, but have left others. Your edits have not removed any, which isn't at all what the consensus states. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- At least two piped-out all instances. Some edits removed several, but in what I would argue is an unacceptable way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- My edits have left several instances of "FC" and "SC". I have not removed all them. See here for example. The discussion talks about bringing it inline with other soccer/football articles as far as the usage of "FC" and "SC". I've removed some instances, but have left others. Your edits have not removed any, which isn't at all what the consensus states. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Is this the place where we want to discuss a working criteria or should it be discussed where the vague criteria was offered? I returned to the project to request comment from them. I did not follow and revert Bmf 051's edits on articles not on my watchlist, only those that were. In most instances, the edits adding the FC were made by other editors so I would argue: leave them alone until a clear criteria can be offered. However, I have little hope of that happening. The FOOTY project is entrenched in a European milieu, not one with close ties with MLS.
- Since I edited outside the closed RfC (after {{Rfc bottom}}), it is acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- My criteria when I made these edits: keep it for the first instance of a team's name in an article, plus any uses in templates (Template:2015 Major League Soccer Western Conference table for example) as those may appear in multiple articles, and therefore could potentially be the first instance of a team's name in a particular article. The spirit of the consensus is to bring it in line with other soccer articles. This criteria actually comes short of doing that (i.e. it leaves more instances of FC and SC than you would see in Manchester United F.C. for instance), so I'm not sure what that complaint is. Bmf 051 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And that's the point, MLS has different WP:COMMONNAMEs than European clubs do. The discussion at the RfC is imposing a European understanding on the North American teams. I have had to deal with that for years when nominating third- and fourth-division Canadian teams for deletion. The response from the FOOTY project members is "'Keep - they're a third-division team, so they're notable." They have no understanding of the sport on this side of the water. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking solely at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news and how they elect to self-describe. As of now, the first fifteen articles use the following terms to describe themselves. "Whitecaps FC": 5, "'Caps": 4, no team name: 3, "Vancouver" 2. In the fourteen articles that loaded (one timed out or reset over two attempts), this the breakdown. "'Caps" or "the Caps": 30, "Whitecaps FC": 27, Vancouver’s" or just "Vancouver" (only in reference to the team, not the city): 21, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC": 11, "Whitecaps" or "the Whitecaps": 3, "Blue and White": 3. There's no question that they use multiple terms, but never ever just "Vancouver Whitecaps" which is why it should not be used on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- But MLS is a Major League Soccer#OwnershipSingle-entity league. Meaning, technically, MLS owns the team. Why are you selectively looking at that one MLS-related website? If you search mlssoccer.com, the league's site, you see "Vancouver Whitecaps" plenty of times. See. Also, what if you were look at what the media calls them, for example? Besides, the consensus is already decided: FC should be used less. You're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, but technically, MLS doesn't exist, it's the teams that own each other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- But MLS is a Major League Soccer#OwnershipSingle-entity league. Meaning, technically, MLS owns the team. Why are you selectively looking at that one MLS-related website? If you search mlssoccer.com, the league's site, you see "Vancouver Whitecaps" plenty of times. See. Also, what if you were look at what the media calls them, for example? Besides, the consensus is already decided: FC should be used less. You're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking solely at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news and how they elect to self-describe. As of now, the first fifteen articles use the following terms to describe themselves. "Whitecaps FC": 5, "'Caps": 4, no team name: 3, "Vancouver" 2. In the fourteen articles that loaded (one timed out or reset over two attempts), this the breakdown. "'Caps" or "the Caps": 30, "Whitecaps FC": 27, Vancouver’s" or just "Vancouver" (only in reference to the team, not the city): 21, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC": 11, "Whitecaps" or "the Whitecaps": 3, "Blue and White": 3. There's no question that they use multiple terms, but never ever just "Vancouver Whitecaps" which is why it should not be used on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And that's the point, MLS has different WP:COMMONNAMEs than European clubs do. The discussion at the RfC is imposing a European understanding on the North American teams. I have had to deal with that for years when nominating third- and fourth-division Canadian teams for deletion. The response from the FOOTY project members is "'Keep - they're a third-division team, so they're notable." They have no understanding of the sport on this side of the water. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
On an unrelated topic, I'm somewhat concerned about Bmf 051's sudden interest in a topic I edited earlier today. I truest that this is not the start of wikihounding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- What is my sudden interest in Jesus? Do you hear yourself? Bmf 051 (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not an interest in Jesus, in theology. You have not edited in the area in your recent history and it happens to be at the top of my history at the time of your recent edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
MariaJaydHicky's sneaky IP or user behavior
The banned user is possibly from the UK as on the talk page of Beyoncé: Platinum Edition which posted by his/her sockpuppet user Rihanna-RiRi-fan. He/she contributed four years so far and focused on Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Jennifer Lopez, Kanye West (notably 808s & Heartbreak), Stevie Wonder (notably Hotter than July), and others. His/her currents IP was 86.158.65.115. Has everyone call the police or lawyers? If he/she would release from bail (and again, and again...), may the same behavior repeatedly. 123.136.111.27 (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Implied legal threat by 24.235.196.182
