Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
= Update =
After another warning was issued to the editor about refraining from making another tendentious image-related edit before addressing this AN/I discussion (about the editing behaviour in question), the warning was reverted twice by the editor ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emmy_Expert&diff=794955999&oldid=794955670] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emmy_Expert&diff=prev&oldid=795029307]) with the initial edit summary {{tq|I'll try harder to stop}}. The editor then almost immediately went on to make several kind of edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_by_North_Quahog&diff=prev&oldid=795027346] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_New_Wave&diff=prev&oldid=795020934 ]) that are identical to the ones that have been questioned in this AN/I discussion. After a block was issued, the editor then changed the time stamp and added caps lock to the block notice ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emmy_Expert&diff=prev&oldid=795030769] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emmy_Expert&diff=prev&oldid=795031996]). I would like to ask for some community input. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
: I don't think this is going to end well. Emmy Expert doesn't seem capable of controlling whatever urge is compelling these edits, including editing other people's comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::Or they're trolling you. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Emmy Expert is not a troll, I'm confident of that. At the same time, I don't believe there's some "irresistible urge" to change images on Wikipedia, as until now unknown, undocumented and undiagnosed in the medical community. I think that, until now, the "warnings" Emmy has received have just been words, and now, hopefully, after 48 hours, he'll have learned actions have consequences. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Death threat
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = Dealt with. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
----
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnood1205&type=revision&diff=795400939&oldid=792378121 Here]. Emergency have been informed. Sorry it took so long to report here but I can't find an admin to contact privately. Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:Blocked and rev del'd. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
----
: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{Clear}}
[[Gary Renard]] redux
{{archive top|result= {{noping|Iridescent}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGary_Renard&type=revision&diff=795446367&oldid=795443409 closed] one of the two threads called RfC and {{noping|MPants at work}} referenced that in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Renard&diff=next&oldid=795452510 closing the other]. My request has been addressed. If somebody wants to talk about some other aspect of this, they can open a new thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)}}
So following the train wreck of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Accusations_of_canvassing just-archived ANI], the 4th AfD proceeded and was closed today by User:Alex Shih, with a redirect. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Renard&type=revision&diff=795348503&oldid=795343758 implemented] the close. User:Unscintillating promptly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Renard&diff=next&oldid=795348503 reverted], and opened a section on Talk about Article redirected to improper target. When we pointed out to this user there, that the proper procedure was WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or WP:Deletion review they instead opened an RfC at the article talk page, here.
The 4th AfD was borderline out-of-process as several !voters there noted, but this effort to challenge the close is really not good (especially as it leaves the discussion captive only to page watchers and doesn't centralize it as either of the regular challenge processes do). Alex' close was generous, leaving the redirect instead of just deleting, and this is about the worst possible reaction.
Am requesting an admin to shut down that RfC and instruct Unscintillating to follow one of the appropriate processes to challenge the close. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Always going to happen as that AFD was very poorly handled. But what is happening now (AFD's are not binding) is very iffy. I agree that then user should follow procedure.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am not looking to create another train wreck of an ANI thread. Am asking admins to look and judge and then close this, either way. If admins judge "not in our remit" please say so, and somebody else might frame a different request or this can be withdrawn. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- The redirect has been protected to prevent more reverts, but the history is still intact so that anyone who wants to merge is able to. That seems consistent with the AfD result. It looks to me that the problem is already solved. Reyk YO! 22:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:The issue is the RfC, which remains open. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- My two cents: {{noping|Alex Shih}} is an editor with only 10,000 edits, who was sysopped in May 2007 (as {{noping|AQu01rius}}) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AQu01rius] and then promptly disappeared for 10 years [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Alex+Shih&project=en.wikipedia.org], returning 5 weeks ago and making a flurry of administrative errors which have caused multiple problems. He should not have closed the ANI; he should not have closed the AfD; and he should not have locked the page. He certainly should not have done all three. We need neutral, experienced, capable, uninvolved admins to make these calls, not someone who barely knows what they are doing and who after the initial action was clearly too WP:INVOLVED to make any further actions. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- My two cents: Softlavender has been exceedingly biased throughout this overly-long ordeal, and should refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS on an admin who clearly acted in good faith. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- My two cents: we've got way too many admins coming out of 10-year comas who don't know how anything is done. EEng 03:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Again? Jesus christ. Can we please PLEASE get a system in place where the community can remove the mop? --Tarage (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{u|Softlavender}}, that's a poor, unsupported reaction in a dispute you've been on "the other side of" for a long time. You're as guilty as anyone else of bludgeoning here, if not more, in multiple arenas. Time to back off, really. Yes, there's a problem with long inactive admins making errors, and we need to deal with that, but that has nothing to do with your "issue" here. Stop trying to divert attention from a consensus with which you disagree. You're flailing. -- Begoon 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
: User:Softlavender I encourage you to file a close challenge and test your claim that the close did not reasonably reflect the consensus of the AfD. I don't think it will succeed but that would be more productive. This is devolving.... Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::I agree. The correct place to challenge a close is at DRV. This discussion is all over the place because people won't use the proper processes. Starting many irrelevant and perplexing "discussions" on the talk page, or making unfounded accusations of incompetence here on ANI, is not really productive. Reyk YO! 05:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with both the above. If you disagree with the closure of an AFD, Wikipedia:Deletion review is thataways. ANI is for reporting incidents that require administrative intervention, not a general noticeboard for people to vent whenever an admin does something they don't like. I've closed down the RFC as out-of-process; a central location for deletion review is one part of Wikipedia's bureaucracy which does make sense. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::User:Iridescent to be clear, what you did in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGary_Renard&type=revision&diff=795446367&oldid=795443409 this dif] was to close an RfC that Unscintillating had withdrawn by removing the RfC tag, and Unscintillating had opened a 2nd, more or less identical one below that. User:MPants at work closed that 2nd RfC in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Renard&diff=next&oldid=795452510 this diff], citing what they believed to be your intent. I will not be surprised if that gets reverted; it would be useful if you kept your eye on that. Given that this has been addressed, I am closing this. If somebody wants to talk about some other aspect, they can open a new thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
And now another RFC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Renard&diff=795418090&oldid=795412760] this is reaching tendentious editing now. One RFC is close and another (slightly differently worded) is opened up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Sorry, he actually has two ruining at once.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
I'm late to the party, and adding this comment only about the process; I have no particular opinion about the merits of this specific case, which appears to have been resolved. But: This sort of trainwreck is the very predictable consequence of an AfD that suggests a merge but that does not solicit any participation from the editors of the merge target. I have been repeatedly calling for some time now for it to be a required part of the process that any merge proposal in an AfD be accompanied by a notification on the talk page of the proposed merge target. Nothing like that can be seen at Talk:A Course in Miracles, except for the notice of the completed AfD. Having such notice, and having informed participation from the editors of A Course in Miracles over the question of whether including material about Renard is appropriate (rather than ramming it down their throats as the immutable result of a concluded AfD) would have helped a lot in this case, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:user:David Eppstein fwiw, in this instance Cunard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&type=revision&diff=794623726&oldid=791056235 added] content to the target article on 9 August 2017 and there was no objection. The AfD closed a full 4 days later. I don't understand whence the opposition arose; the protester has [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Unscintillating&page=A_Course_in_Miracles&server=enwiki&max= no edits] at the target article [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Unscintillating&page=Talk%3AA_Course_in_Miracles&max=500&server=enwiki nor any at its talk page], nor [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Unscintillating&page=Gary_Renard&max=500&server=enwiki any at the article] that was subject of the AfD nor [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Unscintillating&page=Talk%3AGary_Renard&max=500&server=enwiki its talk page prior to this]. baffling. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:Indeed. The target for the merge had already been well prepared by {{u|Cunard}}, and spelled out in that very AfD. I take your point that this is sometimes unclear, but in this case it was absolutely explicit. -- Begoon 13:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Irish troubles after end of block
{{atop|Apollo the Logician indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and talk page access revoked for continued personal attacks on other editors. Nothing more to do here. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)}}
{{lu|Apollo The Logician}}, having just come off a month's block for editing warring, proceeded to drop in a whole series of controversialist edits (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danu_%28Irish_goddess%29&type=revision&diff=795021216&oldid=794993399], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._S._Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=794993231], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._S._Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=794993338], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Casement&diff=next&oldid=795010399]) and creation of a tendentious category and a micro-article on one incident, all related to The Troubles and the Easter Rising. I'm simply a bystander in this, having come across the category creation first, but it seems to me that this is headed to a bad end if this user doesn't back off and, I would suggest, find some other topic on which to expend his energies. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::Wikipedia does not punish editors for controversial edits, only disruptive ones.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::: I was about to post much the same comment, but I see you've made the whole thing moot anyway. That was a rather obvious result. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Apollo just created {{U|Conchobar O Beig}} and {{U|Conchobar Ó Beig v 2.0}} and has used the first account to continue edit warring. I've blocked both of the sock accounts. Apollo copied their 1RR restriction to the Conchobar O Beig account, so I'm not sure whether they believed it was a clean start (which they aren't eligible for), or just messed up. Given the extensive block log and the creation of sock accounts to continue edit warring, I've blocked Apollo The Logician indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::Sigh. I had hopes that they could actually get past the warring and be a productive editor, as some of their edits were actually very useful. Unfortunately the battleground mentality and POV pushing seems to have been too ingrained. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::I support this block. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::Good block - blatantly WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and so on. Twitbookspacetube 04:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed an unhelpful comment at the bottom of Talk:Implicit and explicit atheism (09:19, 11 August 2017) shortly after it was made (diff). That is a non-actionable and vacuous complaint that has no effect other than to make a claim about consensus that might presumably be used in the future to justify "bold" edits on the article. Apollo is a net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- In light of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AApollo_The_Logician&type=revision&diff=795232555&oldid=795231317 this charming outburst], I've removed talkpage access—frustration from a blocked user is understandable and I always turn a blind eye to venting, but this was well over any conceivable line. By a very strict interpretation I could be considered WP:INVOLVED, having been on the receiving end of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AApollo_The_Logician&type=revision&diff=790056399&oldid=790056290 this charming comment] for daring to decline an unblock request during one of his many previous blocks; if any other admin does feel that removing talk page access was inappropriate you have my explicit consent to restore it without consulting me. ‑ Iridescent 22:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
Nurseline247 repeatedly reinstates content on multiple character lists, deletes warnings
{{archive top|result=(non-admin closure) User blocked per SPI case regarding them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Since they began editing last year, Nurseline247 has made a habit of adding unencyclopedic, frivolous and out-of-scope content to character lists and after it's reverted, they put it back in with misleading edit summaries. I typically veer away from bringing verified users to the noticeboard, but this is not an isolated incident and Nurseline247 has not heeded advice whatsoever-- they have only removed the warnings from their talk page and continued onward.
There are a number of pages in which this has played out. For example...
- Spider-Man in film: Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions. They've re-added the content with misleading edit summaries... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=783223259 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=783347502 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=786805018 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=786805018 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=787760080 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=787760080 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=791163747 7], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=791302389 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=791440297 9], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=791538181 10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=792092346 11] (I may have missed some).
- Beauty and the Beast: On this page, they keep on re-adding the Direct-to-Video specials that Disney produced that the other editors have reached a consensus not to include, but Nurseline247 apparently doesn't realize that... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=790721016 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=790721892 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=790837978 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=792957556 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=793148654 5]
- Alien (franchise)/List of Alien characters: Before the release of Alien: Covenant, Nurseline247 began adding the advertisements for the film to the franchise page and referred to them as "short films", which was way out of scope. After a number of editors, including myself, removed the content from the page, Nurseline247 simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Alien_characters&diff=791163602&oldid=790686051 re-added] it to the characters page list, which put it at risk of losing its Featured List status.
- Frozen (franchise): They keep adding out-of-scope content about Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2, despite that not being a part of the franchise. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=790843855 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=790852566 2]
- List of fictional shared universes in film and television: Nurseline247 apparently disagrees with the parameters of what a shared universe is, with other editors arguing it needs to have inter-connected concepts and characters... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=784093033&oldid=783984237 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=784143494&oldid=784137281 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=784272183&oldid=784211902 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=784347552&oldid=784300212 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=784537393&oldid=784387627 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=785047922&oldid=784918869 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=784595942&oldid=784537579 7], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=785069272&oldid=785063815 8]
- Arrowverse: Other editors argue that only characters that cross over between the series should be included, but alas... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=753335743&oldid=753036744 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=753683371&oldid=753527052 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=759221063&oldid=759219414 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=759559238&oldid=759449370 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=759559894&oldid=759559238 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=760214659&oldid=759957895 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=760217662&oldid=760214659 7], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=761352974&oldid=761160141 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=763363395&oldid=763340323 9], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=763561353&oldid=763554760 10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=779781296&oldid=779646508 11], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=782524610&oldid=782472367 12], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowverse&diff=782664492&oldid=782525068 13] and there are more, but I believe everyone can get the idea by this point...
Those are a few of the examples just right off the top, from the last month. Over the last two weeks alone, they have been warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=790723289&oldid=788178349 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=790854162&oldid=790723425 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791170533&oldid=790854162 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791171069&oldid=791170533 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791236259&oldid=791172020 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791351926&oldid=791236259 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791366419&oldid=791351926 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791443213&oldid=791366419 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=791493644&oldid=791443213 many] times- with several of those being final warnings- but it appears as if that doesn't warrant adjustment on their behalf. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:I was notified by the filer regarding the thread. I am dropping here my two cents since I am quite involved with the reported user. Nurseline247 has/had (I am unaware of their previous edits) of adding unsourced edits at Spider-Man: Homecoming. I got involved when I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=791165388&diff=prev this edit summary] on my watchlist. I have used Twinkle for three now and this statement was false right off the bat. I went out to correct the user per one of the diffs above. Going back, Nurseline247 made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=790978162&diff=prev bold edit] but was reverted. They then readded the content, which was reverted by me. This was a slow mo edit war per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=791297415&diff=prev this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=791437840&diff=prev this]. The content isn't exactly the same with every edit, but it was similar regarding the timeline. My issue with their edits there was that timelines should be discussed at the talk page. It involves original research and it's unsourced. Plus, a user can easily make a mistake with the timeline. I warned them and told them to take it to the talk page. They didn't feel like it. And it appears they were involved in other disruptive editing on other articles. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
::There had been problems with the addition of the name of a minor-level crewmember for the film Alien: Covenant being inserted into the cast section of the Alien franchise page. The name had been previously removed, but the editor Nurseline247 made → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_%28franchise%29&type=revision&diff=786797374&oldid=786438540 this edit] re-emplacing the name onto that page. I informed Nurseline247 that this was a crewmember's name which appears approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the screencredits for that film, and how that position within Covenant's screencredit hierarchy did not warrant the position Nurseline247 was attempting to place onto it by including it in the list. I went on to state on Nurseline247's talk page in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nurseline247&diff=prev&oldid=788178349#Including_minor_crew_members_from_Alien:_Covenant_in_charts_listing_major_cast_members edit here]that the person's role as movement artist in the production of Alien: Covenant was no more important than the hundreds of other artists, assistants, technicians, compositors, etc. found within the screencredits, and that including it in the article's cast list served only to inflate this person's contributions to the film. I ended by stating that it ought to be considered vandalism should that name reappear again on the list in the future. I never received a response on either Nurseline247's or my talk page. Recently, I noticed that what I had added to Nurseline247's talk page and several other editors had been removed (which is that user's right to do), although I placed the WP:OW template on Nurseline247's talk page to let future editors know that not only were my concerns and others deleted, but that they were left unaddressed by that editor. — SpintendoTalk 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:::It looks like since this was posted to the noticeboard, Nurseline247 has continued their behavior at the Aladdin (franchise) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) pages. The I.P. editor 86.46.205.88 added out-of-scope content, including short films, which was reverted at the Diary of a Wimpy Kid page. After Zucat [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diary_of_a_Wimpy_Kid_(film_series)&diff=793519987&oldid=793465691 reverted] them, Nurseline247 incrementally added the content back. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:While I have had my issues with Nurseline247 (mostly concerning shared universes), I think they can learn if they receive some appropriate punishment like a longer block.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
::If the editor is not willing to communicate, I think a block would be the appropriate action to take. This just might be another simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Jeez, how long has this been here? In my defense, my edits to Alien (franchise) restoring minor level crew member Badego was simply because the absence of a name meant the Character column did not line up with the Cast. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(franchise)&oldid=785944130), an dbecause I believed that Badego did indeed play a neomorph in the film. Now, in regards to Spider-Man: Homecoming, my edits there simply stated what year the film was set in, something I saw as necessary to clarify due to various online disputes I read about the topic. As I said in those edits, the criminal record of character Aaron Davis shows the film takes place in 2017, at least at that point in time, which ret. I'm not sure what the Arrowverse problem is exactly; from the links I viewed, I never added a non-Recurring character to that list. Are you talking about Constantine? Or maybe Harrison Wells?
:::::In regards to "Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions", I'm afraid that I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. What animated films? Since when have there ever been animated Spider-Man films outside of the Miles Morales one that was added to the page by someone else? Were you referring to the "Sony's Marvel Universe" films? True, it has yet to be confirmed whether Spider-Man will be in Venom or Silver and Black, but to my knowledge, it has yet to be denied either, hence why I put TBA. If it has been denied since I edited that page, my bad! Sorry about that.
::::Back to Alien (franchise), I changed "Short films" to "Promotional Short films", because that IS, in fact, what they were. The Prologues to Alien: Covenant had beginnings, middles and ends; none of the footage in them was intended to be in the final film.
:::::And I know exactly what makes a shared universe, The Earth Day Special and A Million Ways to Die in the West perfectly fit the definitions, as does Hercules and the Arabian Night. I'm sorry I don't atypically read my talk page by the way. But I did take note of what was written there before I cleared it up. Will clarify at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) that Class Clown is a short film. Thank you very much for your feedback.Nurseline247 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
{{unindent}}You've misremembered exactly what changes were made to that cast list. There has never been a dispute over the addition of Bolaji Badejo, rather, the revision that you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_%28franchise%29&type=revision&diff=786797374&oldid=786438540 shown here] is of a person whose name had been removed nine days prior to you adding it again. And while we have this rare opportunity to speak with you regarding your edits, could you possibly elaborate on your page moves [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinister_2&type=revision&diff=793464854&oldid=792865584 shown here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killer_BOB&type=revision&diff=793465973&oldid=793080970 here], one of which has already been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinister_2&type=revision&diff=793827966&oldid=793827590 reverted] and the other which was done w/o consensus? I ask because the reasoning behind your various article redirects performed over the past year (close to 80 of them) are rarely — if ever — expounded upon elsewhere. I believe it's these explanatory moves by you (or a lack thereof) which is bothersome, and that increasing the level of dialogue from you with your fellow co-editors on the changes you make would benefit us all.SpintendoTalk 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
::If you look at the poster for Sinister II, you will notice that it does NOT, say Sinister 2 but rather Sinister II. Back to the Future Part II isn't called Back to the Future Part 2 after all. I was just following what the poster said.
:::On Killer BOB, I wasn't aware of any consensus, it's just that any time I've seen BOB written in text on Twin Peaks, Fire Walk With Me or The Return, it's been in all caps rather than small. Even in that Diary of Laura Palmer book from a while back, BOB is never spelled with anything other than all caps. Are these explanations satisfactory?? Nurseline247 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
::::While you're justifying yourself here, you manage to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diary_of_a_Wimpy_Kid_(film_series)&diff=793892681&oldid=793669488 continue to edit war] with {{u|Zucat}} at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series), doing the exact same thing that prompted scores of warnings. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can comment mainly on the recent edits by Nurseline at Spider-Man in film (and also Spider-Man: Homecoming). At DarthBotto listed and linked, many of the edits to that article added or changed more than they described in the edit summary. While I am not as concerned by this, I am with what these extra edits include. Much of the time it was very excessive and unnecessary table coding, as well as WP:OR material regarding actors and characters they are playing. Also, regarding behavior of material at Spider-Man: Homecoming (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=791165388&diff=prev this edit]). Not only was this largely WP:OR, Nurseline attempted to source such claims with statements, not reliable sources. Nurseline was warned countless times regarding this behavior, and encourage to engage on talk pages (users or articles') but did not. These edits also alerted me to the user's behavior on other article that was very similar. I've sadly come to the conclusion that the edits by Nurseline are generally more disruptive than helpful and they ultimately may not be here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
::It is my understanding that consistency sets the agenda with regards to a film's nomenclature. In the case of Back to the Future, the sequels have been consistently set in Roman numerals in everything from posters to DVD clamshell packaging. This has not been the case with Sinister 2, as seen in packaging [https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1MndZQisDL._SL1500_.jpg used on Amazon] or in their promotional materials in [http://cdn1.gomoviesgo.com/movies/1232752772-poster-Sinister-2.jpg other languages]. In the case of Killer Bob, it would appear that a consensus should have been sought for the change you made simply due to the longstanding nature of it being disputatious. That being said, when one looks at the pendulum of editor preference for either style over the last 12 years of the article's existence (as shown below) it could be argued that the time had come for the pendulum to swing to the other, all-capitalized style. — SpintendoTalk 04:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
::# Killer BOB.....2005-2008
::# Killer Bob......2008-2012
::# Killer BOB.....2012-2016
::# Killer Bob......2016-2017
::# Killer BOB.....2017-????
Now you're [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=794500195&oldid=794404497 back at] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=794504023&oldid=794500195 re-implementing the contents] you added to List of fictional shared universes in film and television that were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_shared_universes_in_film_and_television&diff=785102533&oldid=785069272 previously deleted]? Do you have no respect for what people have been advising you about for months? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::Could @Nurseline247 please confirm whether or not they are editing under the username Impending IP? These two usernames share [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/?project=en.wikipedia.org&text=Nurseline247%0D%0AImpending+IP&begin=2017-01-01&end=&namespace=all&limit=50 similar edits] on similar subjects, even sharing the same idiosyncrasy of marking all edits as minor. Please clarify. — SpintendoTalk 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::The same goes for 86.46.205.88. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
{{unindent}}I don't mark ALL my edits as minor; at least I don't intend to. I have full respect for what people have been advising me about, thank you very much! I hadn't looked at the page List of fictional shared universes in film and television; and I saw what you were talking about in regards to certain things not being "shared universes". However, I noticed that several genuine shared universes were deleted from my initial edit, so I re-added them in a considerably neater way. Sorry for the inconvenience.