24.235.196.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Made an implied legal threat on their talk page. Anon stated here s/he is a paid employee and a student at Trent University and is editing the Trent article. (The edits I reverted as unsourced.) Hence my COI / Paid editor notice on the Anon's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- So where is the NLT, violation? John from Idegon (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see a legal threat. Can you provide a diff? Liz Read! Talk! 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "My mother is a lawyer so I understand fraud"[112] part is what Jim1138 is probably referring to. Right? I can see how that could be construed to be a possible implied legal threat, but it doesn't seem like an actual threat to me. Doc talk 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If that's a legal threat, then since my dad's a mechanic, I'm going to win the Indy 500. John from Idegon (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "My mother is a lawyer so I understand fraud"[112] part is what Jim1138 is probably referring to. Right? I can see how that could be construed to be a possible implied legal threat, but it doesn't seem like an actual threat to me. Doc talk 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see a legal threat. Can you provide a diff? Liz Read! Talk! 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Borderline. Context would be important. Like if he's responding to someone saying he doesn't know what fraud is - vs. - if he's claiming someone else is committing fraud. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP's attempt to censor this section[113] is probably sufficient reason to give him the boot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Re creation of Vadym Troyan
This time by Konsyltant (talk · contribs). BLP page is aka Troyan Vadym (WP:SALTED), Trojan VADIM and TROYAN Vadym , maybe others.
- LOLI-ANA111 (talk · contribs) (blocked for sockpuppetry) created one version, and
- Иванов Олександр (talk · contribs) has been indeffed for recreating this page under several variant of the current name.
- Lilka 777 (talk · contribs) also recreated it.
FYI. 220 of Borg 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- *Comment: I have taken the article to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadym Troyan) to be able to use G4 for any future name variations after it's deletion.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Obvious meat-puppetry and corrupt admins
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:EtienneDolet is a proven meat-puppet of User:Alessandro57: See here for evidence
User:Alessandro57 was edit-warring the article of the Sovereign State of Northern Cyprus when he called upon his "greek" meat-puppet User:EtienneDolet to help him in his edit-war
User:Dr.K. is another suspected "greek" meat puppet of user Alessandro57.
There are also multiple admins here who seem to have a cabalism mentality. They blocked my accounts in order to protect their nasty greek puppets and accused me falsely of sockpuppetry even though all what i was doing is "block evasion" not sockpuppetry. Keep in mind nasty greeks that blocking my accounts can never result in blocking my person. I swear by God that i am able to change my ip every second with only one click.
Keep in mind also that no greek will ever be able to make a "single step" in the lands of the Sovereign State of Northern Cyprus without our permission. You may enjoy lying here on this wiki but we will always enjoy the reality in North Cyprus.--Greece Mother of Whores (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User:RHaworth saying redirect creation is not constructive
I recently created a series of redirects which could have been seen as implausible, which I have stopped doing. RHaworth deleted several of these, without tellimg me which ones, and replied a day later to my queries telling me to look at his deletion log, which I do not know how to do. He is now telling me to stop creating redirects completely. I failed to notice the section in WP:Redirect which says not to create redirects. Frankly I haven't got time to waste on this and am unsure of how to deal with such blatant misconduct from an administrator who refuses to cooperate. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Frankly I haven't got time to waste on this", but creating ~30 redirects per article isn't wasted time, gotcha. To check an admin's deletion log, visit their contributions page, and click "logs" right at the top. It works for any user but for an admin it'll list deletions as well. For the admin in question, here is their log history, here is it filtered to show only deletions. If any of them seem like actual misconduct, do come back. GRAPPLE X 13:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Grapple X: Thanks for the links. He told me, specifically, not to create redirects. In what way is that correct? Furthermore, creating redirects clearly improves the encyclopedia. When constructive contributors are insulted, mocked and never thanked it's no wonder so many of them leave. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I find this admin's attitude to be nothing more than appalling. He's very bitey and terse. Here's a previous encounter I've had with him recently. Looking at his RfA this was done more than 10 years ago when the threshold for admins was much, much lower. It's not up to him to judge if your redirect is worthy or not or telling you to "find something more constructive to do". We have redirects for deletion if any of them need a challenge. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is unaccceptable to tell somebody not to create redirects. Where is the part in WP:redirect that says "Do not create redirects"? Perhaps he should delete every redirect on Wikipedia. Fair enough deleting implausible ones, though. There's no "Oh, but thanks anyway for all the work you put in here for hours every day". Again, I see why people leave, and unprofessional, insulting responses like Grapple X's aren't helping. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Without evidence, there's no way for anyone to informatively opine on this. Excessive redirects can be misleading, obtrusive, spammy, prejudicial, etc. I've definitely seem all of the above happen. So please provide a list of which redirects were deleted, and what they were re-directing to. And provide diffs or links of the various pertinent communications to and from RHaworth. These are all things that are required for an ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I don't disagree with the deletions. In this diff, Rhaworth says I should stop creating redirects. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The redirects were List of people called Nancy Sullivan, List of people called Nancy, List of people called Albert Thomas, List of people called Frank White and List of people called James Robinson Junior, as far as I can see. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if those were redirects, I agree they should have been deleted, per what RHaworth said in the conversation on their talk page
which you still haven't linked to (you haven't even linked the username for us). And I happened to count the redirects you've created recently -- approximately 4,000 in the past 30 days alone, which does seen extremely excessive and downright unnecessary and potentially problematic. So if I were you I'd take a self-imposed break (aka voluntary topic ban) from creating redirects for the foreseeable future. I think that would solve everyone's problems/issues. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if those were redirects, I agree they should have been deleted, per what RHaworth said in the conversation on their talk page
- The redirects were List of people called Nancy Sullivan, List of people called Nancy, List of people called Albert Thomas, List of people called Frank White and List of people called James Robinson Junior, as far as I can see. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, here is your own deleted contributions, which will show the redirects (and any other edit you have made) that has since been deleted. As to the "Please stop creating redirects" comment, I don't read that as a command or order from RHaworth, but as a rather strongly worded request to cease creating unnecessary redirects. As Softlavender notes, you have created an excessive number of redirects, most of which carry negligible value. For example, six distinct redirects to Tim Collins (baseball). Not a single one of which was necessary or aids navigation, and would only create a lot of clean-up work if a second notable baseball player named Tim Collins were to arrive - as instead of modifying one page title to improve disambiguation, we would instead have to modify seven. I would personally ask that you take a step back and contemplate whether it is useful to create redirects to any permutation of a dab you can think of. Resolute 13:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Small note to Resolute: Only admins with their magic glasses can see what's on that page of deleted contributions. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Short answer RubbishComp is that no other admin will step up to say anything bad about Haworth. You'll be made to look like the bad person in this and this will be closed faster than you can say Cumbrian taxi driver on a shooting spree. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Long answer is that I (and other admins) have a long history of saying bad things about other admins when they deserve it, but not simply to please another editor. Fram (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now go and close the thread. Chop, chop. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: Will they even give RHaworth a chance to talk here? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Probably not, as I fully expect the token "closed" box any moment now. You're basically wasting your time. The admins wont allow you to bad mouth another of their kind. Haworth is in need of some social skills, but no other admin will even bother addressing this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: Will they even give RHaworth a chance to talk here? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now go and close the thread. Chop, chop. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: "Stop creating redirects and do something more constructive". Absolutely no way of twisting the meaning of that, and closing the discussion will never change that, although this activity does drive away constructive contributors in their droves, and with reason. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Long answer is that I (and other admins) have a long history of saying bad things about other admins when they deserve it, but not simply to please another editor. Fram (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want you to "say bad things about RHaworth", as such. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirects should be logical and unbiased. In particular, they should be things that people are likely to enter in the search box. Most of the redirects I've created (which aren't many) are alternate spellings of words that I'm more likely to use. "List of people called Nancy Sullivan" is not likely to be a phrase someone would just come up with out of thin air. More likely they would simply enter "Nancy Sullivan" in the search box, and be led either to a unique Nancy Sullivan or to a disambiguation page for multiple Nancy Sullivans. "List of people called Nancy" is not even an appropriate article, let alone a redirect, as there are gazillions of Nancys. There is an article Nancy which discusses the name in general, and which might have a few notables named Nancy. Redirects are fine, but there needs to be some reasonableness behind a given redirect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So, he didn't say that redirect creation is not constructive, he said that your redirect creation is not the most constructive to do. When you create about 37 redirects to Tim Collins (British Army officer), 26 to Tim Collins (politician), and so on, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start asking questions and don't believe this to be constructive. Most of these aren't needed, as the search box (or internet searches) will pick up the right result long before you are at the end of your search string, while other ones are highly unlikely anyway (like Tim WG Collins CBE, he doesn't seem to ever be adressed or mentioned as Tim WG Collins). Fram (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::"Stop creating redirects" does not mean "stop creating unnecessary redirects" or "be more careful about creating redirects: make sure you avoid implausible typos", it means "Stop creating redirects", and no way of twisting it changes its meaning. As I have said before, which resulted in an administrator openly mocking and insulting me here, rules do not appear to apply to administrators; it seems they can single-handedly decide Wikipedia policy> I suggest Fram Resolute Softlavender RHaworth you open a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, proposing that no redirects be created and all existing redirects be deleted, which is exactly what you are all implying. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- On a side note, I see the point about having to modify redirects but I already categorise existing redirects as I find them and create disambiguation pages where they are needed. In case you are wondering, I just go to Special:Random and go to a dab if the title disambiguates. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, Rubbish computer, that is not what we are implying. Please take a step back from all of this and answer me a question: Why are you creating up to 37 redirects to individual articles? I don't think any of us - even RHaworth - is actually saying "don't create any redirects", but we are asking you to consider whether the redirects you do create is valuable. As basic examples, creating a redirect like "2015-16 foo season" to point to "2015–16 foo season" is useful, since few readers are going to type in the endash. Creating a redirect that points a person's name without diacritics to the version with diacritics is useful. Redirecting "Tim Doe" to "Timothy Doe" if they are referred to as "Tim" is useful. And if you created such redirects, nobody would have a problem. But the issue that Rhaworth identified and which a few of us here agree is that your creation of dozens of redirects to single articles covering every remote permutation of a search term, disambiguation, post-nominal, etc, is only going to create unnecessary work. It's not a good use of your time, and it will only increase maintenance. Resolute 14:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, what I think RHaworth is asking, and certainly what I would ask, is this: if you can't make a better distinction between useful redirects and redirect overkill, then it would be best in your case to stop creating redirects alltogether and stick to more constructive edits. No "everyone should stop creating redirects", not even "all you redirects are unconstructive", just that the signal-to-noise ratio of them is unsatisfactory. Oh, and "drop the stick" is not a personal attack. "Trolling" is an uncivil way to describe your editing and could better be kept for the real trolls though. Fram (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, Rubbish computer, that is not what we are implying. Please take a step back from all of this and answer me a question: Why are you creating up to 37 redirects to individual articles? I don't think any of us - even RHaworth - is actually saying "don't create any redirects", but we are asking you to consider whether the redirects you do create is valuable. As basic examples, creating a redirect like "2015-16 foo season" to point to "2015–16 foo season" is useful, since few readers are going to type in the endash. Creating a redirect that points a person's name without diacritics to the version with diacritics is useful. Redirecting "Tim Doe" to "Timothy Doe" if they are referred to as "Tim" is useful. And if you created such redirects, nobody would have a problem. But the issue that Rhaworth identified and which a few of us here agree is that your creation of dozens of redirects to single articles covering every remote permutation of a search term, disambiguation, post-nominal, etc, is only going to create unnecessary work. It's not a good use of your time, and it will only increase maintenance. Resolute 14:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- On a side note, I see the point about having to modify redirects but I already categorise existing redirects as I find them and create disambiguation pages where they are needed. In case you are wondering, I just go to Special:Random and go to a dab if the title disambiguates. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Resolute for talking sense and responding professionally and politely. While this may not be what you are implying, it is exactly what Rhaworth said, which you cannot change the meaning of. Thanks, though, I will refine my redirect creation to the more likely search terms. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Resolute: As an example, for 2004-05 Foo seaston, would Foo Season 2004-05, Foo Season, 2004-05, Foo Season of 2004-05 and foo Seasn (2004-05) be plausible redirects, and if not which would and which wouldn't? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- None of those would be necessary in my view. In all of those examples (I used variants of "2004-05" and "Calgary Flames season"), the search engine produced the correct article high up the results list. In general, I would suggest limiting redirect creation to the most common spelling issues, which I outlined above. We don't really need a "Calgary Flames season, 2004-05" redirect, even if there is a slim chance that some singular reader might choose to use that search term. The search results page will capture those really extreme searches. Resolute 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Rubbish computer, I personally don't think you're taking on board what some people are trying to say or point out here. It's not just those "List" redirects that were problematical. I (and others) don't believe that the majority of the 4,000 redirects that you created in the past 30 days were either helpful, necessary, or appropriate. And they are potentially problematic for various reasons even beyond those already mentioned here. You seem to be a capable Wikipedia editor. I for one feel that your skills can be much better used doing something other than creating unnecessary redirects. At best it's starting to feel like blatant WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, which you seem to admit to on your userpage. For instance, yesterday you created four redirects to I Want to Spill the Blood of a Hippy, which couldn't possibly even need one redirect. I'm concerned that if you do not modify your behavior and change course that you will be hit with a boomerang here, which would be unfortunate and uncomfortable. Better to be proactive and prove that you can edit Wikipedia productively doing something else. Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- And admins throwing (pardon the pun) the boomerang card. Ladies and gents, we have the full set. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is Lugnuts expressing anti-admin sentiment part of the set?--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If combined with a low-level lurker's sycophancy, then, yes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. There was really no need for The Anome to chip in with a personal attack when I was asking for clarification. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Atlan: I consider "drop the stick" to be a personal attack, as regardless of how respected the essay is it is clearly an insult. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Drop the stick" is not an attack, personal or otherwise. It's merely good advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is a textbook example of WP:GOAD, to which I will not be replying.--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is Lugnuts expressing anti-admin sentiment part of the set?--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- This case seems eerily similar to the case I opened above about User:TX6875. There seems to be a rash of users creating mass quantities of redirects lately. Is this a new way to troll Wikipedia? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @WikiDan61: Are you seriously calling me a troll? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Rubbish computer: I'm saying it's odd that there are three simultaneous cases open at WP:ANI all involving excessive creation of redirects. An odd coincidence. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fascinating. I've just mass-deleted User:TX6785's redirect farm. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Rubbish computer: I'm saying it's odd that there are three simultaneous cases open at WP:ANI all involving excessive creation of redirects. An odd coincidence. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @WikiDan61: I blame the obsession with an edit count, as if the sole purpose of Wikipedia is to "score" as high as possible. It's not a viewpoint I personally subscribe to, but it is one which has begun to affect me. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It appears Rubbish Computer has retired from editing, at least for now. I've cleaned up the most implausible of their most recent redirects, hopefully leaving all the more reasonable ones in place. As far as I can tell, they were editing in good faith, and genuinely thought they were helping. But we can't inflate the database with every possible conceivable redirect. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, well done, admins! Big pat on the back to all of you. And a big fuck you to WP:AGF! We couldn't have done it without you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It appears Rubbish Computer has retired from editing, at least for now. I've cleaned up the most implausible of their most recent redirects, hopefully leaving all the more reasonable ones in place. As far as I can tell, they were editing in good faith, and genuinely thought they were helping. But we can't inflate the database with every possible conceivable redirect. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Anome, in the 11 months since Rubbish Computer started editing he/she has created 16,516 redirects. I would imagine most of them went under the radar, e.g. The January 2014 Rawalpindi suicide bombing. Like that one, there are literally hundreds of them which simply added "The" to the names of various entities, buildings, and even people. It's a pity it wasn't noticed sooner, as some friendly advice several months ago might have prevented it getting out of hand. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Holy crap, I didn't even know there was a counter. Thanks for that, VDT. That's nearly half his edit count. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I can have a look at tidying some of the worst ones of those up, but it would be a massive effort to track down and delete every single one by hand without over-deleting. Which is one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Anome, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Programmatic_Media, specifically, all of the redirects to Programmatic media? I've already deleted the most implausible but I don't think 197 redirects to an article that is at AfD is warranted. I think there were originally around 230 redirects to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I can have a look at tidying some of the worst ones of those up, but it would be a massive effort to track down and delete every single one by hand without over-deleting. Which is one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Anome, it's definitely one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea, and I don't think its worth trying to fix Rubbish Computer's redirects, frankly. I was just pointing out the scale of the problem which only came to light now. In most cases, they also created talk pages for each redirect and redirected them as well, doubling the work. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, Rubbish computer is (was?) a new-ish editor but one of our most active at redirects for discussion; it's natural that they take (took?) an interest in creating redirects. If some of them were inappropriate, well sometimes that's what happens with inexperience, the best you can do is learn from it and carry on. We can try to educate the user to do better, or we can come down on them like a ton of bricks until they get pissed off and leave. Which one do you think we did here? Hint: [114]
- Regarding RHaworth, if you have even a basic look at his user page you can see he deals with a lot of angry, clueless users whose pages he's deleted for perfectly sound reasons, who come to him to whine about it. His page is busy enough, and the arguments always weak enough, that I don't blame him for being short with most of those users. Especially when they're rude to him in the first place.
- And regarding the redirects, yes the advice is not to needlessly create them, but equally once they are created not to needlessly delete them, because someone may find them useful even if you don't; Wikipedians browse in different ways. If you'd like to mass-list them at RfD, we're happy to offer opinions. Indeed it's pretty much all we do.
- Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: Much as I loathe this website and hate to come back at all, I can't just sit and let false accusations be made about me yet again. I redirected the talk pages of about 5 redirects: I also never added "The" in front of a person's name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe Voceditenore was referring to your creating lots of "The Reverend" and "The Honorable" redirects, plus adding "The" to some animal names. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Softlavender, that's what I was referring to. As for the talk page redirects, my sincere apologies, Rubbish computer. There were only about five that were previously red-linked. I should have checked this list much more carefully. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe Voceditenore was referring to your creating lots of "The Reverend" and "The Honorable" redirects, plus adding "The" to some animal names. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually Voceditenore I was just getting angry with you about nothing. Sorry! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the redirects, but Ivanvector, this is a user with over four times as many edits as you, who as of yesterday was the 1416th most active editor in Wikipedia's entire history. When in your view does someone stop being a new user? ‑ iridescent 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Never. We're all n00bs. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rather, we're all at a point of experience where we can occasionally benefit from an assumption of cluelessness. If anyone has interpreted "new-ish" as an insult I will happily re-word. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the redirects, but Ivanvector, this is a user with over four times as many edits as you, who as of yesterday was the 1416th most active editor in Wikipedia's entire history. When in your view does someone stop being a new user? ‑ iridescent 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: You are completely right. I simply think I didn't get taught which redirects were and weren't valid, which I should have asked about.