:Now, A shared universe is created when two or more characters come together into one film.
- Casper does exactly this; not only does it feature Ray Stantz alongside the title character, it features Father Guido Sarducci!
- Universal Monsters was connected by more than just "{{small|Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man}}"; as I put, it also connected Abbott and Costello and both Invisible Men.
- Annabelle, as of 2017, appears in 3 of the four films within the The Conjuring Universe; Ed and Lorraine Warren appear in 2.
- Hercules and the Arabian Night connects Aladdin and Hercules in the same way that Freddy vs. Jason connects Friday the 13th & A Nightmare on Elm Street. It features the characters Aladdin and Hercules and their respective supporting characters.
- Alex Kurtzman ({{small|director of The Mummy}}) confirmed that The Mummy (2017) was set in the same continuity as Stephen Sommers' The Mummy trilogy and its spin-offs, stating the films to be “part of the canon; we're just taking it somewhere new”.[http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/the-mummy/news/a830407/the-mummy-brendan-fraser-easter-eggs/ Exclusive: Why The Mummy needed Brendan Fraser trilogy Easter eggs, according to director Alex Kurtzman] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurseline247 (talk • contribs) 03:29, August 9, 2017 (UTC)
::::Now, A shared sockpuppet is created when two or more usernames come together under one editor who makes edits in their names.
::::I'll take your sidestep of my question (WP:IDHT) as confirmation that you're also editing under the username Impending IP. Of course, using multiple accounts is your own prerogative (WP:VALIDALT). The expectation is on you to clearly delineate on your various talk-pages that the other accounts exist, using the Alternative account template or other such notification, in order to ensure WP:SCRUTINY. Since you're experienced at page redirects, may I suggest that redirecting one of your account's talk pages to the other one would sufficiently act as notification to other editors.
::::However, I'm afraid that restrictions on crossover editing of articles and topics might prove too cumbersome for you — if not downright impossible — given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blair_Witch_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=794503812 this edit in particular]. Now that you've been informed of the expectations, I would note for future reference that any innocuous intentions expressed by you regarding crossover editing won't suffice as an excuse, and without any kind of alternative account notifications would likely be viewed unfavorably. — SpintendoTalk 21:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
{{unindent}}I've identified another account being used by Nurseline247 — TotalTruthTeller24. Here are [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/?project=en.wikipedia.org&text=Nurseline247%0D%0AImpending+IP%0D%0ATotalTruthTeller24&begin=2017-01-01&end=&namespace=all&limit=300 range contribution logs] for all three accounts. Again, the minor edit idiosyncrasy is key to identification. Similar to the previous two accounts Nurseline247 and Impending IP, TotalTruthTeller24's talk page is also heavily edited to remove what appears to be a continuous stream of complaints — much more so than the other two accounts. I've left AN/I notices on the two additional talk pages identified thus far. — SpintendoTalk 11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:In light of this, I will create an SPI case file for these users. I will link back to this discussion. {{ping|Spintendo}}, once this has been created, since you identified the socks, you should add specific diffs, if you can, between the three accounts to support this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::SPI has been created here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Reflist talk}}
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
Rangeblock question
{{archive top|}}
User:172.58.136.31 was just blocked for 2 days, after 30 attempts to add the same vandalism to various articles, whatever they were adding was bad enough that it was revdel'ed, then the IP began making unblock requests containing pornographic images, leading to the revocation of talk page access. I asked the blocking admin why the block was so short, the admin responded that it was a dynamic IP who is a known IP-hopping porn adder. The admin said blocking the whole range would also block innocent IPs, so the best he could do was a short block but the IP would probably be back to adding porn when his IP changes. So what is the policy on rangeblocks? if this isn't the time for a rangeblock then what is? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- The collateral damage is far too big. For example, from the 172.58.X.X range this month alone, there have been over 500 edits from around 100 different IP addresses, most of which weren't our vandal friend - who also edits from other parts of this network as well (it's 172.32.0.0/11, a huge range of over 2 million IPs; it's T-Mobile USA, I suspect their entire network). Some smaller targeted rangeblocks may have some effect, but they're not going to stop him, and anything will affect a number of innocent users. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::Makes sense, closing. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
possible sock at Xenios Thrasyvoulou
{{archivetop}}
An IP (31.6.8.158) has now twice removed a speedy deletion tag at Xenios Thrasyvoulou, this IP has not made any other edits and I suspect them to be a sock of User:Xenios55 (the creator of Xenios Thrasyvoulou who is continuing to edit the page). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:The page has been deleted by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:: looks delt with, the page has been deleted and I have explained to the user what was a violation of policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
{{Clear}}
Revdel?
{{atop|(non-admin closure)RevDel! Kleuske (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Hello.
{{userlinks|169.56.96.174}}
There may be reason to hide some revisions for this user.
Regards.
HandsomeFella (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:I suggest requesting action from somelist listed at :Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, {{u|HandsomeFella}}. Please see WP:REVDEL. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Already handled by {{u|Zzuuzz}} it seems. Alex ShihTalk 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
BLP violation
{{atop|(non-admin closure) Dealt with. Kleuske (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Could someone please revdel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Lewis&oldid=795492326 this] revision. Serious unsourced BLP violation. Home Lander (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Lewis&oldid=795307094 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Lewis&oldid=795358678 two] others. Home Lander (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{done}} - thanks User:Malcolmxl5. Home Lander (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
WP:IDHT behavior from Light show
{{archive top
| status = Topic banned
| result = Swiftly implementing the proposal not only because of the unanimous support here, but also because this has been a longstanding problem that has been addressed in a previous AN/I discussion back in April 2017 that lasted for three weeks, with the participation of the editor in question. The topic ban proposal at the time was not implemented due to lack of participation. If the consensus was not clear then, it is clear now and {{u|Light show}} have been topic banned indefinitely from any edits relating to biographies, broadly construed. This editing restriction has been logged here and the editor in question has been notified of this community decision. Alex ShihTalk 01:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
}}
{{User2|Light show}} is notorious for making disruptive edits on biographies as noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Disruptive editing by User: Light show (see that thread for extended details). His most recent campaign is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Chaplin&diff=795351318&oldid=795337836 beating a dead horse] on Talk:Charlie Chaplin where his points were already proven to be flawed via an RFC. He very obviously doesn't care about the valid counter-points raised and continues to insist his faulty edits are somehow worth keeping, and went so far to start another RFC. {{u|TrueHeartSusie3}} and {{u|We hope}} have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrueHeartSusie3&type=revision&diff=795460634&oldid=795401343 noted he should at least be topic banned from biographies given his past history], and possibly banned from Wikipedia altogether. Within the thread I linked above, a biography topic ban was previously proposed, but never got official closure. It's time to bring the matter up again and get this fully resolved. In short, I also support him being banned from biographical articles for his long-term WP:IDHT actions, and if problems go even further than they already have onto other subjects, then perhaps a full ban altogether. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support The problem has gone on for a long time at Chaplin and also at Marilyn Monroe as can be seen in the thread mentioned above. There were similar issues at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive854#Proposal:_Ban_User:Light_show_from_editing_at_the_Peter_Sellers_article Peter Sellers] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive266#Proposal_to_topic_ban_Light_show_from_Stanley_Kubrick_related_articles Stanley Kubrick] which resulted in topic bans from these articles. The editor is also topic banned from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:Light_show uploading any images] here at en:WP. How much longer do the editors of the Chaplin article need to put up with his complaints re: IDONTLIKEIT and his starting RfCs as an attempt to force content to reflect his views? We hope (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support, per SNUGGUMS and We hope. A second RfC on the same topic so soon after the previous one is par for the course for this particular editor, I am afraid to say. If there is no topic ban, I suspect it would not be long until another 'variation on a theme' thread is started if this RfC fails (as it should do). - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Dennis, you commented in the previous ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support a ban from Chaplin...It's not something I like to see happen and it's not something I feel good about, but he really has been relentlessly negative and difficult with the article. It's been going on for four years now. There have been numerous times when we've tried to explain and/or compromise but he continues pushing the same issues, even though the article was thoroughly researched and went through three extensive review processes. It's started to feel like trolling. --Loeba (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per the dob fiasco at Lee Grant (see Talk:Lee Grant#Precise age?). That discussion went beyond satire. It was fairly straightforward and should have been resolved within an evening but instead went on for over two years and 100kB of discussion. The discussion ended up being three times as big as the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support a ban from all biographies - a look at any of the talk pages above will quickly show what a timesink this editor has been over a long period. The Kubrick ANI, linked above, shows that this is a continuing issue - it was closed by Callannec with "Light show is warned that if they continue this disruptive behaviour the ban may be extended or they may be blocked or banned indefinitely". It is time for this to end; it is completely unfair to other editors on these articles to continue to have to put up with this disruption. I will say that this would be really unfortunate, because LS also does some great, uncontentious work on biographies, but I think two BIO topic bans (plus the image one) is probably enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per SNUGGUMS. The last ANI discussion turned into quite the cluster, and we don't need a repeat of that. It's obvious that Light Snow still does not get it, and the amount of disruption that their actions are presenting to the community has become a detriment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support then as now, for the reasons I stated then. I've been busy, I'm shocked it didn't get implemented at the other ANI. I still feel there is an indef on the way, but a topic ban is a way to prove me wrong if they can get along in other areas. Ban wording should included all biographical edits in addition to biographical articles. I would assume that is what everyone is thinking (ie: broadly construed). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Supportper Black Kite and Rick and Dennis. (That's a trifecta I don't think I've ever invoked...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support this has gone on too long and in too many places. WP:IDHT has been the response. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support Ban from all biographies and biographical edits broadly construed. (EG no editing about subjects of biographies on other articles that may mention them etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Dennis Brown, MarnetteD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Snuggums and everyone else who recognizes this is a long-term, seemingly never-ending issue. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
Strangely compromised page
Hi there,
On the page for North Korea, there appears to be some compromise that's only affecting the current version. There's an image element on the page which is 7000x7000, linking to the user "lrhlive" on Twitch. Here's the HTML in question:
I've saved the source of the page, in case you guys can't see the problem on your end. I can only see the problem in the rendered HTML; there doesn't appear to be any injected scripts causing the issue, and it's not visible in the wiki source code.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&type=revision&diff=794953630&oldid=794895481
Yonisyuumei (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{Done}} - Someone reverted however I should point out that this edit was done way before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&diff=790438092&oldid=789396069 13 July] and yet seemingly it was never noticed ? ... saying that it took 3-4 page refreshes for the link to actually work but seems bizarre no one noticed a thing for nearly a whole month ? –Davey2010Talk 03:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::Same thing's happened at Japan. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::There has been an editor making a spree of changes adding that sort of thing. Anyone wanna check the other pages? --Tarage (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::The only editor I could find whose edits were causing those changes was {{u|GodenDaeg}}, but I can't see how (the edits are just adding IPA for country names), I see other edits of his that don't have that effect, and he's got over a year of apparently good faith edits. As such, I don't see it being GodenDaeg, even though reverting that edit happened to undo the problem. Another user has asked him to check for malware. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I saw that was the edit causing the problem as well (it was the latest revision at the time), but the rendered HTML included the image element and link. Could be something more sinister going on. Yonisyuumei (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::The change causing the problem wasn't to that article, but one that gets pulled in. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/North_Korea Here's a hint], anything more is just WP:BEANS. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I think I see what happened. Thanks for the swift resolution. Yonisyuumei (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Gah, that's sneaky. Apologies to {{u|GodenDaeg}} who was only doing proper edits. --Tarage (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::Just to note, the edit that caused this problem was done recently - WP:BEANS and all that, but a common approach. May make sense for a filter to look at edits to a certain namespace where an image is added with an unusual size. Ravensfire (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::The problem seems to have vanished as mysteriously as it arrived. Definitely nothing to do with anything that {{u|GodenDaeg}} did, that was just coincidence. Likewise {{u|Ravensfire}}'s hypothesis that it was linked to the North Korea article is also not the case, as country sites not linked in any way were affected, including Italy and countries listed below. Reverting specific edits fixed the problem, with the archived pages having the problem, but now the archived pages are fixed as well. I suspect a back end problem unrelated to any edits that anyone is doing, but that the problem became actualised with edits to a page. It looks like Wikipedia has fixed the problem for now. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::It's a known vector for vandalism that's happened before, there's nothing mysterious about what happened or anything wrong in the MediaWiki code. It was reverted and rev-del'd, but the hints I posted above should give folks a hint about what happened. Anything more is WP:BEANS as I've already said. Ravensfire (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: {{u|Ravensfire}}, I take it that you know a lot more about this than you are letting on? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::It's not a real big secret. Template vandalism. See my comment below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Thankyou for clearing that up. I will know what to do in future. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ravensfire}} Security through obscurity is no security at all. It's not going to stop a determined malicious user and it's just confusing for the rest of us. For anyone else reading this: someone edited a common template to add malicious HTML code that would cover affected pages with a transparent linked image. If this can be done for one template it can be done for another. Now that we know this vulnerability exists, how do we prevent it from being exploited again in future? 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::The obvious solution would be to fully protect all templates that are so widely used. And I thought that was already done! Twitbookspacetube 07:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I completely agree that "Security through obscurity is no security at all". On the other hand, I was forced, through circumstance, to leave a front door key in an undisclosed location for someone who needed access recently. I should, and will, find a better way to deal with that. In the meantime, while the key was still there, should a friend have known where I concealed it, I'd still have preferred they didn't just twitter said location. I'm funny like that. -- Begoon 11:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::@IP, I completely agree about obscurity is not security, but that's not what's happening here. Security would be using Begoon's solution. I was trying not to "wave the red flag in front of the bull". Someone with half a brain already knows what to do here, but the casual vandal probably doesn't. So I'd prefer not to give every bored person reading Wikipedia detail instructions. As I said, this isn't new, and has been done quite a few times on far, far more visible pages (think main page). Ravensfire (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I saw this vandalism several hours ago and created a Twitch account to inform the streamer through twitch chat. Interestingly, while the viewers and moderator seemed thankful for the fix, claiming that they were framed, the streamer claimed that he hated Wikipedia and said that he would like to "fight every Wikipedia administrator in a ring". I have reported the streamer on twitch, though I doubt it will do anything. Since there are still readers encountering the vandalism, perhaps purging all pages that transclude the template will help, but I don't have the technical knowledge to do so nor ascertain whether such an action will help or not. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
= Edits to various nations redirecting to twitch.tv account. =
Copy/pasted from an Admin Help template I wrote up a minute ago:
First of all, I'm totally new to the Wikipedia editing business, so please forgive any errors I've made in etiquette or judgement. I recently discovered that the Wikipedia pages for Afghanistan, Algeria, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Chad, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Gambia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Korea, Nepal, and Norway have been vandalized in a bizarre manner. Somebody has put a blank png image that redirects to a twitch.tv account on each of these pages. The image may be present on other non-nation wikipedia pages, I only the pages in the Wikipedia List of sovereign states. These changes do NOT seem to be the work of a wikipedia editor, it seems to me that somebody has actually edited the code of the website without using an account. Here is a screenshot of the html code I found on the wikipedia page for India: https://i.imgur.com/FqJFs5O.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graxwell (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:Just to note (this isn't made entirely clear in the thread above) that there was some vandalism to a template earlier, which has since been fixed. It may take a little time for cached versions to flush out of the internet - you might want to refresh your cache. Editors noticing such things in the future might want to check for recent changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=newbie&namespace=10 using this link]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|zzuuzz}} Would it be a good idea to add "
:::I don't see why not. The chances are that we won't see it again, but I don't see why not. Allow me. And if there's any advanced edit filter managers around, we could do with some extra problem solving abilities (all relevant information is obvious). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::We should report the vandalism to Twitch, maybe they can ban the user. 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Excuse me for being cynical but one thing you learn as a Wikipedia admin is that bans are rarely fully effective (QED). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::And they haven't actually done anything wrong in Twitch's eyes. Just advertising their stream. On Wikipedia though... Whole different story. Anyway. The page has been fixed, the edits have been revdel'd and the stream has been blacklisted. Time for a close? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::A close? Well, ok, but only if you think we should leave this HOWTO unfinished, without an actual, detailed and itemised, bullet-pointed, step by step walkthrough on one of our most visible pages.-- Begoon 10:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Problems still persist at Korea. Jarkeld (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:The problem has been fixed. Try purging your cache by pressing Ctrl+F5. The vandalism was made to {{redact}} and reverted at 3:50 12 August 2017 (UTC).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Good faith withstanding
{{u|RudolfRedNose}} has been making contentious edits on an article page of a BLP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ewen_Southby-Tailyour&action=history]; and has a history of multiple accounts at WP: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RudolfRedNose]. Recently, they have removed a COI tag on said article with no edit summary or Talk Page reason. I have invited other IP / editors to the Talk Page, but without success. There are multiple IP addresses with COI at present; and I feel that in addition to blocking; there may need to be a protection placed on this page until matters are resolved involving the disputed content. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
: I'll comment on this at WP:BLP/N. Whatever the material at issue is, it should not be included in the article until that discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected for a week to protect the article from BLP violations and edit warring from IPs and new accounts but dearie me, there's barely a reliable source in that article and that is going to have be sorted out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
CanterburyUK's conduct regarding [[Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn]] and [[Jeremy Corbyn]]
The issue mainly consists of contentious coatrack content User:CanterburyUK is adding on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Syria.
This IP edits were twice reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=793116315&oldid=793081299 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=793310520&oldid=793301236 here].
The user twice restored it against WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN whilst a talk page discussion was ongoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=794403462&oldid=794249739 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=794824973&oldid=794764402 here]. Multiple editors (User:Dtellett, User:Seagull123, User:Govindaharihari, User:The Four Deuces) have disagreed with the content stating reasons regarding the nature of the content, its sources, or both.
He/she removed tags which were added to help resolve the issues and restored the claim that the quote supports that Corbyn "defended fighters returning from Syria" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=795099063&oldid=795046415 here].
Regarding his/her conduct, the user made a WP:NPA accusation of hypocrisy against me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=794825721&oldid=794825275 here]. I made him/her aware of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and that this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=794983100&oldid=794929892 here], he/she again made the same claim here albiet although wording it as "people might view this as hypocritical" to cover himself/herself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=795080769&oldid=795017190 here].
The editor is not a new user, has been editing for nine years although, strangely, he/she barely has 250 edits to his/her name. I appreciate he/she may not be fully aware of all the rules and guidelines, however, he/she has been editing long enough to learn. It would appear that he/she has an WP:NOTHERE agenda to not build an encyclopedia but to add as much negative information about Jeremy Corbyn on Wikipedia against the community consensus formed on talk pages and with an WP:IDHT approach with other editors. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the section you highlighted failed WP:SYNTH and have redacted it from the article under WP:BLP. Other than that, I'm afraid you will have to argue it out in the talk page. --John (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::The consensus appears to have been formed with numerous, experienced editors (some of whom are involved in editing the article) providing detailed, insightful reasoning why the content isn't appropriate for the article. However, I believe the editor has editwared his/her preferred version of the article by restoring the problematic, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV content into the article as well as libellous bias and misrepresentation of sources.
::Also, his insults were unbecoming of a talk page discussion let alone Wikpedia, I believe this needs addressing too. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
117.247.155.234 changing articles to British English and date formats in contravention to [[MOS:ENGVAR]] and [[MOS:DATERET]]
Assistance is requested with {{User|117.247.155.234}} who is changing date formats in contravention to MOS:DATERET. I tried to engage at User talk:117.247.155.234#Varieties of English and date formats, but the problem is worse now. Recent examples can be found at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Spassky&curid=63280&diff=795345891&oldid=795333783 "Shuld not force US system onto a Russian article"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aron_Nimzowitsch&curid=2812&diff=795345391&oldid=795343532 "Unwantes US imperialism"] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tigran_Petrosian&curid=149168&diff=795345292&oldid=795343672 "This format is only used in the USA so inappropriate for this article"]. Quale (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I should note that many editors have difficulty understanding that MOS:TIES applies only to subjects with strong national ties to an English-language country. Russian and Danish subjects would not normally fall under this. For example, most Russian and Armenian persons would write dates in Cyrillic, which doesn't control English wikipedia usage. Quale (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
: The IP has not edited (17:13) since your warning to 'stop' (17:37) so perhaps he has got the message. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Legal threat about a BLP
Hi administrators. {{u|MiInReAs}} has just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Ibold&diff=795476971&oldid=795475578 made a legal threat] towards me, for removing material from a BLP article, James Ibold, which our discussion had determined came from personal notes on the subject rather than published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:Blocked by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Sorry to hear that. I have courtesy blanked the legal threat and blocked the user while leaving a note to ask for clarification on the intention ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MiInReAs&diff=795478103&oldid=795477601]). Alex ShihTalk 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks, {{u|Alex Shih}}. I suspect that the user has an undisclosed COI, because I don't see how someone who doesn't know the subject personally would have access to some of the information and images they have posted. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:Someone want to revdel that Lawyer's address? Its probably his business, but no need to have a real person's info stuck in our history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::Got it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Cristo39 and [[WP:NOTFORUM]]
{{atop|(non-admin closure) Blocked 72 hrs, by Alex Shih, per WP:NOTHERE. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Cristo39}}
I'm not even sure this belongs here since it's not that big of a deal, but Cristo39 made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_pride&diff=795581679&oldid=795529507 this] comment on Talk:White pride, which I reverted since it was not aimed at improving the article (per WP:NOTFORUM). I made my issues known in the edit summaries and also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cristo39&diff=795595069&oldid=199983346 notice to the user]. I don't feel like dealing with an edit war, so can someone intervene since it appears this user is not here to help. Thanks. nihlus kryik (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:Just noting that Cristo hadn't edited for about 6 years, then comes back only to push his view on a talk page in an area they hadn't edited before. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Doug beat me to it EvergreenFir (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"Push his view". Look at all the requests for edits. There's a picture making the rounds on social media making Wikipedia a laughingstock for unbalanced views. Since you all seem to be admins and spend your lives on here, you guys are probably more fit to realize there's a bit of a problem. Chop chop, get to work. Cristo39 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Request that editors persisting in personalizing edit difference be warned to desist
I came back from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216#Nishidani 1 month block] undertaking to hew strictly to the letter of the WP:AGF law. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, the following style of insinuating views about my motives from edit to edit started.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794444438&oldid=794401129 like how certain people who complain often about tag teaming seem to think it's ok for them to do here, NMMGG’s first edit]. I.e. Huldra and I are tag-teaming.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794467866&oldid=794466005 Nishidani practices lawfare in editing] François Robere
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794467866&oldid=794466005 Nishidani seems to have no idea how Wikipedia should work] François Robere
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794467866&oldid=794466005 Nishidani seems to have no idea (about) the subject matter] François Robere
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794467866&oldid=794466005 I've challenged him (Nishidani) on both, and got only a handful of snarky comments] François Robere.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794535283&oldid=794516958 Your being ignorant of a subject doesn't make it obscure]. No More Mr Nice Guy.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=794615696&oldid=794607652 NMMGG then took me to AE], fully aware I had reverted an editor who had broken 1R, and who had refused to self-revert. I did not care to make this an AE matter. Notwithstanding this he argued that I was guilty of breaking the spirit of the IR rule, though I had observed it strictly. The case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nishidani_2 was dismissed], with the closing admin protecting the page for 3 days and stating:’ If disruption continues once protection express, please let me know or bring it back here.’