If I ask here I'll be accused of not "dropping the stick", an excellent non-argument to avoid helping anyone involved in a dispute. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guess who's back? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm very glad about that, Rubbish computer. It would have been a pity to lose you over a kerfuffle like this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: Thanks: I'm kind of addicted now. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guess who's back? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Anome (Plz don't bite me) Is this okay? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well is it? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is totally superfluous. If you type "Spring Township" into the search box, the fourth entry in the dropdown list is Spring Township, Boone County, Illinois; no-one in their right mind would continue after that to type the full name with brackets rather than commas. RolandR (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the consensus is that you should quit creating redirects altogether, and find some other, more productive, way to contribute. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Redirect spam - why is this suddenly popular?
Right now, there are three open incidents on AN/I involving large numbers of redirects:
- WP:AN/I#Programmatic Media
- WP:AN/I#User:TX6785 appears obsessed
- WP:AN/I#User:RHaworth saying redirect creation is not constructive (this issue)
This hasn't been a common problem in the past. Is there some commonality here? All three incidents are in totally different areas; it's not subject-matter related. Is there some new tool for creating bulk redirects? John Nagle (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- With my cynical hat on, I'd say this is the likely suspect. Redirects aren't counted, but I suspect a lot of people don't realise that. ‑ iridescent 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Issue with user behavior
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've encountered an issue with Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs), and would appreciate someone else trying to resolve. To the best of my knowledge, my only direct interaction with the user has been in my userspace. I ask that another editor notify the user of this ANI discussion - I have no interest in continued contact with them myself.
It began with their placing a templated warning with a snarky addition at the end on my user page (I had reverted vandalism, but not warned the IP as I viewed it as stale - all this can be read in my discussion with the user at User talk:Barek#October 2015). After a brief discussion, I finally posted on my user page "stop posting to pages in my userspace - any further edits by you to this page will be reverted". (emphasis added here).
They stopped posting to my main talk page, but then edited my alternate talk page - which I reverted stating that further such action would be reported as harassment. They then edited that alternate talk page again (again reverted), as well as blanking User:Barek/index2 - a page that is no longer linked from anywhere (until this very post) - meaning they had to be actively searching my userspace or past edits just to find it (the text they blanked was added in February 2012 and simply read "blanked - no longer used" because Wikimedia software prevented me from deleting the page due to the long edit history on it - a restriction that no longer exists, so I deleted the page today).
The other user needs to drop the stick - leave my user-space, and just move on with other editing activities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Well, I commend your self-control in not blocking or TP-warning the user outright. Perhaps if he comes here with a distinct promise to avoid your userspace altogether he will avoid that fate. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Browsed their talkpage. They have a history of less than constructive edits to other editors userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- And it continues ... my browser bookmark opens a page showing edits in my userspace. When I opened the page a few minutes ago, I saw the disruptive behavior continues.
- Well after being notified of this ANI thread - Some Gadget Geek managed to find another page in my userspace which is not publicly linked in any way (User:Barek/index1) and this time tagged it for deletion (I do not want it deleted at this time).
- I do not know why the user is obsessed with me and my userspace - but they need a serious talking to, if not a block for harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I was just informed that about two hours prior to their most recent edit within my userspace, both Liz and samtar had posted at User talk:Some Gadget Geek#AN/I and had attempted to assist the user in understanding the issues brought up at this ANI thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have given @Some Gadget Geek: a 48 hour block so they can consider their talk page messages. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I was just informed that about two hours prior to their most recent edit within my userspace, both Liz and samtar had posted at User talk:Some Gadget Geek#AN/I and had attempted to assist the user in understanding the issues brought up at this ANI thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
IP Address 66.168.88.182 keep vandalizing page and making unsourced changes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP Address User talk:66.168.88.182 keep vandalizing and making unsourced and false claims on on Today (U.S. TV program) Show Page and other related TODAY Show pages (It Anchors and Weekend TODAY Show Page as well as on NBC News p page). They have been told to stop repeatedly and given a warning but they will not listen. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- A six month block expired three days ago and they immediately resumed the same behavior. Blocked one year. --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Myo007 violation of WP:V
User:Myo007 edited the article Visa requirements for Australian citizens. He added some unsourced information (diff) and I thought it's just an ordinary troll (as the Visa requirement articles are under immense pressure by trolls and vandals) so I undid the edit because there were no sources provided. But he reinserted the information (diff) saying that he has "been to these countries". As that had shown me he has zero understanding of the WP:V I reverted for the second time but this time I tried to give a lengthier explanation and I also posted one of those welcome-warning templates on adding to the articles without a verifiable published source on his talk page. He didn't get the message but just added the information that lacks a source once again (diff).