I regard the following style of comment, following that closure, as disruptive. Robere has generally taken the advice there on board. NMMGG persist in, as far as I can see it, trying to niggle away by baiting his comments with sneers that personalize differences in reading the evidence. Every comment I make on policy or evidence is glossed as suspect because of some putative ulterior motive.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794699755&oldid=794695083 Oh, and stop being a hypocrite. You're perfectly at ease "complicating analysis of source work" when it serves your purpose.] François Robere.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794707395&oldid=794703255 Nishidani is trying to use semantics to block a legitimate edit here] No More Mr Nice Guy.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794741752&oldid=794717932 my request he desist met with a quip regarding advice I gave to another edit to not repeat an error of writing too much, namely]
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794773025&oldid=794757954 Was that an attempt a humor or just a complete lack of self-reflection? Serious question.] No More Mr Nice Guy
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794882283&oldid=794881727 I also support FR's version. I also find the phrase "canvasing on this page" very funny. There has been consensus building. Just not the consensus you want]. No More Mr Nice Guy. Why I am singled out, is unclear. There is no consensus between the disagreeing editors, only among one party of editors agreeing among themselves, which is not 'consensus building'.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795041190&oldid=795033418 I agree with everything Icewhiz said about sources above, and have seen Nishidani make the exact same argument when it suited him.] No More Mr Nice Guy (Unlike all other editors my arguments are not focused on the topic and evidence, but on some desire to have the evidence suit my personal feelings/beliefs
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795047238&oldid=795046466 I replied:'Another AGF violation. I don't make edits which 'suit me' (sneering at bona fides) I strive to make edits that 'suit' the complexity of the sources. Please focus on this, not the editor. I know you dislike me, but you don't have to rephrase this contempt in every other comment.]
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795061430&oldid=795057823 NMMGG replies by trawling up two diffs from 2 years ago to question my editorial bona fides forever after that dispute]. Trying to stir an argument by dragging up old diffs when we have complex edits to make is, again, disruptive.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795065513&oldid=795065165 I ask him again to desist, and focus on the edits we are discussing].
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795066995&oldid=795065752 NMMGG won’t listen, states I raised the ‘topic’ (what topic?), and assures me he will keep doing what I asked him to drop doing], commenting personally.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795066995&oldid=795065752 As usual, all you had to do is not bring it up. I will continue to feel quite free to respond to any topic you bring into the conversation.]
p.s. as the page protection lapses, an editor about to edit states:
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=795153040&oldid=795152741 Regardless, I'll try to push this between reverts. I doubt Nishidani will accept it, as it's 'not grammastical' and not supported by sources]
Tone might be piddling, that's why I've brought this here, but the tenor of this hostility and insistent distraction from the technical issues (I brought in 15 sources, and their evidence was met with silence, as this ribbing kept up) to guess what my motives are, or intentions are, is self-evident. I don't mind being sanctioned for not observing protocols to the letter: but that is no reason for other editors to persist in badgering me, for one, to see if they can stoke up a reaction. It's very easy to just discuss evidence and policy, and when an experienced editor keeps sneering despite repeated requests that he drop it, the implication is that he does it to a purpose that has little to do with the merits of any article issue. I ask he be given a last warning. It's not a luxury he alone may indulge himself in while the other editors are muzzled by a strict commitment to AGF.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
: Based on the talk page, I feel Nishidani should be included in any warnings. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:This complaint is obviously without merit. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::Actually it is a complaint based on policy, one that at AE and here is regarded as crucial in a topic area where conflict is commonplace.
::My complaint regards the specific policies at
::
Wikipedia:No personal attacks The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
::For one, dragging up diffs from 2015 to undercut my credibility in 2017 is to reintroduce off-topic an issue from the past, rather than address the issue I was trying to explain (to a third party, not to NMMGG). Kibitzing in this personal mode is disruptive, because it draws the focus off the problem, and makes out the editor is problematical (and therefore not to be taken seriously by the third party). Reread the flow, this is what was going on.
::And at WP:AVOIDYOU You are consistently referring to me, with a dismissive tone of malice, in the second person, rather than focusing on the technical merits of the problems raised. I’d brought 20 sources to the page, mostly ignored while NMMGG kept talking about me. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::You keep bringing stuff up, and I respond to that. You brought up your bona fides, I noted those include falsifying sources on the article we were discussing. You said something about me disliking you, I noted that on the very same talk page, you made fun of two people who were lynched and mutilated and then called another editor and me racist. There's a lesson here that you for some reason refuse to learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I don't 'bring stuff up'. I add, invariably, numerous RS to every page I edit. I didn't bring up my bona fides. You challenged it by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching#please_refrain_from_editing_.28and_following_me_around.29_if_you_can.27t_do_elementary_homework linking to a discussion] in 2015, repeating the bizarre assertion here that I mocked the slaughtered and called two people racists. I would have been banned had that been, not your contention, but a verifiable fact. You brought up your contention about my assumed contempt for the dead in 2015, I didn't. We are editing in 2017, not dwelling on the past, and policy explicitly tells us to deal with present content issues, rather than nag the bone of the pastNishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
: Nishidani's very first interaction with me was a needless reversion; the second was a 1RR violation notice. He then proceeded to revert every single edit I made on that page in the coming week, and engaged in rather tedious and lengthy discussions on eg. the semantic differences between "erred", "took the wrong turn" and "accidentally" - neither of which he was willing to accept. He has, while doing so, peppered his comments with policy references (NPOV, OR, 1RR...) and little lessons for other, not the least inexperienced editors, which he himself would disregard when given a chance. Were it not for other editors such as No More Mr Nice Guy and Kingsindian, a lesser editor than this humble Wikipedian might have been pining for the fjords by now. On these grounds I stand behind each and every one of my comments; do with it as you please. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Robere. This was discussed at AE, and there is no need to rehash it here. I have no issue with you. I cited your comments before the AE case, and noted they rapidly dwindled after that case was closed. The last one is an understandable lapse. NMMGG's persistence in sneering is not a lapse, but continual and defiant of all requests that he desist.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: Before this request came along, I had been thinking of having a word with NMMNG myself, as I have indeed had in the past. If {{u|Nishidani}} thinks that the issue is really with NMMNG (I agree) and not Francois Robere, I suggest that this ANI request be withdrawn: I will talk it over with Nishidani and open an AE request focusing on NMMNG myself if Nishidani still feels like it after our discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy#You_and_AE Here] is the discussion KI had with me on my talk page, for ease of reference. Interestingly, it too involves a certain someone falsifying sources and pushing a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I brought it here to avoid AE. I'm not out to get anyone. It's not hard to write impersonally: I have adopted this, after two sanctions, and I think it fair that NMMGG be told with some severity that he must focus on productive discussions on the merits of edits, rather than adopting a sneering tone, with remarks that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Here are a couple of examples from the past couple of days of you "writing impersonally": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794862659&oldid=794860505] (compare with your complaint above that I said you're trying to block a legitimate edit) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794757360&oldid=794751869]. Although I suppose it's an improvement over, say, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians&diff=727348493&oldid=727348226 this] followed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians&diff=727494510&oldid=727455079 this], just as an example off the top of my head. By the way, I wonder how you manage to get the acronym of my handle wrong so often? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: Looks to me like it's just you two talking to each other. Nothing going to come of this, at least nothing good. It might be best if you two simply ignore each other. It's not a perfect solution, but might work to keep the peace, while not much of value will be lost; since there are other people on the talkpage who you can respond to. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::: That's the best possible advice I can imagine under these conditions, Kingsindian, but even with long experience of having seen that particular piece of advice being handed out (often in this particular space), I have scarcely ever seen it recognized by the involved parties as their best solution. As to my impression of the specific issues, a review of that talk page suggests both editors are approaching this conflict less than ideally. I'm sure everyone is already aware, but since it hasn't been mentioned in any active discussions on that talk page (and given the heat there), I feel everyone should be reminded that this area falls under WP:Discretionary sanctions. Snow let's rap 06:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Please note however that NMMGG brings up again evidence from my preban remarks - he's dragging up the past, and the one remark that is not impersonal dating to the period after my ban has nothing to do with him. It's inappropriate by my own criteria, which I adopted because that was the advice at AE twice this year. I've undertaken since my ban to refrain from what comes naturally, quipping sardonically, and have not done so in NMMGG's regard: he persists. Judgement begins when one, regardless of all else, discriminates to see if differences exist. To waive away a state of evident conflict by saying, 'well, you're all the same' is to suspend judgement and therefore refuse to offer concrete advice to either or both parties. I don't mind being counseled. I do think it unhelpful that no advice is given. As to approaching a topic less than ideally, bringing 15 sources to the page to have them analysed, offering to summarize all of the contradictions in the evidence to allow the other editors to tweak or adjust (i.e. 'work) and sniping or sneering by editors who don't appear to look at the new evidence, cannot be collapsed as both equally acting in a 'less than ideal' manner. That is meaningless. I've tried to turn over a new leaf, and the other chap appears to be raking over mulch. All I request is that he be told to drop the overt hostility. I can live with hostility between the lines, but policy says you shouldn't adopt it openly as the default mode with other editors. In short I'm quite happy to live under any rigid AGF protocol, but I wish this to be seen to apply to all parties, and, here, specifically to NMMGG. Since my past weighs heavily here, one should note he once stated that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=685909885 AGF is not a suicide pact]. But lack of good manners has never been interpreted as an exigency for survival, at least on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
As a third party, I am perplexed at how long Nishidani and No More Mr Nice Guy have gone at one another over a period of years without an interaction and/or topic ban. Both users have been blocked recently for violating the 1RR of WP:ARBIPA. François Robere and Nishidani both violated the {{xt|If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours}} remedy on 2000 Ramallah lynching [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=793715445&oldid=776130229] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=793723715&oldid=793715445] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=793847164&oldid=793723715] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=793897441&oldid=793847164] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=next&oldid=793897441] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=794326740&oldid=794119014] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=next&oldid=794326740] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=next&oldid=794519638]. GoldenRing handled the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=794721787#Nishidani_2 most recent AE], but it appears their hope for getting along didn't last. I could see recommending dispute resolution, but I fully believe that would wasted at this stage. Someone with more experience is needed to handle this, but I just wanted to make sure other readers are aware of the recent events. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::I appreciate the work you put into this, which shows scruple for evidence. However several things are wrong there. I did not break 1R. Robere did, and NMMGG tried to get me sanctioned at AE for what he tolerated in Robere's editing, when it did not apply to my edits.
::Whoever looks at this should examine matters chronologically, starting from the premise of my complaint. I was sanctioned, and undertook to drop any tone that could be construed as lacking WP:AGF, i.e., to use impersonal language. I have done so since, save for a lapse, not with regard to NMMGG. At AE this year, not only regarding myself but several others, I/P editors were warned that Discretionary Sanctions were in place, that no breach of them would be tolerated, and that these articles would be carefully followed to see that this stringent ruling was adhered to. I can't see any evidence of administrative oversight since my return: I see evidence, mustered above, of personalizing issues. Now, not to make a call on the evidence at that talk page since 9 August, is to leave ambiguity in the air. It is not a matter of sanctions: it is a matter of laying down the law in a way that applies to all editors, not just myself. It is unfair for me to work under that strict reading, while other editors feel free to snipe. I have been asked to keep my remarks impersonal, and I have since the recent AE block expired. I don't see this assiduous attention to my verbal lapses in the past being applied to everyone on these pages. It's humiliating to have to bring this piddling issue up, but I just want NMMGG and whoever else to work under the same stylistic conditions I am (happily) obliged to work under. The past is dead and buried, at least for me, and dragging it up disorients judgement. NMMGG's 'evidence' even here, all predates my sanction: he won't drop it, and I am simply asking that he be reminded that the explicit policy I cited applies also to him. It's not 'taking sides'. It is establishing parity and neutrality. If it does (which at the moment it doesn't seem to), then this board will be saying,'NMMGG's personalization of the issues' is within some limit, and he may persist in adopting the tone he has decided to use over the last few days' (the tone he has always used, and which, in the past I used as well). Parity in working conditions is all I am asking for, nothing else. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{xt|If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours}} is a remedy beyond 1RR. When François Robere reverted you, you reverted him within hours. By doing so, you were in active violation of the Arbitration remedy. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::You disagree with arbitrators. I've read your remark. There is no need to repeat it.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:Its clearly that Nishidani gamed 1RR and reverted just few hours after the limit he also broke ARBCOM restriction when he reverted François like Nihlus Kryik pointed out.François didn'ht broke 1RR as its not clear to what version he reverted too and by my reading his first edit was just an edit and not revert.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::Excuse me. I ask for attentive independent admins who understand policy, and have wide experience, to discuss evidence. I am not interested in opinions, distractions, misreadings, nor is, I hope, anyone else.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Anyone is able to comment here. Just because you don't like what I or others are saying does not mean you should be dismissive. WP:BOOMERANG. I'd call on the admins to summarily enforce the Arbitration remedy (as written) that has been violated as it is clear Nishidani refuses to see any error on his part. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::I'ver ratched up around 57,00 edits over 11 years, created roughly 270 articles, and make content edits, introducing in the main what the best available academic opinion has to say about any topic. I don't sit on articles, revert, quip, tweak. I (re)write them with a view to encyclopedic comprehensiveness. Anyone can edit. Anyone can have an opinion. I think it helps if editors actually show a willingness to work hard, and constructively, otherwise this place becomes a pastime, a game. I know the rules, and obey them. I specialize in people who are on the receiving end of colonial development, and expect that the same principles apply to the I/P area that apply elsewhere, where I am very rarely reverted or attacked. It's a tedious burden but I will not renounce my right to apply there the standards I used everywhere, Australians do not get upset when I write up their history of dispossession: it's known, recognized and accepted as a fact. In the I/P area you have to work for days to get an obvious fact in. It's that simple. I don't see why that area should have taboo status, and lead admins to despair. I'm asked to hew to rigorous standards of AGF. Fine. Apply exactly that principle to everyone. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Correct, which is why I pointed out the problematic behavior of other editors as well. However, your edit count means absolutely nothing to me; it does not negate the obvious edit war you took part in. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Also, since you do edit elsewhere, why don't you just avoid the caustic environment of Israeli-Palestinian articles altogether? It seems it would be in your best interest for multiple reasons. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::My best interests are not served by working for Wikipedia. I have to turn off 90% of ability to think, research and write in order to conform and contribute. In the real world, one has known peers to assess one's abilities. It's a happy pushover there.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: Why is the AE case being relitigated here? I suggest that Nishidani stop defending themselves in a case where a ruling was already made. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: I agree. If Nishidani wishes a discussion from only administrators, with no comments from lowly rank-and-file nobodies (who might contaminate the process with their torch-and-pitchfork-wielding ignorance) then they should file an appeal at AE, or otherwise shut the hell up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::I didn't do that for several reasons: there's a lot of complaints at AE recently that look retaliatory, and NMMGG just had me there. I dislike giving the impression that this is an abuse of administrative time just to 'get back'. I don't want NMMGG 'punished'. Wordsmith and GoldenRing repeatedly said personalizing discussions at I/P would be hit by a hammer: I guess they don't read those pages, but wait till a complaint is filed. Second. I'll let out a big secret. I don't know how to formulate an AE request. I'm a complete fucking ignoramus regarding anything to do with anything but the simplest formatting. Anyway, I've better things to do.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::So go do them, and stop bitching. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Lucky man. I can't even get away with exclaiming remonstratively 'For fuck's sake' without it being used in an indictment.:)Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You could have alerted your volunteer meatpuppet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=790566857&oldid=790566258][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Debresser&diff=790591501&oldid=790585309]. He's the top non-admin contributor to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Which illustrates my point. yourvolunteer meatpuppetNishidani (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::He explicitly told you that if you have a problem with other editors, you should tell him and he'll do the reporting (implying that you may lose your temper). How would suggest phrasing that information differently? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} As I say elsewhere, this request is likely to go nowhere. For the article itself, following full-protection (and its subsequent expiration), a draft which I had proposed has been accepted by all sides as a starting point, and further discussion on the disputed points is going on in the sections here and here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Chelisuk - Competency Issues
{{userlinks|Chelisuk}}
I have had experience with this editor before. I noted they added a cite to British naval forces in the Falklands War claiming 400 Hong Kong Chinese served as crew for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the Falklands War. To anyone familiar with the conflict this is indeed a rather bold claim to make, there were a few HK chinese laundrymen but they didn't crew whole RFA. So I checked the citation and noted it was a history of the RFA from 1905 to 1950. The Falklands War was in 1982. So I removed the cite, Chelisuk immediately edit wars it back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War&type=revision&diff=795332597&oldid=795297688].
So I ask him how the cite supports his claim User talk:Chelisuk#August 2017, his response is very odd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChelisuk&type=revision&diff=795346639&oldid=795342700 "People cite books all the time without having to justify it."]. He links to a google books page, which only confirms what I thought [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pR3OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=rfa+chinese+crew&source=bl&ots=nfUP1woscK&sig=GEJIC3nXDexqG74drwLF3FgCauA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrN6Qi_PUAhUMJ8AKHYOLAsMQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=rfa%20chinese%20crew&f=false] the cite doesn't support his edit. The page is referring to the inter-war period.
I don't understand if he genuinely believes that this edit is acceptable but there appears to be serious WP:COMPETENCE issues here if he does. WCMemail 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:: I included two references, a book, History of the RFA from 1905 to 1950, Amongst other things, the book states 'Round Table class ships, which were exclusively manned by Hong Kong Chinese ratings from their first introduction in 1963 until 1989, when Sir Lancelot paid off as the last RFA crewed by ratings of this nationality.' The period 1963 to 1989 includes the 1982 Falklands War. Here is the link:- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pR3OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=rfa+chinese+crew&source=bl&ots=nfUP1woscK&sig=GEJIC3nXDexqG74drwLF3FgCauA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrN6Qi_PUAhUMJ8AKHYOLAsMQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=rfa%20chinese%20crew&f=false
::I should make clear that all six Round Table-class landing ship logistics ships including Sir Lancelot, took part in the Falklands War. I didn't make this clear to Wee Curry Monster, which may be the problem, but I don't understand why this user has ignored the clear statement in my second reference.
::My second reference was http://www.scmp.com/article/596179/war-within This states that 'Most of the 400 Hongkongers working aboard RFA vessels in 1982 were dispatched on the 100 ships carrying 18,000 men to the South Atlantic.' I didn't say 400 went, I said 'up to 400'. In this case, I was trying to reword the original statement, and this may be clumsy wording but nothing false was intended.User:Chelisuk
- This appears to be a content dispute and not ripe for ANI (what use of the admin tools is being requested here???). Sort it out using the normal editing process and by following the steps at WP:Dispute resolution. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:No it wasn't a content dispute, I noted the cite he gave didn't include the material, asked him politely about it and got some very weird response. And even now, what he's doing is WP:SYN and WP:OR, he's taking a comment that RFA in the Far East were crewed by HK Chinese [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pR3OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=rfa+chinese+crew&source=bl&ots=nfUP1woscK&sig=GEJIC3nXDexqG74drwLF3FgCauA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrN6Qi_PUAhUMJ8AKHYOLAsMQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=round%20table&f=false] and concluding that this must mean they were in the Falklands too. WCMemail 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:: What are you asking admins to do here??? To block Chelisuk on the basis of an alleged dodgy edit, which has now been removed via the usual editing process[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War&diff=795361381&oldid=795332597]? Not going to happen. If Chelisuk wants to pursue that edit he can find consensus (or not) on the talk page. There's nothing here for ANI. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Visa policy of Qatar
Hi there. I have recently tried to fight off edits by an IP address 182.239.82.14 on the page Visa policy of Qatar where he made several unconstructive edits. I keep leaving him messages and invite him to discuss the issues, but he refused to answer and simply reverted my edits every time. I would not like to get into an edit war with him so now I am asking the administrators to step in. C-GAUN (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- File:Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katietalk 00:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will try to get in touch with him to discuss this issue. C-GAUN (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Lamon Brewster is My hero
For the last two weeks, blocked user Lamon Brewster is My hero, who has some obsession with Lamon Brewster, keeps returning under 109.240xx IPs almost daily. Examples:
- 109.162.48.235
- 109.240.66.211
- 109.240.73.212
- 109.240.21.16
- 109.240.20.205
- 109.240.53.28
- 109.240.47.180
Could a rangeblock be applied? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:109.240.0.0/17 would take care of the 109.240.x.x edits (not the 109.162.x.x one) but there would be some collateral damage. I don't think there's an urgent need to protect the encyclopaedia to warrant that but I'd leave this open for second opinions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::I agree with not urgent, but the scope of articles is gradually increasing every time they make such edits. It started with one article, but is now up to six—getting them all RPP'ed will be laborious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::OK, let's get some second opinions. :). We can keep a watching brief on that range in the meantime. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I looked earlier and I agree with Malcolm that the /17 isn't feasible right now. Is the vandal predictable enough for an edit filter to work? Katietalk 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::They are. In every edit, they use the string "[is my] hero". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
A moved page from sandbox deleted all my edits from when I created the page.
{{archive top|The removed content in question has been restored without incident, any further discussion about this article should be taken to a talk page. Swarm ♠ 18:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)}}
I created a new live Wikipedia article at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diallang_Jaiyesimi&oldid=795337351 16:07, 13 August 2017], the article being Diallang Jaiyesimi. However, just over 12 hours later at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diallang_Jaiyesimi&oldid=795497881 16:34, 14 August 2017], another wikipedian has moved their basic sandbox to the live page, which erased all the data I had posted with 17 citations included. I have reverted this, am I in my right to do this, as the person who moved their basic sandbox is an actual administrator? I spent a full day literally researching, gathering information. I am the original creator of the page, who posted it live to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Nelly GTFC (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:(Non-administrator comment) {{reply|Nelly GTFC}} I have notified GiantSnowman per protocol. From the article history, it appears GiantSnowman started his draft version on 10 August, deleted your mainspace article today so that he could move his version in, but then did a history merge so that your edits were restored to the history of the article. Your edits are still there in the history and can still be used. From a cursory glance, what transpired was not exactly how I would have done it in GS's place, since your version looked far more fully fleshed out, but that's more of a matter for hashing out on the article talk page now. --Finngall talk 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{reply|Finngall}} Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. What is the general consensus in regards to pages that have been created? Do sandbox creation dates overrule that of someone who has posted a live in depth article with as much data as can be possibly found? I just find it rather rude that anyone can just remove facts and references/citations just like that.--Nelly GTFC (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{reply|Nelly GTFC}} Anyone can remove info, edit info, or remove references as they see fit (making sure it aligns with Wikipedia policy) since no one owns the articles. Given that, I do find the actions of GiantSnowman to be... disruptive given the version you created was much more detailed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diallang_Jaiyesimi&type=revision&diff=795557422&oldid=795457224 This shows] the difference between your version right before the merge and the current version, so it appears that most of it has been fixed. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::(Non-administrator comment) After reviewing the situation at hand and what transpired (and more importantly: what didn't transpire), I'm a little taken aback that an admin would conduct themselves in such a manner. Where was the communication in any of this? I can't seem to find any on the OP's Talk Page, a request on the article's Talk Page itself, etc. WP:CIVIL alone would warrant courtesy in the form of communication. Editing, removing info / references are one thing; completely deleting an entire article that is far more in-depth and referenced to substitute your own article is bad form. When a page goes "live", if it is not in keeping with WP standards, it can be placed up for speedy deletion; or an AfD if a discussion / consensus needs to be taken into consideration. This doesn't seem the case. nihlus kryik could you please reference where in WP policy it says blanking an entire live page and substituting your own (regardless of who owns articles) is considered proper protocol? I find it difficult to believe that even if the admin had started an article a few days before the OP, it gives them the right to carry this action out. If anything they should have merged their content; or edited to better the current article now live. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::At no point did I say the actions of GiantSnowman were appropriate. My initial sentence was to point out the WP:OWN-ish type comment that Nelly had made. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{reply|Nihlus Kryik}} Sorry, yes I should of been more clearer. I was indeed referring to the actual blanking/removal of facts and citations/references for the whole article I had created.--Nelly GTFC (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Nelly GTFC It was clear; and so is the situation. No need for further explanation or apologies. Maineartists (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{ping|Nelly GTFC}} Just to be clear, the "deletion" was strictly technical and Snowman should not be viewed as someone who's acting as an administrator, but as a fellow editor who has rewritten an article. I understand that you put work into an article only to have it replaced by a short stub, without explanation. You were completely within your rights to restore the content that was removed. However, just a thing to keep in mind, {{u|GiantSnowman}} was also within his rights to replace the content of an article in the first place. To do so without any explanation is not particularly helpful and significant unexplained removals are usually reverted. However, per WP:AGF, you should've assumed that he had a reason for doing so and initiated a discussion with him, at least to explain why you reverted him. I note that you still have not done that. {{ping|Nihlus Kryik}} See WP:5P3, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for "proper editing protocol". Swarm ♠ 05:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That makes two people who failed to understand my comment (especially because Swarm restated exactly what I said about who has "permission" to edit. I fully understand this WP protocol which is why I said {{xt|making sure it aligns with Wikipedia policy}}. I then stated his actions did not fully align with policy/protocol. Please stop misstating my words or implying something I am not. nihlus kryik (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Nihlus Kryik}} I'm so sorry. That was meant to be a reply to {{u|Maineartists}}, but for some reason I copy/pasted your username instead of theirs! My mistake; I actually think your input in this thread was helpful and accurate. Swarm ♠ 06:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Swarm}} Okay, ignore my whining then. lol nihlus kryik (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Swarm}} Thank you for the instructions and links to WP protocol for both myself and the OP in this situation. (Which I am more than familiar with ...) Might I ask: what steps you have taken in educating and reminding the admin in this situation of their editing practices via links to WP proper protocol? The weight of responsibility and assumption has greatly been placed on the OP; while the admin seems to remain non-existent to this discussion, OP Talk page (for their initial edit), or anywhere else for that matter. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{u|Swarm}}, I know that you've closed this, but it looks as if admin intervention is still needed, as two pages with WP:Parallel histories have been injudiciously histmerged, and that needs to be sorted out, I believe (at the very least, {{u|GiantSnowman}}'s "page creation" on 10 August should be removed from the history). I'm also curious to know under what valid criterion the original page was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Diallang+Jaiyesimi&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1 deleted]. It was claimed as G6, but that is very clearly and specifically restricted to "uncontroversial maintenance", and deleting an article without warning or reason can hardly be considered uncontroversial. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I would certainly hope that no-one assumed bad fath and jumped to the conclusion that having created a (possibly worse, in some eyes) page later than another, and then almost immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GiantSnowman&diff=prev&oldid=795499001 notched in up] on their UP as their own, then used admin tools to delete the previous page and merge the histories to give what some might perceive as- shall we say- an incomplete story? Because that, of course, would cease to be a content dispute and become potentially a question regarding misuse of admin tools... — fortunavelut luna 14:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{od2}} There seems to be some sort of confusion over the use of the admin tools here. Contrary to some of the above suggestions, this was a purely technical, temporary deletion, and nothing was lost from the previous version as the history was immediately restored. The resulting situation was literally no different than if GS had simply copied and pasted his draft over to the new article without explanation (although history merges are actually preferable to copy-paste merges). Is that a good idea on his part? Well, I think most people would say "no" and revert him. Was he allowed to do it? Absolutely. I will repeat: this was not a "judicious" use of the admin tools. It was purely technical. I say that based on the fact that it was logged as technical, and it didn't affect the content beyond anything any non-admin could have done with a single edit. Anything beyond that, such as hinting at a nefarious motive, is a bad faith accusation. The root of this is that GS blanked content and replaced it with his own stub. That is a content issue. The technical deletion involved was immediately overturned, therefore he didn't actually delete anything. It was the content replacement, and not the use of the admin tools, that caused the problem. I fully understand the frustration with GiantSnowman, and you're encouraged to take that to his talk page. He has already been reverted, if you wish to demand answers, feel free. However I will not allow a content dispute to be falsely turned into a witch hunt over a procedural admin action that caused no damage. Swarm ♠ 18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{ping|Swarm}} you are not correct here: "The resulting situation was literally no different than if GS had simply copied and pasted his draft over to the new article without explanation (although history merges are actually preferable to copy-paste merges)." The resulting situation is now that the page history claims that GiansSnowman created the page on the 10th, and that Nelly GTFC then edited it on the 13th and beyond. This is an action only an admin could have done, no one else, and is a (perhaps minor) misuse of admin tools, like Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi sarcastically but spot-on says above. Closing this section without even hearing GiantSnowman's explanation, and without correcting the page history, is not the best solution. This is not a "a content dispute" (or not solely one), this is about what admins may or may not do, and about using their tools for their own benefit in a way no non-admin can do (or undo for that matter). Fram (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Heads up: Named (but not outed) editors in Breitbart piece on WP edits surrounding the Google Memo
{{archivetop|Editors seem to have been notified, the userpage is protected and put up for MfD and a proposal on Template:talk is linked below. Seems that there's nothing left to do here. So I am closing this. Revert if you disagree. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)}}
[http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/13/wikipedias-left-wing-editors-attempt-to-minimize-evidence-supporting-google-memo/]
Pinging those named: {{ping|Nanite}}, {{ping|Jytdog}}, {{ping|Aquillion}}, {{ping|Volunteer Marek}}, {{ping|NorthBySouthBaranof}}.
No apparent outing, but learning the lesson from the Daily Mail issue, it makes to alert those that may see outside attacks for their editing activity. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:Interesting that the writer of the article is the banned editor User:The Devil's Advocate, but "Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias." It's not clear if that note means he writes for Breitbart under an alias (which he clearly does) or if he writes for Wikipedia under an alias, i.e. a block-evading sockpuppet. Anyone familiar with TDA's editing might look around for a likely suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:: It just means that "T. D. Adler" (the author name in the Breitbart article) is an alias, not a real name. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::That could be, but if I'm remembering TDA's editing correctly (and I could be mistaken), I think he's the type of person who would want to come back and mix it up some more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::If TDA is socking, let's assume he's smart enough not to tell Breitbart and, even if he did, that Breitbart is smart enough not to tell the world. If you're just making a general "look out for possible socking" announcement, that isn't what your comment says and, well, you know what we think about such comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::No, actually, I don't, because a comment that cast an aspersion -- which is the kind of comment some editors look down on, instead of taking them as the possibly justified suspicions of people who have been around the block a time or two -- are those which say "I think so-and-so may be a sockpuppet" or "Such-and-such editor is certainly acting all ducky!". A comment which says: "Hey it's possible that this banned editor might be socking, so be on the lookout, folks!" casts no aspersions, because it names no names, merely makes a reasonable suggestion. As for TDA's intelligence, I make no assumptions about it one way or the other, but given that the article was a mass of misrepresentations, mistruths, and misreporting, it would seem that TDA's concept of "reality" is somewhat contingent on his political biases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:It is not even an accurate description of what happened, but hey it is breitbart. not reality-based. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::Sure, if you want accuracy, better go to Fox News. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:Interesting! Hey Jytdog, I think this is the (at least) second time you´re on Breitbart? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-8j8c7iL3E Pull the String!] Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:So strange to be mentioned! By the way, there was earlier another article [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjj8jz/an-edit-war-is-brewing-on-the-neuroticism-wikipedia-page-after-being-cited-in-google-employees-memo] (in Vice Motherboard) about the edit war on Neuroticism article, with less naming of users. I hope no wikipedian is getting trouble because of this attention. (Regarding the content of the breitbart article, I am inclined to agree that the reliable sourcing requirements can lead to bias, especially on articles related to the culture war. However, I can't think of any superior alternatives that wouldn't compromise the rest of the wiki.) --Nanite (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:That the only place which could be arsed to publish this twaddle is a white nationalist rag one step removed from Daily Stormer is all which needs to be said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&action=history gravedancing] on TDA's userpage is very distasteful. There is no policy which says that banned people's userpages should be blanked. Please leave the userpage alone, or some kind admin can full-protect it. It is extremely unseemly to mess with the userpage of some person who can't respond. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:Two quick thoughts -- I had my disagreements with Mr. Advocate, but I quite agree with Kingsindian about the userpage. No good can come of that. Secondly, I would heartily endorse something like a parol evidence rule for Wikipedia: that is, we don't use extrinsic evidence. If there is indeed sockpuppetry occurring, I have faith it will out in time. To go chasing rabbits based on other websites is a path that leads to madness, I should think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:Utterly agree. On a scale of 1 to 1000, for "who would you have back here?", TDA ranks about minus a miilion for me. But this sort of stuff is, indeed, unseemly. -- Begoon 13:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::Looks like page is fully protected, which is fine, the grave dancing needs to stop. However policy says that a ban notice linking to the decision should be on both the user page and user talk page (See WP:BANPOL, section "User pages".) Can an admin add the appropriate banned notices? — Strongjam (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::"Distasteful" and "unseemly" my Great Aunt Fanny. A banned editor is persona non grata, and blanking of their user page should be an absolutely normal consequence of being banned. If the ban is ever lifted, the page can be restored, that's why we have page histories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::: I also find the blanking to be distasteful and contrary to the usual practice (cf. ban procedure), and I would like to see the page restored (with the requisite {{tl|banned user}} tag. Per BRD, until consensus is established for blanking, it ought to be reverted to the stable version. Rebbing 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::As the protecting administrator, I'm happy for any other admin to revert to the unblanked version of the user page. To do so and protect the page doesn't overly sit well with me, so I'll pass on doing it myself -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I've reverted and added {{tl|banned user}} to both user and talk pages. GoldenRing (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::What's odd is that there is a banner user template on the page, but it's not showing for whatever reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I thought that odd. Checking the docs for {{t|banned user}} shows it suppresses the noticed for arbcom banned user. No idea the reasoning for that. I thought the reason for the notice was to make it plan to anyone who wanted to discuss that users edits with them that the user could not respond. — Strongjam (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, the template doesn't display if the 'by' parameter is 'the Arbitration Committee'. I'll try to find out why. GoldenRing (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::For the record, that's on purpose, in the hopes of avoiding "badge of shame" behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{out}}As the user page and talk page are both protected, I cannot place an "mfd" tag on it, nor can I request a fully protected edit on the talk page. Would someone please edit through the protection to add
:The MfD page for all of you who want to contest the deletion (and anyone who might agree as well), is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:The_Devil%27s_Advocate here]. I don't plan to make any argumentation beyond the deletion proposal itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::
:::Thank you, although I see that I'm hugely in the minority. If that trend continues for another day or so, I'll probably withdraw the MfD, if someone hasn't already SNOW closed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:The article is really awful, and presents an ideologically skewed view of what occurred. To be fair to Breitbart they do mention at the bottom that TDA was in personal disputes with a number of other actors here, but a reputable news site would have realised that is a good enough reason for him not to write the article, and had someone with some distance write it using TDA as a dial-a-quote. That being said, what sort of stuff Breitbart publishes isn't really an administrative matter for us. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence as far as I can see that TDA is socking, and we ought to leave that there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC).
::My concern in bringing it here was nothing related to TDA (I didn't even make the connection until this thread), but that there potentially could be off-site attacks on the named editors in that article, given what happened when we banned the Daily Mail (driving one editor named and outed by the DM) into retirement. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Indeed, and that's a valid concern, I just think we got a little sidetracked above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC).
=Proposal=
The entire point of the Breitbart piece (and the Motherboard piece) is that substantial edits have occurred to the article. I suggest that the template identifying press coverage should have a parameter reflecting the state of the article both at the time of the media article and just prior to the edit war. I made such a proposal on the template talk page and invite anyone who has opinions to weigh in at the template talk page --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
long-term IP hopper tagging drafts with AfC to delete them (and apparently not a fan of mine)
I could use some help sorting this out. Though some admin action seems like a good idea, I'm not quite sure what sort of action would be effective.
An IP hopper has been tagging other people's drafts ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.6.2.189&diff=prev&oldid=723969989 apparently those he/she thinks should be deleted]) with AfC submission templates for quite a while now. I opened an ANI thread when I first noticed it last year and though I had to revert once or twice since then, I haven't thought about it much.
But now after reverting a few more yesterday, I see another IP with interesting edit summaries. It seems the user has a particular interest in me that I was not aware of. See User talk:82.40.180.42/Usage with the various "rhodoreaction"/"RR"/"rhodoedits" (that list is transcluded on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=rhodoreaction&title=Special:Search&profile=all&fulltext=1 13 other pages]). I came across that user page when trying to compile a list of IPs that have done this over the last year or two. Might as well ping the only two registered users who have edited that page: {{u|RHaworth}} and {{u|Sgroupace}}.
Again, I'm not sure what course of action would be best. Not sure how they could be blocked; an LTA page seems like overkill; I have a weak suspicion about socking, but not enough evidence to name/insinuate (and to be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone I've named above); an edit filter likewise seems like a big much... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
:Isn't even using open nodes to the internet or something, office-shared router or something is my guess, who knows. It feels like socking since IPs generally don't really get concerned with drafts or anything, and playing around is mostly inconsequential. In retrospect, rhodoedits can be a pretty cool name for your alt account. --QEDK (愛) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::Indeed. I was thinking "rhodoreversion!" might be a good template for me to use if I could only format it in a text bubble written in a comic book font... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:Bumping this before it's archived. Would appreciate advice on where to mention this if not here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Might be time for a rangeblock
After going through the AIV page history, I found IPs belonging to this range that were getting blocked:
{{blockcalc|2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:85 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:C0 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:5E 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:58 2600:387:2:811:0:0:0:BA 2600:387:2:805:0:0:0:A5 2600:387:2:803::7B 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:92}}
It might be time to block 2600:387:2:800::/59 and see if that helps. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:Yes they were repeatedly reporting administrators, then I started reverting them so they started repeatedly reporting me. Lol. Home Lander (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- These six IPs, likely one person, each made one edit to AIV between 01:40 and 02:10. They were all blocked and the page was semi-protected for a few hours. That seems to have taken care of things. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was blocking them several hours earlier, and since. It seems to me like quite a busy range, so I've adjusted a relevant edit filter instead, for the time being. For the record, this is the LTA vandal from Georgia[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EvergreenFir/socks&oldid=781739088#NYC_vandal_ATT_Wireless]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks zzuuzz - looks like the filter is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=2600%3A387%3A2%3A805%3A0%3A0%3A0%3AC6 working]. Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- zzuuzz you talking about me again??? :) Drmies (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{re|Drmies}} All I'm sayin is that I've never seen you in the same room together ;) On balance I'm tempted to block this range for a while if it carries on much longer. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've never seen you, so for all I know you're Bbb23 or ScienceApologist. Hell, I seem to be Volunteer Marek, so maybe you are too. That rangeblock doesn't hit me, I think, until I get to the traffic light at my university, ten miles closer to Georgia than my house, and I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia while driving anyway, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Misformatted arbitration case?
{{atop|(non-admin closure) Resolved. Case has been added to the index. ANI is not for commentary on the merits of ArbCom cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)}}
At the end of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT there appears a separate request for arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year. The request involving and submitted by User:Supermann does not appear in the list at Template:ArbComOpenTasks. I don't know the best way to fix this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:In the future, I would make the request at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, but I went ahead and added it for you. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:It's a malformed nonsensical request by Supermann, who was recently topic banned and is now appealing to ArbCom for...something. Blackmane (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Article recreation
Article Daniel Cepeda was recently created by editor User:JasmineJaye (talk). It is clearly a copy of Wikipedia's article on Money. The editor has also attempted to blank Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cepeda to avoid being hit with a g4 or A11 speedy delete. Requesting action be taken, if it has not already been done. I would recommend liberal use of salt. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:I've blocked the user for disruptive editing, protected the AfD for a few months and salted the article. Aside from blanking various things (including this discussion) after being warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bentogoa&diff=prev&oldid=795839181 this] clearly says they're not here to be constructive. Hut 8.5 21:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Reporting [[User:Tarage]] for Cyberbullying
{{hat|reason=Nothing to see here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)}}
User:Tarage is constantly making hurtful, untruthful, and rude comments about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetWitz (talk • contribs) 07:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:Please provide more information. Per the guidelines at the top:
::* Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. {{anchor|before}}
::* Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
:I see no attempts at either one of these. (Please do not construe my reminder as validation in your complaint.) nihlus kryik (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You got blocked for this behavior and the first thing you do after getting unblocked is to run back here and make more shit up? Away with you. --Tarage (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Also socking. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Adorable. Block them both. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not make anything up, and you a rude for accusing me2600:8801:2D01:64D0:B834:3D91:9EC8:B6D (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
You just keep digging don't you. Add the IP to the list to block. --Tarage (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Why are you being such a hurtful rotten bully to me? NetWitz (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
- This is a revenge complaint for another thread earlier on this page. Close. EEng 07:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}
John McGowan article recreations
An article titled John McGowan (Canadian rock singer) has been created by User:Timmytimah (talk). I thought the name sounded familiar, and sure enough the article has been deleted multiple times over the past few months (example, John McGowan (singer). I am not the best at navigating the deletion log, but I am sure that more variants of this page have been created. Salting one or two articles does not seem to have stopped the spam, so I request further action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::Yep, I nominated at least one for CSD, and just did so to the most recent iteration. Sock-puppetry and willful ignorance of notability rules. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I just called out one of the sockpuppets myself
♠Dinah♠ 🎤 16:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Tagged and blocked, thanks guys. Alex ShihTalk 16:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Seattle tour company
- {{userlinks|Argosycruises}}
- {{userlinks|Argosy Cruises}}
- {{iplinks|68.178.121.226}} - corp IP according to WHOIS
- {{iplinks|216.206.111.124}} - corp IP according to WHOIS
Cursory examination of these accounts/IPs shows that they are WP:NOTHERE to contribute, rather spamming a certain Seattle tour company for a number of years with repeated warnings. This could have been filed as an SPI, I suppose, but it's really so obvious maybe we can skip that and just proceed to next steps. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Edit-warring at AIV
There is some edit warring going on at AIV. The main people include User:Adam9007, User:kjelltyrid, and User:Coldandspicy. I just want to notify anybody, and I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but somebody should take a look at it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:I pretty much explained the situation in a nutshell, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=795714005 here]. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::Oshwah just blocked User:Kjelltyrid for 36 hours. As for the other users reverting at WP:AIV, I don't know what'll happen with that... 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::The issue began when Kjelltyrid [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=795706755&oldid=795706466 filed an AIV report] against Adam9007 for "aggressive vandalism on Henrik Steffens Professor with insertion of a blatantly false claim about the article being a duplicate when it's clearly not." This was in response to a CSD tag that Adam9007 added restored to Henrik Steffens Professor (an article the user started and was expanding) after it was originally added by Ukpong1 and then removed by Kjelltyrid. Both Adam9007 and Coldandspicy were removing the AIV report that Kjelltyrid added, and were attempting to add their own AIV reports against Kjelltyrid as well. In the end, I found that Kjelltyrid repeatedly removed Adam9007's CSD tag on the article and was also edit warring in a disruptive fashion (both on the article and at AIV), and I blocked the user for 36 hours for disruptive editing.