I can't act on this anymore or else I would violate the 3RR rule so I seek administrator intervention. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Might be one for WP:AIV as disruptive editing?
samtar {t} 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)- Nope. I assumed the user had been warned multiple times and continued. samtar {t} 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
1. Australians can enter into Singapore with Visit pass for 90 Days, that's is true.
2. Myanmar Business Visa on Arrival or eVisa Business both 70 Days are also true.
**Those Cites web links all are from Government websites, those are immigration Laws that currently Legal and easy to find out reliable and verifiable sources. **I did NOT violate anything in editing except i point out the truths about entry Laws and also that is not a troll but i just helping people with on good faiths only. If you won't accept it then be it , i won't edit that again and it is unfair to brought the matter here and complaining things and clearly wrong accusations.
i showed you one government website on each is enough and more info pls find yourself.
On Singapore visit pass: that's from Australian Government site from Australian High Commission for Singapore Look at below on the page at: http://singapore.embassy.gov.au/sing/home.html
it has mentioned that Australian passport holders do not usually require a visa for visits to Singapore of up to 90 days.
It is by Subject to Immigration Regulation . 12 (7) of Singapore Immigration Law that's Australian passport holders are entitled to get Visit pass for 90 Days on each entry, it will be just stamped but no sticker unless one was granted eIACS then (30 Days limit on each Visit)
I have been entry into Singapore for 8 times already with Aus passport and same type of pass each issued for 90 Days.
Depend on government and immigration policies , Laws may be changed time by time, those are up to date Law today and current happening.
For Myanmar Visa issue:
http://mecanberra.com.au/visa-on-arrival
That's announced from Myanmar Embassy at Canberra, Australia, those arrival Business Visas are really issue 70 Days for each entry. Those are real strong evidences, do you have any Cite better than mentioned from Government websites?
You can discuss in talk page for the matter if you have an issue until meet true answers and solutions and don't bring this Admin page for unnecessary without having proper researched about those Laws, everyone has to share their previous times for that act and we have things to do too.
Australians can have 90 Days Visit Pass to Singapore, that's truthful information.
It is really unfair to accuse me for violation and warned for my editing, it was just good faiths editing and helping.
Below are more about 90 Days Social visit Infos if you want more reliable cities.
https://www.austrade.gov.au/Australian/Export/Export-markets/Countries/Singapore/Visiting/Visas http://www.expatarrivals.com/singapore/visas-for-singapore http://www.ausbt.com.au/how-to-get-fast-track-passport-clearance-at-singapore-s-changi-airport
Please note both Australia and Singapore are commonwealth countries, normally rich commonwealth each other easier to enter and longer stay permit granted more than 30 Days and we have good Diplomatic relationship ties, also a lot of Australia products are transporting into Singapore, Australia is one of major overseas trade country, As per Visa waver program for Australian passport Social visit pass 90 Days is current ongoing Law and also as being special there has been introduced with eIACS pass system for Australian passport holders already.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/how-to-get-fast-track-passport-clearance-at-singapore-s-changi-airport On above link: " As you can see on that page as together with photo for both 90 Days visit pass stamp as well as eIACS pass stamp after that". The Stamps Photo and web link are clearly shown for solid evidence by proving that with Australian passport can remain as 90 Days.
You can see the stamp as " PERMITTED TO ENTER AND REMAIN IN SINGAPORE FOR NINETY DAYS FOR SOCIAL VISIT ONLY FROM DATE SHOWN ABOVE. "
- Note: He must have been 3 times visited in within 12 months then he was eligible to apply eIACS pass and then he went to apply eIACS in same day after entry and it will valid for 2 year once granted but entering with eIACS from another gate only limit to 30 days in each entry. And the one who wants 90 Days pass then go for normal long queue in Changi airport and get it.
As for Myanmar Visa it was direct proved from Myanmar Embassy, Canberra site so you no need to seek any further for cite.
- Please remove that warning notice from my talk page since i did all with good faiths and good soul to share knowledge on people.
I have been proved enough verifiable sources as per above. Myo007 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Portals & Templates (talk · contribs), an account created today, has repeatedly (four times) reverted my edits on Portal:Rihanna and Portal:Rihanna/Topics. I have told the user multiple times to discuss the issue instead of edit warring, but so far this user has refused to discuss. This account does not look like a WP:NOOB. Admittedly I am new to portal editing, but I looked at portal guidelines and did not find anything opposing the use of navboxes (correct me if I am wrong), and this portal is seriously out of date (looks like circa 2010). What should be done in this situation? sst✈discuss 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Templates do not belong in Portal sections. That is what templates are for. Don't believe me, check out other portal topics. Changing it back as above editor needs consensus for brand new changes like this. --Portals & Templates (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've been here 4 years and didn't know that. One has to be curious as to how you got here today and do. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- If this is what the community wants, go ahead and undo my edit then. I will not interfere on the matter anymore. --Portals & Templates (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)--Portals & Templates (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
ßlaïsi Furstqurzel
I've indefblocked ßlaïsi Furstqurzel (talk · contribs) without giving a warning, in light of this edit and the fact that the entire contributions of Special:Contributions/ßlaïsi_Furstqurzel consists of trolling. If anyone thinks this is out-of-process, feel free to undo it. ‑ iridescent 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jumping right to WP:RFA as a new account? I'm curious who's sock this is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Rkaplan
Rkaplan (talk · contribs) insists on adding a pseudonymous ("Tyler Durden") blog post as a source to Elizabeth Holmes, in addition to his/her personal commentary on why that source should be considered acceptable.