:::User:Adam9007, User:Coldandspicy: Remember that if things start going down this route at AIV (someone reports you and you believe or know it to be false, yadda yadda yadda...), instead of removing the report, you're welcome to add a response and input to it instead. This will avoid the edit warring and disruption on AIV that happened just a bit ago :-).
:::I think that about wraps this report up. Issue resolved :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Oshwah}} It wasn't my CSD tag; I was just restoring it because he (the creator of the page) removed it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Ah, my bad Adam9007. I apologize for the mistake in my response. It was Ukpong1 who originally applied the CSD tag on the article. I've redacted and updated my statement above in bold. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::I thought Kjelltyrid's report on Adam9007 was a fake report attacking Adam9007, and my instinct is to revert that kind of report. Cold and Spicy 01:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Coldandspicy}} That's what I thought too. Were we being naïve? Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::If there's any place that's going to see an insta-block for edit-warring or inappropriately removing reports, it's AIV - even the most stupid of reports, and users should pretty much never remove themselves from AIV. It's too busy for admins, trigger-happy admins with an appetite for blocking someone, to look too deeply and start lengthy discussions while there's edit-warring going on. If the situation isn't extremely clear, leave things in place and just add a simple comment. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Edit warring at AIV... Reminds me of a video I saw; a couple of kids decided to sneak up on a sleeping cat and suddenly yell in order to scare it. It was a skunk... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Adam9007 - I wouldn't call it "naive", lol. I don't believe that her report was true or had merit (obviously...), but I do believe that Kjelltyrid felt that her AIV report was legitimate and that she felt that you were engaging in "aggressive vandalism" - obviously not true; the user is just new and doesn't understand the rules yet. After she edit warred on the article with the CSD tag removal, she went to AIV. Once she saw you removing her report at AIV, those actions further instilled upon her that you were vandalizing and trolling - after all, you were now removing her report, right? You gotta see things from her perspective and understand that she's new... what would you had done if you were in her position and saw all of this? As Zzuuzz said above, edit warring at AIV isn't a good idea. There are admins (unfortunately) that will see the edit warring in itself and, instead of looking into the matter to find the root cause of the problem, will simply block everyone. It's not the wrong thing for such an admin to do, since edit warring was occurring - It'll just throw those involved into the pit before anyone has had a chance to explain and can end up putting a ding on your reputation. Just respond to the report and explain why it's wrong and discuss it. It's a much better way of handling the situation ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::The response I made above made me realize that the block I placed upon the account was too harsh given this user's tenure. Per the message I left the user on her talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=795720512&diff=795772042 here], I've decided to unblock the account. We must be understanding and put ourselves into this person's shoes; she's new, she doesn't know all of the rules yet, and I believe that she felt that she was legitimate with her report and decision to revert the removal of it at AIV. I can't hold her to that harsh of accountability. I think her block length was sufficient given this perspective. Feedback, thoughts, disagreements, and community input is welcome should anyone feel the need to comment. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Oshwah}}Thanks Oswah for intervening in the issue. Zazzysa (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::Ukpong1 - You bet! Always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:RileyBugz - It's a bit late now (so, no big deal - lol), but do remember that you must notify everyone involved in an ANI discussion with a notice on their user talk pages. I just realized that my messages to Kjelltyrid are probably going to confuse the living heck out of her since she wasn't notified of this ANI discussion. Again, no biggie - figured I'd let you know though :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. Is there a template or something that one can use? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|RileyBugz}} You'll find that near the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
User getting politics into Wikipedia
{{archive top|result=No soup for you! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC){{pb}}I must say it's daring to make a Nazi joke just now. {{ndash}}EEng 06:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC) }}
Hey I want to report the user ( ZxxZxxZ ).
I saw some of his contributions and found some suspicious things..
He removes things that offend his country ( iran ) and add lines that offend a country that is an enemy of his ( Saudi Arabia) From a qatari-owned news channel ( Knowing that qatar is an enemy of Saudi Arabia which means most likely it's fake news with the aim of offending Saudi Arabia) as his sources. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical Peace (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:The diff in question seems like a simple re-ordering of paragraphs and a slight re-wording. Do you have anything more damning? --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:You also failed to inform them of this report, which is required. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:...And you ALSO posted on the AIV board. This is getting into boomerang territory. --Tarage (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:This is by far my favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZxxZxxZ&diff=prev&oldid=794996524 "If you are Qatari/iranian/turkey i hope that you don't get politics into Wikipedia". Technical Peace seems to be a SPA intent with pushing a pro Saudi Arabian POV. --Tarage (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
So is this not obvious https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 ? Technical Peace (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:There is nothing wrong with that edit. --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
And I'm sorry for not complying with some of the rules since i thought what i told him is enough, and I'm not trying to " push a pro Saudi Arabian POV " i requested from him to not use the Qatari-owned news channel as his sources due to an obvious reasons Technical Peace (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
And is there any reason of you removing my edit on Red Sea ? Technical Peace (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Al Jazeera is currently an accepted reliable source on Wikipedia. Also I removed your edit because it was not notable for that article. --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's reliable http://www.pif.gov.sa/media/projecttheredsea_en.html search about it
The reason why i requested him to not use Al jazeera because it's owned by Qatar's government and you probably heard about the crisis. And i hope that you don't count as an enemy . I only want to make Wikipedia a better place . Technical Peace (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I hope that you read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 because I think you wouldn't continue the argument if you did. Technical Peace (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I just went to the page that he edited and found out that an anonymous has edited he same way as before. I swear I'm not that anonymous person so suspicious eh? Technical Peace (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:It doesn't matter if you don't think it's a reliable source. It is considered by Wikipedia to be one. I have read that diff three times. It's fine. --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:(e/c) Please describe what exactly you think is wrong with the edit you keep linking to. Perhaps the problem is with Special:MobileDiff (which is nearly impossible to read, and maybe confused you); if you look at it in desktop mode, the diff shows ZxxZxxZ moving a couple of paragraphs around and slightly rewording them. What, specifically, is wrong with it? It's not good enough to keep just linking to the edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Will my issue isn't on this page exactly as i stated. And this is not related but i hope that you don't take Al jazeera news as a reliable source on anything related to KSA Technical Peace (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but i have to go for now since it's 1:32 AM here tomorrow we'll talk. ( tomorrow for you ) It isn't a critical issue tbh I don't care if he says anything bad about SA since we lived all of our live living with people who are against SA. Technical Peace (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Then why did you keep linking to that same diff over and over? I spent several minutes looking at it in detail to see what you're complaining about, only to hear "my issue isn't on this page exactly". I guess this thread can be closed as a waste of time. Please have some respect for other people's time and effort. We will certainly not "talk tomorrow", as I am done with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::User is an SPA boardering on WP:NOTHERE. If they come back tomorrow and do this nonsense I request a block. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
Bypassing redirects in violation of [[WP:NOTBROKEN]]
{{archive top
| result = Closing the discussion now as the user has been blocked based on self request. Alex ShihTalk 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
}}
For months now, User:Grouches101 has been bypassing redirects in violation of the guideline WP:NOTBROKEN. Despite many clear warnings from at least four users[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=676441086&oldid=675344042][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=766297335&oldid=750857772][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=766590955&oldid=766297335][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=766844514&oldid=766590955][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=790305681&oldid=766844514][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=792465659&oldid=792402114][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grouches101&diff=794077356&oldid=792892441], the behavior is continuing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grounding_(discipline_technique)&diff=next&oldid=793197786][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grounding_(discipline_technique)&diff=next&oldid=794704555]. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:Poster boy for How Not To Be A Wikipedia Editor. WP:NOTHERE section "Little or no interest in working collaboratively". After two years of unheeded inquiries, attempts to help, and warnings, I don't think the typical 31-hour first block would be enough. An effective "Guidelines, schmidelines. Stop bothering me!" is just not acceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
User:There'sNoTime had closed this discussion with "Editor appears to have left the project, and hasn't edited for 19 hours (since this report was made). No admin action required until they start again" but I have reopened it as this seems counterproductive: there is zero evidence that they have left the project (they only edit a few times a day anyway, the current gap is way too small to suppose "leaving the project") and this closure means that someone has to open a discussion here while the other editor is actively editing, not a few hours later, which is not really the best way to serve the project or to help the OP. Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{ec}} {{re|Fram}} Bad close on my behalf - apologies all, but I'm still not seeing any admin action needed here. What do you think we should do? An editor violating NOTBROKEN is hardly a big deal, but them not wanting to communicate does fly in the face of NOTHERE and suggests a block may be in order. I read {{tq|Why are you telling me this? I told you before I'm gettin the hell outta here. Goodbye & good luck!!}} from their talk but admittedly disregarded the timestamp, so I was entirely incorrect in saying they've left. They're rather clearly not up for discussing it, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth to block over NOTBROKEN -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:Thank you for the reopen. I count 112 edits in the 12 days since their two emphatic declarations of retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|There'sNoTime}} As you yourself suggested, a block would be for NOTHERE (and generally wasting a lot of good editors' time), not for NOTBROKEN vios. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Point taken, I'll bow out of making any decisions on this one given the above muck up, but I would at least give them the opportunity to respond to this thread -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::It appears they are declining the opportunity.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(musical)&diff=prev&oldid=795070812] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::: {{comment}} That's unfortunate. I have issued a warning to the editor. Alex ShihTalk 16:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently User:Grouches101 has started making these edits again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King_(2019_film)&diff=next&oldid=795662700 Here] they changed
Mufasa Mufasa
- This really doesn't seem like something that requires admin attention at this point; piping links isn't disruptive to the point of requiring action. But, say, if someone wanted to propose that {{ul|Grouches101}} should be subject to a community sanction of some sort for this behaviour, and if the community expressed support for that sanction, then an admin could enact that consensus. Some kind of topic ban, for example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- :{{replyto|Ivanvector}} If you don't think the user should be blocked, how would you recommend getting the behavior to stop? Discussion and warnings haven't worked. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- ::We've blocked people for this before. People forget that there's often a reason to prefer a redirect over a direct link, because sometimes the redirect becomes its own article. Not to mention it's just a waste of everyone's time checking their clogged-up watchlists. EEng 23:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- :::You really haven't made the case for WP:NOTHERE in my opinion, this editor is clearly intending to edit constructively. {{noping|Alex Shih}} appears to be dealing with this in a most appropriate way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I didn't say he was NOTHERE; I said he's wasting people's time making counterproductive edits. It's great that Alex Shih gave a warning, but he's been warned over and over and even now keeps doing it. What do you suggest we do now? EEng 00:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Wait. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::For what? EEng 01:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::It appears to have stopped. I also provided more explanation at his talk page. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Ivanvector}} The NOTHERE case was at the heading "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and couldn't be much stronger. Perhaps that should be moved to WP:CIR, I don't know, but collaboration is not optional. This may be water under bridge in this case (finally), we'll see—but this is worth noting for future reference. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pardon me for saying that we could have just saved time and trouble by blocking him. [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=795717161&oldid=795711423] EEng 01:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Two more of these edits today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King_(2019_film)&diff=prev&oldid=795804375][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King_(2019_film)&diff=prev&oldid=795804432]. The first one has the edit summary "My last edit here, just making it the same as the others. So long FOREVER Wikipedia". —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Seven edits since their second emphatic retirement in less than 3 weeks. Have they said anything at all to indicate that they intend to alter their behavior? If not, do we just cross our fingers and hope they will? Can editors simply choose not to respond to ANI complaints? What is the meaning of life? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Life is a cycle of repeated returns to ANI, each visit to which is an opportunity to gain wisdom and atone for our lousy wikikarma. This dreary cycle ends when either we've attained enlightenment and enter nirvana (i.e. pass RfA) or{{snd}}better{{snd}}we attain the eternal rest of an indefinite block. Go in peace, my son. EEng 18:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, user has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANihlus_Kryik&type=revision&diff=796019095&oldid=795911484 requested to be blocked]. Not sure why they're asking me though. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
Administrator abusing power
{{atop|WP:DENY -- EEng 20:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)}}
{{atop|WP:DENY -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)}}
DoRD has been abusing his administrative powers. He blocks established users who have never vandalized Wikipedia for no reason. Also, his username is a violation of username policy as a promotional username promoting the Department of Redundancy Department. He should either be blocked indefinitely or have his administrative powers revoked. 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:54 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:The username is not a violation of username guidelines.
:Can you identify some examples of improper blocks?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::This is the latest IP to harass DoRD today, now blocked. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::He blocked Coldandspicy who has never vandalized Wikipedia. 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:7A (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::For reference, User talk:Coldandspicy#Blocked. Plus, they're almost certainly evading an older block. —DoRD (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::This IP blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Wait, did he promote the Department of Redundancy Department by promoting the Department of Redundancy Department in a promotional way? Can't have that. A block isn't good enough (isn't good enough). Lock him up, incarcerate him, and jail him, for life until dead. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Wait, did he promote the Department of Redundancy Department by promoting the Department of Redundancy Department in a promotional way? Can't have that. A block isn't good enough (isn't good enough). Lock him up, incarcerate him, and jail him, for life until dead. pbp 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}
Re-addition of unsourced original research to [[Goodwood, South Australia]]
Since 14 August User:Phygoo has continued to re-add unsourced original research to Goodwood, South Australia. (See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodwood,_South_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=795417651 diff 1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodwood,_South_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=795575238 diff 2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodwood,_South_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=795723032 diff 3])
While it's not linkspam, Phygoo may have a COI as this material consists of real estate puffery, and it's possible that he may be trying to spruik or sell property in the area. (In 2015 Phygoo made similar unwarranted peacock edits to Park Holme, South Australia, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Park_Holme,_South_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=678081180 diff 4], which have since been removed.)
Some of this material in the Goodwood article was added in 2016 by User:Kswikata, (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodwood,_South_Australia&diff=727830459&oldid=727830095 diff 5]) and it's possible that this may be the same person, as Phygoo now seems to be also claiming it as his own research.
I've reverted all but the most recent re-addition (while trying to be civil and avoid 3RR) and put appropriate warning templates on his talk page (subst:uw-unsourced1, subst:uw-blog). He hasn't replied directly to these messages. but has instead made implied threats in his edit summaries (and on my userpage, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bahudhara&diff=prev&oldid=795723421 diff 6], which he reverted half an hour later, with another lengthy edit summary, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bahudhara&diff=prev&oldid=795725682 diff 7].)
Somewhat paradoxically, his latest move has been to award me an anti-vandalism barnstar (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bahudhara&diff=prev&oldid=795749230 diff 8]), which I assume is an effort to avoid further action on my part, and to game the system.
His latest re-addition to the Goodwood article has since been reverted by another editor. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:If they revert that again, then there's a good chance they'll be blocked on WP:3RR if nothing else. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::There are now seven warnings on his talk page (including one by me; i am the other editor Buhudhara mentioned above), with four of them put there after his most recent edit. I'd suggest we close this, see what he does next, and go to the edit warring board if he continues the same behaviour. Happy days, LindsayHello 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Report of malicious edits by user ID: FuzhouneseMinpride on wikipedia page "Subei People"
I, as Subei People, am requesting administrator's attention to recent malicious edit to wikipedia page "Subei People", which is the page describing my homeland.
I have made substantial contributions to "Subei people". It was once full of discriminative worlds, unreasonable slander and narrow minded description.
However, user ID: FuzhouneseMinpride, deliberately deletes much of my contribution (my effort to make this page less discriminative and narrow minded).
He maliciously changed one of the notable people in "Subei People"page from Zhou Enlai, a respectable Chinese Premier to what he said, "one of the most infamous traitors in China's history." Here is an analogy: Someone change the "Notable people" section in "USA" page from George Washington to Dean Arnold Corll, "one of the most infamous American serial killer".
I sincerely hope that you could pay attention to this explicit malicious edit on my hometown's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikaze2017 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK, there is nothing to this: Kamikaze refuses to actually engage in conversation (on article talk page or user talk page) with the editor, and it's their edits that are really troubling; see the article history. There is no reason to escalate to a noticeboard and Kamikaze needs to be more mindful of such basic policies as WP:NPOV and WP:V. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Reporting [[User:Toohool]], [[User:Ravenswing]], [[User: Sandstein]], [[User:Yosemiter]] for cyberbullying
{{archive top|reason=NetWitz has been told to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I have indef-blocked a sockpuppet {{user|NetWitz830}} and blocked an IP used to edit while logged out for 48 hours, and warned NetWitz that any further sockpuppetry or disruption will result in a block on the main account. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Those users are bullying me and stoping from creating a Wikipedia page for City National Arena for no valid reason whatsoever NetWitz (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
:{{re|NetWitz}} Please notify each editor you have mentioned as per the requirements of this page. For reference, this request was first made here which I removed. There is also a ANEW report regarding this editor (here) which I have closed by fully protecting the page -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- We did not stop you. You made it City National Arena, then had ownership issues with it by reverting whenever I tried to clean it up no matter what. The subject had been discussed to see if it was even noteworthy of mention, much less an article, on Talk:Vegas Golden Knights#Vegas Golden Knights practice facility. The article was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City National Arena. You then continued to have an edit war with everyone and created City national arena, City National Arena (NHL Practice Facility), and City Aational Arena. If you would just cooperate and stop beating a now very dead horse, you would stop getting warnings. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I note that on the ANEW report, NetWitz's response was "That is a complete lie, I've been trying to discuss about it and nobody responds." That is not in fact true. This was discussed extensively on the Vegas Golden Knights talk page, on the page for the AfD, and on more than one user talk page. NetWitz is obviously not getting the answers he wants to hear, but a number of editors don't seem to be inclined to set aside either notability criteria or consensus just because he's so very heavily invested in this practice rink being mentioned on Wikipedia.
That being said, full protection of the Golden Knights page is a poor idea and an overreaction. This is a National Hockey League team about to enter its first season, with training camp starting in a couple of weeks, and rather from enjoining many dozens of editors from making good faith edits, it would be preferable to prevent the one heavy edit warrior here from editing the page. Ravenswing 20:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your comments are noted - I will revert my full protection (restoring the move semi-protection that was in place beforehand) and block NetWitz as suggested at the ANEW report -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:* Thank you for your prompt reconsideration! Ravenswing 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ravenswing told a boldface life, I had asked further questions and they have yet to be answered!! Also, City National Arena is not just a practice rink, it's the headquarters of the Vegas Golden Knights, and will feature their official restaurant!!! I demand Ravenswing be removed from Wikipedia for his (or her) very rude attitude and behavior.NetWitz (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
:You got blocked for this behavior and the first thing you do after getting unblocked is to run back here and make more shit up? Away with you. --Tarage (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Also socking. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Adorable. Block them both. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not make anything up, and you a rude for accusing me2600:8801:2D01:64D0:B834:3D91:9EC8:B6D (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
:You just keep digging don't you. Add the IP to the list to block. --Tarage (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Why are you being such a hurtful rotten bully to me? NetWitz (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
:Why are you sockpuppeting? --Tarage (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I just reported you for cyberbullying on Wikipedia2600:8801:2D01:64D0:7C98:12E:23D7:DE49 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
:And I have added another IP to the sock puppet investigation. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sock puppeting!!! NetWitz (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
:Adorable. You'll be banned soon. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::You know, Tarage, some editors seem to enjoy this ANI business too much. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by your persistent snarky haranguing of defendants, no matter how guilty they are. A defining characteritic of a bully is picking the easy targets, at Wikipedia or anywhere else. Lay off. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Considering he filed a report on me, no. I don't cower before people like him. --Tarage (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Nobody has asked you to cower before anybody. See straw man. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Eeeesh. NetWitz, I expect you won't listen to this. It's not as if you've listened to anyone so far. But ... well. Doesn't cost me anything to try. It's not that you're unique: we see a lot of people who scream "Rude!!" any time they're told something they don't want to hear, and "Cyberbullying!" at anyone who dares suggest that the rules apply to them, and "It wasn't me!" any time they're caught redhanded doing something they realize they shouldn't be.
And there's one other syndrome we see often as well: the inexperienced editor who continues to insist that he alone is right, and everyone else is wrong. That's been the case here. Not one single editor's taken your side. Several administrators now have confirmed your rulesbreaking. Leaving aside the merits for a moment, what do you think the odds are that a dozen editors and admins are going to suddenly slap their foreheads and cry out "My god, we've been so horribly wrong!!"
I'll quote myself from your talk page, a few days back: "Wikipedia has certain rules, among them guidelines and policies governing notability. These rules are applied and enforced through consensus; in case of a dispute, editors talk among themselves to arrive at a consensus decision. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus runs against you, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on." That is good advice I continue to urge you to take. Ravenswing 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
Book sources (ISBN) link correction
{{atop|Fix has been verified, implemented, and is now live. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Sorry not sure where to request it... The page Special:BookSources/9781300973294 has an incorrect link for Google Books.
Current link:
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:9781300973294
Correct link:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=9781300973294
Obviously "9781300973294" is just an example ISBN.
Thanks in advance for your assistance :-),
Nux (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{fixed}}. Thanks for the heads up, Nux :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
Tired of having a sockpuppetry case hanging over my head
{{atop|This is something that will be handled at SPI. Thank you for asking a look at this, and it will be handled in due time. At this point, there's nothing more that can be done here, except for an admin to act on it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Can an admin please close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg. Although I think the editor who opened the case was acting in good faith, the connections between accounts are based on flimsy pretexts. A checkuser was completed over a week ago and found no connection between any of the listed accounts (including mine). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:Still waiting. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::Recommend you to close this thread since you do not require separate administrator intervention, it'll be taken care of at SPI. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I mean this with all due respect, but foot-stomping often has the exact opposite effect from the one desired. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet. A checkuser was done over a week ago. I assume that the admins who regularly work at SPI are reluctant to touch the case. So I'm asking here because I don't like having this hanging over my head. If I thought it was going to be dealt with in a timely manner I wouldn't be asking here (and it obviously has not been dealt with in a timely manner). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:So this was closed. Then re-opened. And then closed again. — fortunavelut luna 14:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::This project (and SPI) is run by volunteers. The cases we take, are often at random and mostly in order to increase efficiency, dealing with small cases swiftly and so on. I sincerely recommend you wait for someone to take it on. Patrolling admins can only offer advice at best to your case and will eventually require assessment by SPI clerks at some point. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
user:Ruben192 keeps creating 100% unreferenced articles
{{resolved|Blocked 31 hours by Alex Shih. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)}}
{{user|Ruben192}} keeps pumping completely unreferenced articles into wikipedia, restores removed unreferenced text as eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milo%C5%A1_Trifunovi%C4%87_(politician)&action=history here] and is not engaging into discussions despite numerous warnings in their article talk page. I guess time to block them to get their attention. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Vandalism: TV station articles
User 98.22.136.242 keeps vandalizing articles on TV stations by adding incorrect information about digital subchannels. I undo them, but more of these edits pop up. Recent example KMSP-TV: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KMSP-TV&diff=795338252&oldid=783386893]
Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
98.22.136.242 just undid one of my edits. KOCO-TV: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KOCO-TV&diff=795686220&oldid=795625854] And another one, caught by Mrschimpf at KQCW-DT: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KQCW-DT&diff=795345253&oldid=792006208] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:(Non-Administrator comment) You may wish to try AIV- Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Jip Orlando (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::I tried that, I was declined. They told me to go here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::: It's not really obvious to me what's going on here. I don't know anything about Oklahoma television stations, and the content isn't sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::98.22.136.242 keeps adding information about "new" subchannels, despite no official confirmation from the station. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::He's at it again: KSBI: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KSBI&curid=2579417&diff=795720239&oldid=792364124] KCEB (Tulsa): [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KCEB_(Tulsa)&curid=20826317&diff=795719832&oldid=794447862] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
AIV report done after their newest edits; 31h block applied. We can close this up now. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:98.22.136.242 is back at it, as soon as the block ended: KMBC-TV: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KMBC-TV&diff=796017329&oldid=795053569] I think a longer block or outright ban is in order. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:The same thing's happening, this time from another IP: 107.77.161.11 with WFAA: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFAA&diff=795859762&oldid=795699659] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFAA&diff=795859859&oldid=795859762] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFAA&diff=795859983&oldid=795859859] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Accusations of vandalism-only account and being a troll
{{Atop|The only action needed has been taken. If the blocked user continues with PA, open a new report. Shutting this drama fest down for the good of all. Now let's go build an encyclopedia, eh? (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)}}
{{U|Joseph2302}} recently filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=795969838 this report] claiming my account to be a vandalism-only account. He was then enabled by admin {{U|Floquenbeam}} (who previously told me "fuck you, asshole"), departing with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoseph2302&type=revision&diff=795972219&oldid=795971789 "If you and he want to argue/fight/try to get each other blocked/etc, be my guest"] despite me not having done anything wrong. Joseph2302 then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoseph2302&type=revision&diff=795982105&oldid=795972608 closed the discussion calling me a "troll"]. I realise that some admins aren't doing anything to help me, but I'd like to hope that at least one of you out there would actually do something about this. Incidentally, Joseph2302 has deliberately vandalised Ipswich Town F.C. in the past (I'll need to work to find that diff). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:In what way did {{U|Floquenbeam}} "enable" me? And your block log clearly shows you're a disruptive editor. Yes I've made mistakes in the past (I moved Ipswich Town F.C to Tractor scum), but there's no evidence that I'm a disruptive editor unlike you. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&curid=24389054&diff=795986182&oldid=795985607 accusation of being a troll]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{U|The Rambling Man|TRM}}: Ignoring and moving on and away from this editor...have you tried that? -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{U|Winkelvi}} I don't go anywhere near this user. I deliberately ignore it since its deliberate vandalism (which went completely unaddressed), now two or three personal attacks (which are going completely unaddressed). Why is this my doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the guy who was told by User:Newyorkbrad after initiating a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Credible_threat_of_harm_.26_murder bizarre ANI thread] against User:Ritchie333 in May to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joseph2302&diff=prev&oldid=779787987 "not ever do anything like that again."] It seems he has not heeded this warning.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}} {{ping|Joseph2302}} Unless I am missing something, I don't see anything wrong done by TRM. All I see is you violating WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and WP:AGF numerous times, and then disrupting noticeboards (aka WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA). nihlus kryik (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked {{U|Joseph2302}} for 36 hours. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Jauerback he is still making personal attacks in his unblock attempt. Can you revoke his talk page access? --Tarage (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{U|GoldenRing}} beat me to the punch with the request and revocation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::: Without prejudice to the block being extended if anyone thinks it necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I also won't have any problem with any changes to his block. However, I'll be offline, so hopefully there won't be any further need for me to participate in this discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Side note: Floquenbeam wasn't enabling anything. They saw the report, figured it was a mistake, saw Joseph2302 was serious, and backed out immediately as they didn't want to be part of this. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:*No, Floq didn't figure it was a mistake: they said it was wrong and disruptive. Don't quite see how one gets "enabling a personal attack" from "Please try harder not to be silly and disruptive. TRM is not a vandalism-only account, and reporting him at AIV is 100% guaranteed to be a minor waste of time", esp. not after this, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=795969838 "oh for crying out loud"]. Was Floquenbeam supposed to have let the AIV report stand? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I think what the {{u|The Rambling Man}} is getting at- perhaps, not tryng to mind read- is that if an admin (any admin, impersonally) sees an egregious personal attack take pace (to the extent that they acknowledge it as being so), it would be logical to expect the admin to respond with administrative action, that's all. — fortunavelut luna 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:Side note: no, this is an admin sidestepping duty because of the target of the personal attacks. It's pretty obvious, if they didn't want to get involved they should have stayed out of it from the start. The edit summary at AIV demonstrated it wasn't a "mistake". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::This is also you continuing to harbor a grudge against Floq. We don't need you to keep reminding us that he called you a name and swore at you once. That's not relevant to Joseph2302's foolish behavior. TRM, you seem to be perpetually complaining that the admins don't respond fast or forcefully enough to attacks on you, but have you considered that you are probably contributing to this problem by holding grudges and being quick to criticize and complain? It doesn't make sense to antagonize people and then complain when they don't rush to your defense. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::You again? You should offer Floq the same advice, there was no need for him to get involved, AIV gets plenty of admin traffic, and would have soon been serviced adequately by an admin who wouldn't have side-stepped the issue, creating this drama board post for you hawks to come circling. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Floq warns someone for attacking you and you try to turn him into one of the villains. Oh, by the way, you created this drama board post for us evil hawks to come circling. Not everything is Floq's fault. Lepricavark (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Convenient that you missed the point. The long term involved admin could and should have left it to an admin with the balls to do a proper job. "Evil hawks"? You said it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::IMO, the admin you describe would indef you because the constant drama that surrounds you, to which you contribute far more than you would admit, is too much of a drain on the community. Which, given your tendency to play the victim, might be exactly what you want. Lepricavark (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Your opinion doesn't seem to match any sense of logic, but thanks for it anyway. I'd spend more time improving articles and less time lurking around the drama boards if I were you. To avoid drama, Floq should have stayed away from making a half-arsed job which he himself admitted was just left unfinished, creating this time sink. Any other admin would have been more able to do the job here.!The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|I'd spend more time improving articles and less time lurking around the drama boards if I were you.}} I could say the same thing to you. You complain about drama board time sinks, yet you constantly create them. You say you this isn't a grudge against Floq, yet you keep bringing up an old slight at every chance you get. You regularly rail against the admins in general, yet you sound so confident that any admin besides Floq could have handled this case. And now you want to evaluate my logic. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Wrong, while this errant user claimed I had a vandalism-only account, and while the attending admin (who has been involved with me in the past and really should have known better) did half-a-job, I've improved many articles, actually performed a number of GA reviews and promotions.... you on the other hand? Don't come telling me to do something else when this could all have been sorted if an admin had done the job properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Your interpretation of events ("half-arsed job") is totally incorrect. The only reason there is a problem is that you also completely misinterpreted Floq's comments at User talk:Joseph2302. Carrying a grudge for this long is not good for you or the community. Your current path leads to Kumioko's destination. No one at Wikipedia cares who was first to spit in the other person's porridge. Just stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Not at all. You should stop. Floq did not need to get involved, only to walk away. Plenty of other admins service AIV and do it properly, Floq's partial actions just antagonises the problem. This is not a grudge, it's just a fact, so don't get confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:: No admin should feel obliged to involve themselves in this type of drama, especially when an ANI case can easily resolve the issue. I support any consensus action against User:Joseph2302, but feel it's ridiculous to suggest that {{U|Floquenbeam}} is in any way at fault here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, TRM reports a personal attack, and rather than a quick close, he gets asked why he can't just ignore them? That's not how personal attacks go. This is what contributes to the toxic atmosphere at Wiki and especially at ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Just ignoring is, I've now realized and discovered, the best tactic when dealing with someone who is trolling. What contributes to the toxic atmosphere in Wikipedia is contributing to things escalating. It's the same as on the playground when you were a kid: ignore the bullies and eventually they will go away because the fun for them is in the chase and the responses they get. No response = no fun. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::So an established editor breaks policies continuously and you just recommend that people ignore them? Why would we need policies then? nihlus kryik (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I recommend that the editor who feels they are being attacked ignore them, yes. Personal attacks are immature behavior. Immature behavior doesn't need immature behavior in response. Such a response will only escalate and increase incidents of the immature behavior. If it administrators notice it and do something about it, fine. But to make a huge issue of it and go on and on at talk pages and noticeboards...it only gives the attacker more reason to continue either now or later on. It also gives other editor trolls more ammunition to use at a later time, possibly at a noticeboard discussion started as a complaint about the attacker. There are a lot of immature people in Wikipedia who like the anonymity it provides so they can take out their aggressions or sadistic impulses on others. I've learned this the hard way. From something I borrowed from another Wikipedia and put on my user page a couple of years ago: "...be mindful of...how the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap...Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray...". Running to an admin board for every infraction you (think you) see or perceive isn't the answer. And, admins don't really appreciate it, either. Wish I had realized this sooner, to be honest. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Gee, if only there was some sort of official stance on civility. An... oblong shaped object. Maybe with some fancy carving on it. Used to support the whole of Wikipedia? We could probably use five of them. Not sure. Maybe that's something we should look into. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I propose derailing this thread by diverting the discussion to the question of whether a pillar is oblong or cylindrical. EEng 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Oppose. Seems to me that individual pillars deserve the right to their own geometries, and we should not bully them by trying to determine/impose our opinions or stereotypes. -- Begoon 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Priceless. Enigmamsg 04:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Sad to see the history and culture of our great five pillars being turned into oblongs. You can't change pillars, but you can learn from them! Pillars, Talk pages{{snd}}what's next, Visual Editor? Flow? So foolish! EEng 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{small|It can't be oblong as that is a 2 dimensional shape, now if you were to say a rectangular prism.... Also, what if the pillar had a polygonal cross section? Are we discriminating against pillars with hexagonal, heptagonal or even octagonal cross sections?? -Blackmane (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)}}
:::::::::{{Small|I knew all that stuff but humor comes first. EEng 06:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)}}
- Joseph2302 should be indeffed per the absurd report linked in the OP, and the "bizarre ANI thread" linked above by Pawnkingthree. Those links, plus their reaction which required revocation of talk page access, show that Joseph2302 is unable to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion. TRM should receive a massive trout for misinterpreting Floquenbeam's action to revert the absurd report and the subsequent discussion at Joseph2302's talk. @TRM: Not everyone is on the lookout for an opportunity to poke their opponent. Floq undoubtedly remembers the old discussions with TRM, but Floq does not keep pots boiling—Floq saw some nonsense, reverted it, and spoke gently with the user. TRM really had to work hard to assume bad faith in what Floq said, and bringing up the old fuck you is pathetic. For those familiar with TRM's history, the fact that someone told TRM "fuck you" merely indicates that TRM regularly gets under people's skin. TRM's ability to get under people's skin is what needs attention. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'll agree that this present episode is deeply unimpressive - and it was me who declined to unblock and disabled TP access. However, I'm not convinced that an editor with 40k edits and relatively little form (judging from his block log) is a net negative ripe for being indeffed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- GoldenRing, I want to be with you--but this is really deeply unimpressive to an extent that you wonder what the hell someone was thinking. They should have known this was going to be the result. Johnuniq, well said. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- TRM's talk page was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=prev&oldid=796084256 edited by an IP] today to insert a description of TRM as worse than Hitler. This ridiculous personal attack was reverted by admin {{u|Bencherlite}} but no warning was issued to the IP nor block imposed. No matter what TRM has done nor how many editors and admins he has annoyed, I believe that swift action is appropriate when any editor declares that another is worse than a man responsible for millions of death. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::*{{u|EdChem}}, yes it was ridiculous. I saw no need to feed the troll by leaving a warning, and no need to block a dynamic IP with no other edits of a similar nature. BencherliteTalk 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::*{{u|Bencherlite}}, you reverted the IP's PA three minutes after it was posted. How did you know that whoever made the edit wouldn't post more bile somewhere else a few minutes later, perhaps somewhere not on your watchlist? Did you consider that a block of the IP would demonstrate to other editors that such posts are not tolerated, no matter who they are made against? It may be unfair, but my first thought on seeing the reversion but no block was that a similar post to most other users would have been met with a block and to wonder whether the reason for no block was because the attack was made against TRM. I can well understand not posting a warning because of the troll-feeding, but not blocking can be taken as sending a message which I hope you did not intend. It's too late to block now, of course, and there have been no further edits from the IP, which I recognise does fit with your decision... and, of course, your reversion was absolutely the right thing to do and was appreciated. I do believe, however, that a block on the IP would have been desirable. EdChem (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::*LOL, you think I'm on the side of people who attack TRM? That's an interesting take on things. BencherliteTalk 08:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::Maybe the IP saw [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2UzbFYi2Go this]? That aside, the original post at IAV is just plain odd. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Lugnuts}} Are you in... flavor country?! ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::It's a big country... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::I make that {{tlx|checkuser needed}}. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|GoldenRing}} What are you needing checkuser for here? If you want me to publicly link an IP to an account, I can't do that.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{clerk note}} Tag disabled as it has been addressed by a CU. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:Just finished my block, and seen this thread. I 100% wasn't the person who posted that terrible post to {{U|The Rambling Man}}. There's a difference between the posts I made, which were wrong, and that post, which is horrifically grossly insulting. That IP should be given a long block IMO. Comparing a Wikipedian to one of the world's worst every human beings is wholly unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
Duplicate articles
Not sure if anything is wrong here, but there's the possibility that the duck may be clearing its throat in preparation for a quack: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20891689_1362212647228801_1277499860_mohammed.jpg This image] was uploaded to Commons yesterday, just 30 minutes later a different editor uploaded a complete biography using that image to Mohammed Muntari Tageo, 5 minutes after that, the same user made a copy of the article at Mohammed muntari tageo. Working back to WP from the Commons user there were also user pages that looked like article biographies as well. As I said, I'm not sure if this is anything more than a duplicate article problem, an article being reposted after deletion or something else. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible template vulnerability used in [[Azad Hind]] to redirect to a Twitch channel/external website
I was attempting to click on a link on this article when I was suddenly redirected to some sort of satirical Twitch channel. Apparently, somebody managed to insert a page-long image that links to an external website. Editing the article's source doesn't reveal any suspicious links, so I presume that the vulnerability resides inside of a template used within the page, and I'm not good enough with reading/editing Wikipedia templates (even though they must be simple enough to use) to locate the vulnerability (perhaps the vulnerability resides within the MediaWiki software itself?). This could be dangerous, as the external link might be an IP logger or even worse, and prevents normal usage of Wikipedia.
You simply have to click anywhere inside the contents of the article to be redirected. The website's sidebar and top bar are normally usable as the link's reach doesn't leave the article's div tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaryLouka (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:A remnant, I think, of some vandalism some days ago. Try purging the page's server cache by making a null edit on the page if you see it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:It seems to be gone now - That being said, however, I feel that the incident around twitch links in templates does need to be dealt with. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::Well, yes, I purged the cache by making a null edit... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::It's still there. I just had this issue on the exact same article and was going to come here to report it. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::By the way [https://ibb.co/h0fpga here] is what the page HTML source code looked like to me a few minutes ago. It is not longer appearing for me either. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks, it's no longer appearing for you? Perhaps it was a lingering caching effect. :) (I did purge a few more times...). The ext link has been blacklisted so it should not be appearing on the wiki again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:The spoof here was covering the whole page a transparent png; is there a reason not to size-limit img= things? Do we need 7000x7000 images anywhere? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
=Proposal: Entire template space is semi-protected=
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = Nope. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
----
I would like to propose that the entire template space move to a minimum standard of semi-protection. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose this is trying to fix a leak with a hammer. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Power, doesn't solve anything really. ansh666 17:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This is an overreaction. The incident has already been dealt with, any remnants can be cleared up very simply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Overkill. It has already been added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose IP and new users do make useful and productive changes to templates. There are better ways to handle this issue. Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::DYK nominations are the obvious examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, yeah, and when I find the editor who created that ridiculous structure for DYK I'm going to throttle them. EEng 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
----
: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
=Alternative proposal : Audit templates and TE protect above a threshold=
I like the idea of template editor protecting these sorts of templates; they are obviously high use, and vandals are likely to go for the ones that have the highest visibility. So, do we have an audit of the most widely transcluded templates (infoboxes and Twinkle-compatible templates must be high up the list)? And if not, can we make one. Once we know that, we can start identifying what should be protected, and act on that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
: We have Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions (highest). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::See WP:HRT. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:The problem is edits that add large images or layers to templates by IP or new users. Would it be possible to create an edit filter to look for those and prevent them from happening, directing the user to the template talk page to request the edit there? Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::It's certainly possible to create an edit filter which checks when IPs (or any class of users) add images (or external links) to templates, tagging the edit, blocking it, warning the user or so. However, I do not think it'd be possible to check if the image is large or not, since technically you're referencing to the image location and not embedding the object in the edit itself. --QEDK (愛) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Unilateral undo of a consensus move
A couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion to move Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to Artsakh Republic, as the country had changed names. Consensus was obtained and the move was approved on August 7. Then people industriously performed the needed changes and moves.
Today, {{User|Norvikk}} appears out of nowhere and decides to move them all back. When I complained on their talk page, they reverted me, so now I come here.
I note that this is not Norvikk's first brush with edit warring, nor their first time declining to participate in any discussion; an edit summary from them, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Visa_policy_by_country&diff=792732949&oldid=792732360], translates as "Nobody wants to participate in your "fucking discussion", maybe that's why you can not discuss it." So, they're charming and willing to work with others.
I'd like more eyes on this, both because we probably need to deal with this user in a way other than "pretty please," and also because this is a lot of busy work they've created for us. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:They have now vandalized my user page. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::And they blanked this section. Surely we're at the level of not-here? --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Totally NOTQUITEHERE, I think. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=795943457 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Golbez&diff=prev&oldid=795943219 this] is actually consistent with this ediotor's M.O.- that of a blatant IDHT-unilateral-MyWayOrTheHighway attitude. Overiding and ignoring a community-established consensu? Dictating the contents of another editor's user page? Dictating what may or may not be posted at a community discussion board? No way is that a collegiate behavioural pattern, and one way or another, it needs to be discouraged immediately. — fortunavelut luna 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::I see User:Floquenbeam has successfully attempted to discourage that behaviour for at least 72 hours. — fortunavelut luna 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::They've contributed a lot to en.wiki, so I don't think NOTHERE applies. But this is clearly disruptive behavior (the moves, plus screwing with Golbez's user page, plus blanking this section), so I've blocked for 3 days to prevent further disruption. I don't think this solves the problem of this thread; we should decide what to do at the end of three days, and we should decide if the block needs to be longer to prevent re-reverting the moves (which I assume are going to be fixed by then) when the block expires. This block is only a temporary solution to the immediate disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Yes, I prefered the NOTQUITEHERE to the other ;) It's odd though. See, they've been a useful member of the community for 2¾ years, with no blocks (as touched on above) and sound editing, it seems. Then this February went on a mad 3RR one, and now this. I wonder if there's something going on we could find out from them? That, of course, would need asking... — fortunavelut luna 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- If we are assuming that 99.53.112.186 is the same as the registered user, there have been CheckUser blocks on that IP address, so it's probably worth while to get a CheckUser involved. It's an AT&T Lightspeed IP address and could be dynamic, so that's something that will need to be taken into consideration. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::You're misunderstanding; that IP helped by reverting the disruption on this page, and actually has a long history of good work. No one thinks that IP is Norvikk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
176.181.72.89
It seems that {{IPuser|176.181.72.89}} has been committing cross-wiki sneaky vandalism since May 2017. All of the IP's edits were reverted by other users. Could someone please block the IP? Thanks, 153.206.109.8 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Don't forget to inform the user of the ANI case, I have done so this time, but in the future it is important to inform a user of an ANI case as soon as you report them. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Antisemitism
Could someone have a look at the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. There are two editors determined to include a picture of Jeremy Corbyn. The picture was added only two weeks ago, shortly after the 2017 UK general election. There was no discussion and no consensus was sought. There's little evidence of a consensus for such a controversial move. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:As this is a content dispute, I have fully protected the article for one week and advised editors to gain consensus for the inclusion of these images. I don't believe any other admin action is necessary at this time -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, says User:Philip Cross, it fits "as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has been implicated in a tolerance of antisemitism by very many sources"--a ridiculous excuse for a BLP violation. One wonders (maybe) why Cross picked only Corbyn, when all major parties were indicted in the recent report. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I am with my honourable colleague Drmies here. I don't wonder at anything anybody does or says here any more, but I would be prepared if necessary to exercise a technical measure to prevent any such damage to our project. --John (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I looked at this a few hours ago and was going to post some thoughts but really I just think people who continue righting great wrongs in such an absurd fashion should be given a final warning and then indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- What Phillp Cross said is correct and the fact it hardly appears anywhere is an obvious NPOV problem (not opining on Corbyn's picture on that page, but the general coverage of the issue in this encyclopedia). Corbyn even had to commission an inquiry about it due to the pressure from the media, yet none of that appears on his page or the Labour page. Funny that, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-anti-semitism-harry-fletcher-sunday-times-op-ed-a7697456.html] here they even call it Labour Anti-Semitism. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a RS that states that the Labour party linked to increase in anti-semitic acts in the UK. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/labour-party-linked-increase-anti-semitic-incidents-according/] hiding behind PC policy is just wrong, here's another RS, where a third of voters stated they will not vote Labour because of alleged anti-semitism, clearly Labour and Antisemitism in the UK is relateable, [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jewish-news-ken-livingstone-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-a7659186.html] Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:However Labour != Jeremy Corbyn. Its inappropriate to link a living person in that way absent reliable sources that do. That *Labour* has an anti-Semitism problem (allegedly) has been well covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::How about [http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/236063/why-just-13-percent-of-british-jews-say-they-will-vote-for-labour-in-the-general-election this]? The same percentage of Jews said they'd vote Labour as Muslims who voted for Trump, linked directly to Corbyn.