The user previously made similar changes from three different IP addresses (not sockpuppetry: the user has acknowledged that it's him/her). I undid the change, citing WP:BLP and WP:RS issues. But s/he is bent on adding the content back.
I'm posting this here, because of the WP:INVOLVE / edit warring concerns; and also because this is a combination of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:OR issues (not sure which of these noticeboards should I select; posted at WP:RSN, but no response there).
Can someone please intervene?
utcursch | talk 22:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review this block of a teacher
This block I did was considered "ludicrous" by another editor. The user Wangenra, whom I blocked is a teacher who periodically makes test edits to show her students how easy it is to vandalize Wikipedia, and she states she will do so again. I've explained and I stand by my block, but perhaps I'm being a bit draconian. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am the other editor named above. Her stated reason was to show students why Wikipedia is unreliable. I had engaged her prior to the block to direct her to other uses of Wikipedia in the classroom. Think that will go far now? There are better ways to handle the situation. Valfontis should have engaged her, although I am not convinced Valfontis's position reflects the values of the community. I am asking for an immediate reversal of the block. This block does not do anything to advance Wikipedia in the world, nor does it do anything to protect Wikipedia. It is worth noting that the only page she has ever done this on is the page of the high school that employs her. Her statement that she had the principal's permission is a bit troubling, but that would have been better dealt with with words, not buttons. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- What stops her from showing them what she did before? Doing it live seems a bit dramatic. Maybe refer her to the people who oversee the school and university programs and let her have it out with them? Not saying one way or another whether an unblock immediately is a good reason, but certainly if she agrees to be guided by their advice, no need for a block after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Here are Wangenra's contribs. This would normally be considered a vandalism-only account. It may also be a case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Does WP:AGF cover exceptions to these guidelines or is there another one? Valfontis (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- She can still appeal her block. Also, she was templated with welcome, warning and {{welcome teacher}} back in the spring, so it's not like she lacked info about this. Valfontis (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Good block - she has taught them how easy it is to vandalize, and has taught them what the consequences are. Vrac (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good block - She can be unblocked when she agrees to stop disrupting live articles. - MrX 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Has anybody bothered to get in touch with the school itself to notify them that an instructor is disrupting Wikipedia as part of their curriculum, and that it is not acceptable at all? --wL<speak·check> 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone has made her a sandbox copy of the school article. I'd absolutely support an unblock if she agrees to use that instead. Valfontis (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe. But ball is in her court. The school does not own its Wikipedia article. We cannot have her doing this on a live article. I'd rather she did not teach kids to vandalize Wikipedia, a teacher doing it sends a certain message I don't like. A school for vandal we do not need.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good block. Only edits are disruption to prove a point, no indication of being here to write an encyclopedia. If the teacher wants to show how easy it is to vandalize then they can also teach that the result is getting blocked. The teacher can asked to be unblocked once they agree not to disrupt out project. HighInBC 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I support the block. Teachers vandalizing Wikipedia to "prove" that it's unreliable is highly counter-productive, and it can't be said to be in good faith. GABHello! 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think she should be unblocked. She has done it only on the article about her school, and each time she reverted herself within a minute. There's no harm done. Sarah (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- This looks like "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point", and begs for a block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Continued disregard of no original research and addition of social media links as "sources"
Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been adding original research to the articles of Kristen Alderson and Chad Duell, despite being told of the policies for Biographies of Living Persons. Their continued persistence in addition information, which was mere speculation and not confirmed, despite warnings (and multiple attempts to discuss) from myself and Clpo13 went unnoticed and ignored. User has long displayed this behavior for years, and it's completely troubling. User also believes social media links are acceptable for whatever purpose, even if they do continue information of third-parties, which per Wikipedia standard says that they cannot be used if it deals with subject matter that is not for primary topic. Their excuse is that "they know the truth", showing signs that they are not here to edit in a collaborative manner, and that there might be slight ownership issues of actors they appear to like (as evident of their user page). Their use of slightly inappropriate edit summaries is also uncalled for — which user has a long history of providing. User has history of owning things "cuz I said so" where social media is concerned, despite being warned and told about such information before. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)