::This is not the place to go over the content issue, but it's obvious noting criticism of how Corbyn deals with antisemitism is not a BLP violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::By the way, the fact nothing about this stuff appears in any relevant article despite years of coverage in places like the BBC, NBC, Guardian, etc, is an obvious WP:BIAS issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Oh that's just because Wikipedia is run by socialists... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Socialist activists, please. -- Begoon 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, those pesky Jews who want to edit Wikipedia and include mention of increased antisemitism in the world, and antisemitism with regards to Labour and how it's affecting the party. Shame, really. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Oh. Well at least you're neutral. I was joking, I have no position, but nailing your flag to the mast is ok too. I don't edit those articles. I have better things to do. They're full of people who make comments like you just did. Not a war I want to join. -- Begoon 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You don't want to join the war, just take a drive-by shot. What's not neutral in what Sir Joe just said?
:::::::You guys can make fun of this as much as you like, the fact remains that editors try to add information about this issue to various articles and those attempts are almost always blocked, despite the fact there's a very large amount of coverage in the media. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Yep, I was kicked off a page because I posted a different opinion about Sweden. It is true though, that antisemitism is now tolerated by the left, both in the UK and in the US, and it's a shame that Wikipedia is not allowing mention of that in articles where it can rightly belong, merely I guess for trying to be PC. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, all those left-wing demonstrators in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us!" were quite a spectacle. Oh, wait... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for proving our point. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate articles
Not sure if anything is wrong here, but there's the possibility that the duck may be clearing its throat in preparation for a quack: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20891689_1362212647228801_1277499860_mohammed.jpg This image] was uploaded to Commons yesterday, just 30 minutes later a different editor uploaded a complete biography using that image to Mohammed Muntari Tageo, 5 minutes after that, the same user made a copy of the article at Mohammed muntari tageo. Working back to WP from the Commons user there were also user pages that looked like article biographies as well. As I said, I'm not sure if this is anything more than a duplicate article problem, an article being reposted after deletion or something else. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible template vulnerability used in [[Azad Hind]] to redirect to a Twitch channel/external website
I was attempting to click on a link on this article when I was suddenly redirected to some sort of satirical Twitch channel. Apparently, somebody managed to insert a page-long image that links to an external website. Editing the article's source doesn't reveal any suspicious links, so I presume that the vulnerability resides inside of a template used within the page, and I'm not good enough with reading/editing Wikipedia templates (even though they must be simple enough to use) to locate the vulnerability (perhaps the vulnerability resides within the MediaWiki software itself?). This could be dangerous, as the external link might be an IP logger or even worse, and prevents normal usage of Wikipedia.
You simply have to click anywhere inside the contents of the article to be redirected. The website's sidebar and top bar are normally usable as the link's reach doesn't leave the article's div tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaryLouka (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:A remnant, I think, of some vandalism some days ago. Try purging the page's server cache by making a null edit on the page if you see it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:It seems to be gone now - That being said, however, I feel that the incident around twitch links in templates does need to be dealt with. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::Well, yes, I purged the cache by making a null edit... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::It's still there. I just had this issue on the exact same article and was going to come here to report it. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::By the way [https://ibb.co/h0fpga here] is what the page HTML source code looked like to me a few minutes ago. It is not longer appearing for me either. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks, it's no longer appearing for you? Perhaps it was a lingering caching effect. :) (I did purge a few more times...). The ext link has been blacklisted so it should not be appearing on the wiki again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:The spoof here was covering the whole page a transparent png; is there a reason not to size-limit img= things? Do we need 7000x7000 images anywhere? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
=Proposal: Entire template space is semi-protected=
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = Nope. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
----
I would like to propose that the entire template space move to a minimum standard of semi-protection. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose this is trying to fix a leak with a hammer. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Power, doesn't solve anything really. ansh666 17:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This is an overreaction. The incident has already been dealt with, any remnants can be cleared up very simply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Overkill. It has already been added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose IP and new users do make useful and productive changes to templates. There are better ways to handle this issue. Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::DYK nominations are the obvious examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, yeah, and when I find the editor who created that ridiculous structure for DYK I'm going to throttle them. EEng 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
----
: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
=Alternative proposal : Audit templates and TE protect above a threshold=
I like the idea of template editor protecting these sorts of templates; they are obviously high use, and vandals are likely to go for the ones that have the highest visibility. So, do we have an audit of the most widely transcluded templates (infoboxes and Twinkle-compatible templates must be high up the list)? And if not, can we make one. Once we know that, we can start identifying what should be protected, and act on that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
: We have Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions (highest). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::See WP:HRT. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:The problem is edits that add large images or layers to templates by IP or new users. Would it be possible to create an edit filter to look for those and prevent them from happening, directing the user to the template talk page to request the edit there? Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::It's certainly possible to create an edit filter which checks when IPs (or any class of users) add images (or external links) to templates, tagging the edit, blocking it, warning the user or so. However, I do not think it'd be possible to check if the image is large or not, since technically you're referencing to the image location and not embedding the object in the edit itself. --QEDK (愛) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Unilateral undo of a consensus move
A couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion to move Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to Artsakh Republic, as the country had changed names. Consensus was obtained and the move was approved on August 7. Then people industriously performed the needed changes and moves.
Today, {{User|Norvikk}} appears out of nowhere and decides to move them all back. When I complained on their talk page, they reverted me, so now I come here.
I note that this is not Norvikk's first brush with edit warring, nor their first time declining to participate in any discussion; an edit summary from them, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Visa_policy_by_country&diff=792732949&oldid=792732360], translates as "Nobody wants to participate in your "fucking discussion", maybe that's why you can not discuss it." So, they're charming and willing to work with others.
I'd like more eyes on this, both because we probably need to deal with this user in a way other than "pretty please," and also because this is a lot of busy work they've created for us. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:They have now vandalized my user page. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::And they blanked this section. Surely we're at the level of not-here? --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Totally NOTQUITEHERE, I think. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=795943457 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Golbez&diff=prev&oldid=795943219 this] is actually consistent with this ediotor's M.O.- that of a blatant IDHT-unilateral-MyWayOrTheHighway attitude. Overiding and ignoring a community-established consensu? Dictating the contents of another editor's user page? Dictating what may or may not be posted at a community discussion board? No way is that a collegiate behavioural pattern, and one way or another, it needs to be discouraged immediately. — fortunavelut luna 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::I see User:Floquenbeam has successfully attempted to discourage that behaviour for at least 72 hours. — fortunavelut luna 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::They've contributed a lot to en.wiki, so I don't think NOTHERE applies. But this is clearly disruptive behavior (the moves, plus screwing with Golbez's user page, plus blanking this section), so I've blocked for 3 days to prevent further disruption. I don't think this solves the problem of this thread; we should decide what to do at the end of three days, and we should decide if the block needs to be longer to prevent re-reverting the moves (which I assume are going to be fixed by then) when the block expires. This block is only a temporary solution to the immediate disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Yes, I prefered the NOTQUITEHERE to the other ;) It's odd though. See, they've been a useful member of the community for 2¾ years, with no blocks (as touched on above) and sound editing, it seems. Then this February went on a mad 3RR one, and now this. I wonder if there's something going on we could find out from them? That, of course, would need asking... — fortunavelut luna 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- If we are assuming that 99.53.112.186 is the same as the registered user, there have been CheckUser blocks on that IP address, so it's probably worth while to get a CheckUser involved. It's an AT&T Lightspeed IP address and could be dynamic, so that's something that will need to be taken into consideration. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::You're misunderstanding; that IP helped by reverting the disruption on this page, and actually has a long history of good work. No one thinks that IP is Norvikk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
176.181.72.89
It seems that {{IPuser|176.181.72.89}} has been committing cross-wiki sneaky vandalism since May 2017. All of the IP's edits were reverted by other users. Could someone please block the IP? Thanks, 153.206.109.8 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Don't forget to inform the user of the ANI case, I have done so this time, but in the future it is important to inform a user of an ANI case as soon as you report them. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Antisemitism
Could someone have a look at the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. There are two editors determined to include a picture of Jeremy Corbyn. The picture was added only two weeks ago, shortly after the 2017 UK general election. There was no discussion and no consensus was sought. There's little evidence of a consensus for such a controversial move. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:As this is a content dispute, I have fully protected the article for one week and advised editors to gain consensus for the inclusion of these images. I don't believe any other admin action is necessary at this time -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, says User:Philip Cross, it fits "as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has been implicated in a tolerance of antisemitism by very many sources"--a ridiculous excuse for a BLP violation. One wonders (maybe) why Cross picked only Corbyn, when all major parties were indicted in the recent report. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I am with my honourable colleague Drmies here. I don't wonder at anything anybody does or says here any more, but I would be prepared if necessary to exercise a technical measure to prevent any such damage to our project. --John (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I looked at this a few hours ago and was going to post some thoughts but really I just think people who continue righting great wrongs in such an absurd fashion should be given a final warning and then indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- What Phillp Cross said is correct and the fact it hardly appears anywhere is an obvious NPOV problem (not opining on Corbyn's picture on that page, but the general coverage of the issue in this encyclopedia). Corbyn even had to commission an inquiry about it due to the pressure from the media, yet none of that appears on his page or the Labour page. Funny that, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-anti-semitism-harry-fletcher-sunday-times-op-ed-a7697456.html] here they even call it Labour Anti-Semitism. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a RS that states that the Labour party linked to increase in anti-semitic acts in the UK. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/labour-party-linked-increase-anti-semitic-incidents-according/] hiding behind PC policy is just wrong, here's another RS, where a third of voters stated they will not vote Labour because of alleged anti-semitism, clearly Labour and Antisemitism in the UK is relateable, [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jewish-news-ken-livingstone-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-a7659186.html] Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:However Labour != Jeremy Corbyn. Its inappropriate to link a living person in that way absent reliable sources that do. That *Labour* has an anti-Semitism problem (allegedly) has been well covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::How about [http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/236063/why-just-13-percent-of-british-jews-say-they-will-vote-for-labour-in-the-general-election this]? The same percentage of Jews said they'd vote Labour as Muslims who voted for Trump, linked directly to Corbyn.
::This is not the place to go over the content issue, but it's obvious noting criticism of how Corbyn deals with antisemitism is not a BLP violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::By the way, the fact nothing about this stuff appears in any relevant article despite years of coverage in places like the BBC, NBC, Guardian, etc, is an obvious WP:BIAS issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Oh that's just because Wikipedia is run by socialists... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Socialist activists, please. -- Begoon 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, those pesky Jews who want to edit Wikipedia and include mention of increased antisemitism in the world, and antisemitism with regards to Labour and how it's affecting the party. Shame, really. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Oh. Well at least you're neutral. I was joking, I have no position, but nailing your flag to the mast is ok too. I don't edit those articles. I have better things to do. They're full of people who make comments like you just did. Not a war I want to join. -- Begoon 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You don't want to join the war, just take a drive-by shot. What's not neutral in what Sir Joe just said?
:::::::You guys can make fun of this as much as you like, the fact remains that editors try to add information about this issue to various articles and those attempts are almost always blocked, despite the fact there's a very large amount of coverage in the media. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Yep, I was kicked off a page because I posted a different opinion about Sweden. It is true though, that antisemitism is now tolerated by the left, both in the UK and in the US, and it's a shame that Wikipedia is not allowing mention of that in articles where it can rightly belong, merely I guess for trying to be PC. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, all those left-wing demonstrators in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us!" were quite a spectacle. Oh, wait... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for proving our point. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Carmaker1 aggressive edit summaries, again
Hi. Despite two previous incidents on the same issue ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive265#Someone_needs_a_chill_pill 1]), ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Edit_summaries_and_talk_page_warnings_from_Carmaker1 2]), Carmaker1 is still making aggressive Edit Summaries:
- "I am tired of ignorant, that remain too thick to realize production dates have NOTHING to do with MODEL years that are merely designations, NOT timelines based in real time. STOP using them for timelines or I'll simply report you for disruptive editing"
- "To clueless IP user 99.42...., please don't anymore unproductive changes to this article"
- "Stop wasting my time"
- "As usual SteveofC00 has an lazy inability to understand model years and thinks..."
- "Stupid wording. Why can't some of you figure out how to use prepositions..."
- "Miss me with that "citation needed" nonsense 1292"
- "1292simon it is so obvious that"
- "It is not "confusing", I don't give damn about..."
- "Some of you continue to stubbornly ignorant of model years usage"
- "Stupid vandal"
- "I really shouldn't be saying, but is utterly disappointing that there are users who are allowed contribute such contradictory information. They have no business editing here, if such simple info cannot be submitted correctly"
- "Editing things like this is a waste of time"
- "Please get the damn timeline right. I was totally thrown off, by the inability of someone else to CORRECTLY list the..."
I think something should be done to stop the personal attacks and hostile environment for other editors. 1292simon (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Well in the past few days, I've written "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_concerts_in_Hyde_Park&diff=prev&oldid=795840363 This article is crap. Time for at least a decent intro]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_concerts_in_Hyde_Park&diff=prev&oldid=795840404 not notable my arse]", neither of which were directed towards any editor but more an exasperated sigh before I tackled some improvements to that article. I need context. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Hi Ritchie. I don't want to get into whether its ok to slag off an article or not, but either way the hostility directly at others editors is a more serious issue, I think.
Regarding the context, the examples above are all quite recent, so the context can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Carmaker1. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::: As far as I can tell, Carmaker1 is getting repeatedly fed up with new users and IPs making either factual errors in articles or changing contentious content away from what was agreed by consensus. I don't know what you want me to do other than just remind him to dial it back a bit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::: Carmaker1 has far more patience than I. I find the "aggressiveness" understandable under the circumstances, and I find the complainant's accusations of "personal attacks" to be absolute horseshit. This is a frivolous impeachment, and a waste of the community's time. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible Edit War
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amazinganime4&diff=795981876&oldid=793631046
I have to complain in the strongest possible terms about user Amazinganime4, who continually and without any real reason changes or mis-edits my contributions to sections of LIST OF POKEMON: SUN AND MOON EPISODES. The edits he or she does are minor but unnecessary and demonstrate that he or she possibly does not use English as a primary language. I have asked this user to desist and have informed him/her that I would bring this matter to your attention, but have apparently been ignored.TonyPS214 18:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:Checking... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::Edits and content aside: the messages you left on Amazinganime4's talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amazinganime4&diff=792752021&oldid=758307612 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amazinganime4&diff=795981876&oldid=793631046 here] look to demonstrate behaviors consistent with ownership of content; Amazinganime4's edits to the article include simple changes to numbers and grammar ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon%3A_Sun_%26_Moon_episodes&type=revision&diff=795976763&oldid=795947655 diff]), and your first message stated how you've "run out of patience" with the user (even though you have not communicated with this user before) and proceeded to tell the user to stay away from your changes. This is not how Wikipedia works; there is no such thing as ownership of content. All editors are equally welcome and encouraged to contribute to any and all content on Wikipedia. Absolutely nobody on Wikipedia has special or more control or "rights" to edit content than anybody else. If the information that the user is modifying is not correct, that is a different issue and this should be discussed on the article's talk page. But telling someone to "buzz off" because they're modifying something you've added or are working on is not acceptable and goes against Wikipedia's principle of complete and total open collaboration and expansion to it's content. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::TonyPS214 made a report to WP:3RRN about this case; I have declined it since there's no 3RR violation and the report was poorly formed anyway. I also reverted TonyPS214's most recent undo at the Pokemon page in question and reverted his undo of the other user's blanking of their talk page. only (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive edits
This user (User:LuisSuazo300) has been constantly disrupting the pages Marcos Llorente, Borja Mayoral, Real Madrid Castilla, and 2017–18 Real Madrid C.F. season. For instance, please take a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcos_Llorente&curid=48256448&action=history this]. He then proceeded to justify the reasons for his edits on the talk page of User:Kante4 as: {{green|"Like I said, Marcos Llorente is not ready to be with the senior team do you understand, he needs to go back to Castilla and improve himself and this is why coach Zidane made a huge mistake for calling him to the senior team, he should of said "nope, in order for Marcos Llorente to be with the senior team, he needs to keep improving himself on Castilla."}} Warnings have been exhausted, and it seems like he's just doing it to enforce which players he thinks the squad should be composed of, not what the [http://www.realmadrid.com/en/football/squad actual squad] is. — Anakimilambaste 21:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{comment}} Appears to be an editor with a history of similar conduct. I have blocked the editor in question for 2 weeks based on recent disruptive editing and the subsequent incivility ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kante4&diff=prev&oldid=796176291 ][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kante4&diff=prev&oldid=796176310 ]) Alex ShihTalk 02:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Confederate monuments list
There is a lot of editing going on at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, including some trying to change the list-article to cover schools and parks named after Confederate leaders. The list-article has been in place since 2010, with current title since 2015, and IMHO it is clearly out of scope to add those. There has been some back and forth at Talk page, including at a discussion section about proposed name change / scope change, which is at least partly productive. I myself stated that I was following wp:BRD and removing the off-topic additions, and I expect that there should be discussion first.
However, it has gotten out of hand now. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&oldid=795864719 this edit just now] an editor accused me of vandalism, which is absurd, and there were other accusations that way in edit summaries and at the Talk page. I don't want to term it edit warring so far. I removed stuff and after it was all restored I removed it once more, with direction to the Talk page, and I don't plan to restore it now myself. But the list-article has been trashed, in my view, and is now non-encyclopedic. I suggest it would be appropriate to restore a neutral version of the article and freeze it, and force discussion by RFC or whatever, at the Talk page. I hope some attention can be given there. I may not be able to respond/participate much more myself. --doncram 23:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:I would advise that any matters dealing with this be passed to the Foundation for office action. I just don't feel, at our pay grade, it is safe or advisable to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::Wehwalt: What a ridiculous statement. The current article's already pretty long, so it would make sense to spin off a new list of public facilities (schools, parks, buildings -- but not monuments, statues) named for Confederates. If there's no such list, someone start it (I would but I don't even have one thing I can put on it). EEng 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I am referring to administrative actions and you are not. That is within the terms of what the OP is asking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I'm referring to potential administrative actions too. If you're too afraid of the drooling knuckle-draggers to use your tools, step back and let those made of better stuff do it instead. EEng 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Are these the knuckle draggers with torches or the knuckle draggers with other objects? I ask because you clearly have lifelong experience in the area.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Huh? For an admin you don't shine at this kind of repartee. EEng 21:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
A bunch of editors added memorials like schools and highways and one editor took them all out, changing the lede in a number of places. A spinout might be ok with consensus, but we create the spinout and then remove the content from the origional while adding a hatnote pointing to the spinout. I agree this repeated removal of valid content across multiple edits borders on vandalism. It's hard to restore the removed content due to intervening edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not a complicated problem. List inclusions are based on the defined criteria for the list. 'Memorials' is a not a great definition criteria because schools, roads, fountains, libraries etc are all named as memorials. Some even have 'memorial' in the name. This is not unique to the US. If the criteria is meant to include 'memorials' in general then there is no issue, if the list is meant to only include things like statues, then it clearly needs to say that. The answer is hold an RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have left a talk page message at WP:MIL about this discussion, because it's their baliwick. We are living in tumultuous times in regards to these memorials, and it isn't going away anytime soon. I agree that an RFC should be conducted on this. I also agree that the size of the list at 215,683 bytes is already too large for some users with older systems to edit. I'm for breaking it up and doing that division in coordination with the Military History project. A lot of the current editing is being done by autoconfirmed users. One way to do this, again in coordination with the WPMIL, is to fully protect the main article, and making a sub-page for editors to work on. But, let's hear from the WPMIL on this. A lot of those folks are not in America, so give them time to respond. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but here's what I'd do:
- # Gold-lock this article for a few days until there's consensus for what stays and what goes.
- # Probably spin off an article about former monuments. pbp 22:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Old News please close there is no one arguing about the scope of this page now and many editors are working happily on it. One of the better group editing experiences I've had. It is now by far the most complete and accurate list of its type in existence, having far surpassed the report it was initially built off. There is already Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials and a growing number of pages on individual monuments. This whole ANi topic can be safely closed. Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
BLP vio in edit summary - needs to be removed
{{archivetop|An administrator has acted upon the OP's request.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=prev&oldid=796171963]. Calling a living person a "racist" without sources or any kind of backup is a clear cut BLP violation. At the least, the edit summary should be oversighted (or rev-del or whatever). The user who made it should be at the very least warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::As far as I am concerned, the "sources or any kind of backup" were clearly provided on the talkpage (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Symone_Sanders here]). That is my considered opinion. Quis separabit? 14:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::No such sources were provided. You did not provide a single source which "backs up" calling this person racist. This needs to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::Is your issue with the content, the edit summary or both? We generally don't cite statements in edit summaries. Some of her comments [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/23/cnns_symone_sanders_we_dont_need_white_people_leading_the_democratic_party_right_now.html] could easily fit the description in the edit summary and are represented and well cited in Symone Sanders . Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::My issue is with an editor calling somebody "a racist" in an edit summary. That's not hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::This isn't your first rodeo. How did you miss the prominent notice, in a red box, in over-sized type, in bold, and accompanied by a bright red warning symbol telling you that this is not the place to post suppression requests?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't want to email anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::This term "racist" is getting thrown around way too carelessly in the real world. While there's not much we can do here to straighten out the real world, the least we can do in not to jump on this mindless bandwagon. I rev-deled the summary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
SPA at Alawites
{{user2|يوسف_عاشق_الجبل}} has been adding the same unsourced line in the article Alawites since 2016 (1-2-3-4-5-6), despite reversions by multiple editors. After asking why, I got some vague answer about sectarian lies, so for the time being I left it in with a citation-needed tag. But now even that has been reverted. Case of WP:TRUTH and WP:IDHT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Mass indiscriminate addition of {{tl|C-SPAN}}
{{u|Kev519}} has for the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kev519 3 days] has been adding the {{tl|C-SPAN}} template and links to many, many articles, without edit summaries, discussion or response to queries for an explaination. Consensus should be sought for this type of editing at the very least. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{comment}} I have issued a warning. This has been going on for a while, so the next edit of similar kind (appears to have stopped for today) will result in temporary sanction. Alex ShihTalk 03:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, these are links to what appears to be a CSPAN archive of films/videos on various people e.g. in the Malcolm X article,
::{{tq|{{C-SPAN|malcolmx}}}}
:I don't see the problem. I noticed these additions for a few articles on my watchlist, and they're all appropriate External Link material. Since most editors don't know these resources are available, I think it actually makes sense to simply add this template to articles whose subjects have such archived CSPAN material, and other editors, in the few cases where the article doesn't benefit from the addition, can remove it. I sampled twenty of the article to which the addition had been made three days ago, and in no case has it been removed. This is pretty compelling evidence that in most case it's a useful addition.
:
:I think Alex Shih's warning re "mass indiscriminate addition of information" is overkill and inappropriate. EEng 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::Well, except that this place runs on consensus. The warning about process was correct. I think the links may well be a good addition but getting consensus before launching a campaign like that is wise, as is pausing to ensure consensus when people say "what's up with this". Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::This place also runs on boldness, and I think this is a good bold move, easily undone in the cases where it's not an improvement. EEng 03:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yes WP is a heady brew of libertarian and communitarian ideologies - it would fall apart without boldness and without consensus. As one of the most relational people here, i would expect you to be sensitive to the problem of people being nonresponsive, EE. ... Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Yes, he should respond, and he should use an edit summary (maybe, "suggested EL -- feel free to remove if not helpful for this article"). I'm relational? EEng 04:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::yes, Mister Sensitive! Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::You're projecting. EEng 11:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}} I think that while the addition of the links is somewhat useful, ignoring the multiple comments on his talk page is problematic behavior, especially if consensus is reached to undo his thousands of edits. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- At the very least he needs to use an edit summary for each addition. As to whether the indiscriminate mass edits themselves are useful, that's debatable. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
PA is irking me
{{archive top|result=I think we're done; some mustard was delivered long after the meal was over. {{U|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} is on what we might call a civility restraint and appears to be aware of the effect of their actions; let us hope that it won't be necessary to revisit this topic--but admins are encouraged to not let this sink into "ANI slime", but to use it if necessary as a reference point. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)}}
{{u|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRose_Van_Thyn&type=revision&diff=795670099&oldid=795602885 this], which I saw a few hours ago. I pointed out something [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARichard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&type=revision&diff=795757668&oldid=794592969 here], thinking that, well, he would retract it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=next&oldid=795757668 He didn't].
Although I usually just let PAs against pass by, I am really, really pissed with the implication that I am anti-semitic, which comes pretty much from nowhere and is chilling because that sort of mud sticks. Can someone please tell Norton not to bandy around things like that before doing their homework? There is absolutely no basis to it, either in my real life or in what I do on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, that's pretty low, Mister. But I thought you'd got a good handle on it: E.g., {{reply|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} implies someone is antisemitic on no basis; so @{{noping|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} gets told to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=795753184&oldid=795673992&title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rose_Van_Thyn Fuck Himself Off]. The system works. Although I do not necessarilly blame you at all for wanting some official eyes on it- in the spirit of preventing similar suggestions in future, I suppose {{u|Sitush}}? — fortunavelut luna 16:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::Some people perhaps don't get so riled by being labelled an anti-semite. I know the "he started it first" idea is childish, but he did and telling him to fuck off is not actually labelling him etc. I live in an area that has the second-highest density of Jewish people in the UK. I would be absolutely hammered if this baseless stuff got out. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Would Stamford Hill have the highest, would you say? — fortunavelut luna 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Eh? What is your point? Now he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rose_Van_Thyn&curid=54884898&diff=795809426&oldid=795808856 piling it on] with insinuations of hatred about other things. I'm seriously pissed with this. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::No, just idle curiousity, sorry- often wondered on a 253. Yes, the implications there are rather egregious. It's effectively envelope-pushing (in)civility, and certainly casting WP:ASPERSIONS upon an editor's motives. Mind you, RAN does seem to have form when it comes to that kind of incollegiality. — fortunavelut luna 16:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Since asking for/demanding apologies is a waste of time, let's do it this way instead:
- :User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will be blocked indefinitely if he ever says, or implies, that someone is an anti-semite. He will remain blocked until he agrees never to say something like that again, and can get the reviewing admin to believe him. This is not because we can't call things by their true names here; it is because apparently he is incapable of understanding the meaning of this very charged term.
:The point being, it's OK to call actual anti-semites "anti-semitic", but if you don't understand the term, or (worse) are using it to score rhetorical points, then you can't do that here. Whether, as a human being, RAN owes Sitush an apology is not a matter for WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::Forgot to metntion here, but I've {{tl|rpa}}'d the original insult that started this whole thing off, and {{tl|collapse}}'d the resulting comments at the AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} I agree that, after all, apologies aren't guarantees, whereas this way should achieve that. Seconded. 'Implies' is the equivalent of 'broadly construed,' here, I suppose. — fortunavelut luna 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::RAN's response is not encouraging; I'd switch the first sentence of that proposal to just "RAN is indeffed." GoldenRing (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I prefer the warning first, but will not lose any sleep if we do it your way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Not encouraging, indeed! if they cannot see that you cannot dictate after the event how a remark is to be taken by those it is directed at. CIR, IDHT, are intimated. — fortunavelut luna 17:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Support block and talk later. This is an editor who flies to this page when he believes he's been insulted with post after post about the incident. He wants consideration when he thinks he's on the receiving end, but appears to care less about what he says to others. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=734808920#User:Cassianto_purging_infoboxes_and_the_information_they_contain_and_telling_people_to_.22fuck_off.22 Deja vu] from one year ago today. BTW-Has he been notified of this thread? We hope (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Notified. Reminder, {{ping|Sitush}} when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. nihlus kryik (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply|Nihlus Kryik}} He knows. They know. The subject was notified, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=795806244&oldid=795802111&title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) some time ago]. Just bear in mind, because someone hasn't used a template, it doesn't mean it's not there. There is, after all, more to WP than templates, I hope :) Or at least, should be. — fortunavelut luna 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{User:GoldenRing/Ignored|GoldenRing (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)}}
::::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=795806244&oldid=795802111 Sitush did notify] Mysticdan (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, that's my bad. I missed it in all their friendly banter. :) nihlus kryik (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going to let this thread archive until Norton responds here. As others have said above, he does have form for making wild accusations. Somehow, he needs to learn that it isn't acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:*I agree. When lines are crossed, people need to account for their actions, and just ignoring the community at ANI in the hope it dies a death just isn't appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::It's not a very good sign at all, I agree. — fortunavelut luna 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a little surprised no one seems to have noted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=795602837&oldid=795598851&title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rose_Van_Thyn this comment], which likely prompted RAN's explosive remarks. It's probably not a good idea to suggest that one's own draft comments would have been misconstrued as antisemitism. To me, that's just asking for trouble. I certainly don't believe that Sitush is antisemitic, nor do I think RAN should have made such an assumption based on the comment I've linked. My point is that trying to preemptively head off such an accusation is not a great idea. WP:BEANS and such. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:*RAN may have misinterpreted Sitush's remarks, but that was over two days ago and the personal attack has not been retracted. There has been zero evidence to suggest the PA had any foundation. The only editor who said "I am not antisemitic, but..." is RAN—Sitush did not say that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::*I am merely making the point that everyone is ignoring that this was prompted by an ill-considered remark that was misconstrued, perhaps intentionally. I think context is important and therefore I pointed it out. I'm not denying that RAN is in the wrong, and he really should respond to this thread here and acknowledge that he is in the wrong, but it is a good idea to show Sitush his mistake so he can avoid it in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::*My point was that it is necessary to be extremely careful when commenting on topics such as this because it is so easy for something to be misconstrued. (For example, if I had suggested that people such as her sometimes engaged in their educational talks as much for her own personal therapy as for education then I would get into a lot of trouble. Note the word example, please - I've nothing to support it and no reason to think she did.) My remark was not an admission of anti-Semitism etc but, if anything, the opposite. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::*I completely agree that it is necessary to be careful, but I don't think you were careful enough when you wrote that you were concerned about being accused of antisemitism. RAN certainly made a large leap in his interpretation and it is true that your comment was not equivalent to "I am not antisemitic, but...", but when you say your words might be misrepresented as antisemitism, it opens up a door you don't want to open. Of course you aren't antisemitic and RAN needs to acknowledge that. Lepricavark (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- The only credible comments above are those calling for an indefinite block. People can say unfortunate things and not be sanctioned provided they acknowledge their mistake. Ignoring this ANI discussion and doubling-down on the original accusation (see diff and RAN's talk) is unacceptable. Apologies are never required at Wikipedia but if, more than two days after the original accusation, an editor cannot withdraw their attack they are actively (right now) accusing an editor of antisemitism. That is an ongoing PA which requires an indef to prevent further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- :{{tq|The only credible comments above are those calling for an indefinite block.}} I suspect that is specifically directed at me, which seems awfully harsh given that I said nothing which would stretch the limits of credibility. Lepricavark (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:Sitush has a long history of personal attacks/unacceptable language, as well WP:CIVIL violations, despite being a very valuable editor who dares to touch highly toxic topic areas in systemically racist non-English-speaking societies, with great skill. I don't know why they are climbing this particular hill, risking airfoil action, over what isn't even clearly personal. Perhaps applying battleground techniques applicable in places with real wars, to articles about little old ladies, is a bit over the top. Nfitz (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:*Nfitz, did you even see what was said originally? You've been sticking your oar in all over the place recently and I wonder if the same applies here?. I have no idea what "airfoil action" is, btw. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::Originally? It was something about an apple wasn't it - somewhere in Archive 1. But I came in at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRose_Van_Thyn&type=revision&diff=795670099&oldid=795602885 this] which didn't seem to be aimed at any particular individual. I'm fine with your actions, etc. I merely think you need to stop dropping the F bombs unless entirely appropriate. This is the same oar I normally drop - that WP:5P4 is a pillar, and thus takes primacy over more minor things, like what is at worst a subtle jibe for someone using language that while perhaps correct, is going to raise eyebrows with some perceiving inappropriateness. Given the number of times people drag you here over trumped up charges, I'd think you'd simply turn the other cheek. Nfitz (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::It was not a subtle jibe. Civility is definitely a pillar, but it doesn't only cover swear words. Lepricavark (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::The words were obviously intended as a direct accusation of antisemitism. Scanning the page shows that very clearly, but any doubt is erased by noting that the accusation has not been retracted. The word-twisting of "you all" is transparently false as the implication of antisemitism only matches 'I just know someone will be waiting to shout "anti-semitism"' immediately prior to the antisemitism attack. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Nfitz, the fact that I do usually turn the other cheek seems to have escaped your attention. That, though, is an indication of how much RAN has irked me. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Comment Still supporting block and talk later. RAN has made himself scarce here since this ANI post. You can't get him off this page when he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=734808920#User:Cassianto_purging_infoboxes_and_the_information_they_contain_and_telling_people_to_.22fuck_off.22 believes he's been wronged] and expanded it to Jimbo Wales' TP. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=734931390 There] he made an unprovoked PA re: another editor being a cross-dresser; he's not an innocent when it comes to slinging PAs. We hope (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Actually I mis-spoke. I identified Norton's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRose_Van_Thyn&type=revision&diff=795670099&oldid=795602885 comment] as what was originally said. Actually, it was only in response to Sitush's previous, somewhat condescending, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rose_Van_Thyn&diff=prev&oldid=795602885 comment] which was the first mention of anti-semitism. I don't know why the topic even got raised. The response in turn, seemed pretty mild, unless one fails to follow WP:AGF and takes it personally, when it doesn't particularly read that way. I don't know how it's obvious, given the use of the word used for a second-person plural pronoun. It's possible, but it's not obvious. I'm not sure what the first diff tells us ... 3 follow-up posts in a long complaint he made? Hardly seem unusual. The second one - unprovoked PA, accusation of being a cross-dresser. I think that you've completely misread that, the context is to his earlier comment about blaming women wearing dresses for getting raped. He then compares letting people use the F bomb because they were provoked, to domestic violence against women. Blofield ultimately asks what can I do about it, and Norton jokes "you shouldn't have worn the dress". This is not an accusation of cross-dressing - it's a metaphor. But hang on - how could a simple comment about someone wearing a dress be a personal attack? Why do you think there's something wrong with men wearing dresses? It's commonly enough accepted - it's not like any normal person would care if someone was trans or not - though how does it even mean that ... there's no context, perhaps it was Halloween, or perhaps someone is bucking for a Section 48. Heck, there's no indication in particular of what Blofield's gender is - I assume it's a known fact, but I don't know which of the many genders they are. I don't understand why the skin is so thin here; looks to me that there is simply a reaction to comments that are more jibes and humour, than personal attacks. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}Perhaps you could try not reaching so far afield-you've fallen off the limb some time ago. We hope (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. {{reply|Floquenbeam}} At this stage, with {{u|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN}}'s explanations deafening by their absence, do we assume that the personal attack is still extant per no retraction? — fortunavelut luna 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::I don't know; ANI is almost completely useless for decisions like this. My personal inclination, as given above, is to not demand a retraction/apology, but to instead make it very clear that it cannot ever be repeated. It's not like anyone with a brain thinks RAN is right, and FWIW I did redact it, and RAN hasn't edited in 1-2 days so the idiocy is not being repeated. But I don't want to just do that when it appears others think a block right now is in order, since I don't get to over-rule them all. Like I said, such a block would not make me terribly upset. But no one is actually making the block either. So the worst of all possible outcomes is it slides into the general background slime of ANI and nothing happens, but that's often the default occurance. If ANI worked more like an OTRS-type system, an admin could come along, say "I've got this one", deal with it (probably to no one's complete satisfaction) and move on. But waiting for consensus and drive by comments and voting and seeing when RAN decides to edit again is exhausting, and leads to nothing happening (to everyone's complete dissatisfaction).
::{{ping|Sitush}}, if you would be grudgingly OK with the warning I posted above, I'll do it and close this. If not, then one of the admins who think a block is in order should come back and actually do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I agree with most of your analysis. Thing is, I think RAN's response here is not good enough. But I don't think it's one of those situations where an admin can just indef someone on their own initiative. So if I see consensus here to block him, I'll do it. I don't see it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::OK, well at least a slide into the general background ANI slime has been averted: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=796106046&oldid=795850784]. I'll leave any further action up to others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: User:Floquenbeam, how is this unanimous? There's little indication that it was a personal attack - and the history of personal attacks demonstrated in the case was very, very poor - (a joke about a dress is a personal attack?). If there was such a history of personal attacks - maybe. The complainant however, has a very long history of being uncivil, and swearing unnecessarily at people. A very long history such as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians&diff=494197344&oldid=494196526 May 2012] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Other_Backward_Classes&diff=527088745&oldid=527086975 September 2012] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=620601949&oldid=620601237 August 2014] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%20talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=prev&oldid=6253884172 September 2014A] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%20talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=prev&oldid=625388417 September 2014B][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Dalit_History_Month_2017&diff=790656261&oldid=790628876 July 2017]. And he did it again in this discussion where User:Sitush told someone "F... Off" in what was otherwise a reasonably civil conversation. This is a clear, demonstrable, and repeated offence, which I think should lead to sanctions. Or perhaps a thicker skin, so one can take what one dishes out. Nfitz (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, make that "nearly" unanimous. Everything else still holds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Floquenbeam}} it would be a very grudging acceptance on my part. Despite what is said below, RAN did not disengage - he repeated the thing on his own talk page. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnuniq&type=revision&diff=796083076&oldid=796078916 read also] that this is not the first time he has suddenly not been able to edit Wikipedia when he has been brought to ANI, so while I have to AGF in theory, in practice I am unconvinced. Especially since he somehow found the time to speak with Feyd Huxtable at some length about the issue. I'm also now pissed with Nfitz who, again not for the first time, is getting involved in stuff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnuniq&type=revision&diff=796078916&oldid=796074343 they admit to not understanding] and, as BMK says below, again being ridiculously contrarian. They've done it with, for example, {{u|Doug Weller}} in the recent past and, I think, they're heading towards a temporary ban from posting at ANI due to issues of competence.
:::::::I'll accept your decision, Floq, because I know you to be one of the best admins. But, yes, it is very grudging because, however much AGF I try to apply, I think the system is being gamed. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't see much in replying on the issue again, as it appears that consensus doesn't agree with me, however today Sitush come back here the next day and seems to have made several comments here that concern me.
:::::::: * First he challenged Norton for not posting to Wikipedia, but could communicate to another user; however if he's travelling on business, he might be in the position, like me, where every action taken on the Internet is logged, and personal use of company resources is monitored and actioned; or perhaps during the most popular vacation time of the year, he's on vacation, and had enough sense to leave his computer at home!
:::::::: * Secondly, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnuniq&type=revision&diff=796078916&oldid=796074343 diff] above I'm accused of again getting into stuff I admit to not understanding. That has to be one of the most misleading accusations I've seen. What Sitush is referring to here, is that on a User talk page, I had the gall to try and compliment him to say he is a valued editor, who dares touches highly toxic topic areas in systemically racist societies, with great skill. To which he pointed out that Caste issues aren't racist issues; and I accepted that, noting my ignorance in the topic area (an area I've never edited or commented on before!). Exactly how the use of an incorrect adjective in a user-space comment, in a topic area I don't participate, can be used as an example of competence I don't know!
:::::::: * Finally I apparently have done similar before with Doug Weller - although I have no recollection of this, and cant find any evidence we've even ever interacted on Wikipedia in over a decade, other than a minor observation of a sock I reported to him, that I was aware he was chasing.
::::::::Meanwhile Sitush got what he wanted. The defendant has been harshly warned. Meanwhile, he hasn't edited for days, so there's no risk of imminent damage or destruction. So why are we still here? Consensus seems clear. Move on. Nfitz (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- "ANI is almost completely useless for decisions like this" - Why? There is almost universal agreement (Nfitz comments aside) that it was a personal attack either directly or indirectly implying Sitush is an anti-Semite. As an administrator Floq, your remit includes enforcing Wikipedia policies both using your judgment, and as the community interprets them. Standard procedure for where egregious personal attacks are made and identified as such is to demand retraction and block if the editor who made them refuses. Other options taken by admins in the past have included blocking for a fixed period and removing the PA themselves, blocking indef until they agree not to make similar comments in the future and so on. All would be justified given the attack, and RAN's subsequent unsatisfactory response. Anything *less* than a hefty block (with or without unblock conditions) is making a mockery of the various policies for civility, personal attacks, the 5 pillars etc. A simple 'you are blocked until you agree not to say, imply or otherwise insinuate another editor is an anti-semite' would be enough, if RAN is still resolved not to retract it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::Ah had not seen the follow up you made on RAN's talkpage. 'Don't do this again or be blocked indef' is also one of the options available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi y'all. I'm a long-time wiki friend and admirer of RAN. When I saw the ANI on his talk this morning, I took the liberty of emailing as I think it can be more effective to have a quiet word sometimes rather than posting public advise. I said the statement could be seen as an attack against Sitush, which would be both obviously untrue & very offensive, and I advised a withdraw. Unfortunately RAN has just advised he is traveling for the rest of the month and he may not be able to edit for a while. He wanted me to post that his remark was not in anyway intended to imply Sitush was a racist. Like many of us, RAN has been distressed by Charlotteville, and wanted to point out the optics of deleting a famous Jew at this time. Also he wanted to suggest that however true it might be to say "I'm not racist but" or "some of my best friends are" , those statements are basically no 1 or 2 in the racists playbook under denial tactics.
RAN knows his choice of words were not the best, and said he would have immediately apologised for the impression he gave, if Sitush has responded in any other way than saying "F" off. That made him want to dis-engage. Most would think being sworn at is totally trivial compared to implications of being a racist. But RAN is not the only hugely productive editor that really dislikes the "F" word. Hopefully when RAN completes his travels he can apologise direct to Sitush if that is still required. Obviosly I strongly oppose any block,and hope this can now be left to archive. PS - great call by Floq just to warn and not block even though they was not privy to this information. That sort of restraint and tact is why Floq is (AFAIK) regarded as one of very best admins. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
RAN's attack on Sitush was particularly offensive and the doubling down then expounded it. A couple of editors appear to be attempting to justify RAN's appalling behaviour by claiming the use of the F-word is worse. Really? What an odd world when the use of the F-word, which is pretty common in UK use, is perceived as more offensive than racial abuse. I respectfully suggest that those who are offering ancient diffs of Sitush's supposed indiscretions check RAN's long standing restrictions for copyvio and his willingness to throw accusations and initiate ANI reports and/or stir drama on, for instance, Jimbo's talk page - I am not including diffs as they have all been supplied by others in earlier comments. I seldom comment on ANI preferring not to get involved but feel sufficiently strongly to Support block because in my opinion overall RAN is not a net positive and this is just the latest in a long list of poor judgement. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
: That's quite a misreading. Only myself and one other raised the F-word issue. In my case I specifically pointed out most would not see the F word as worse- "Most would think being sworn at is totally trivial compared to implications of being a racist". IMO Sitush was totally justified in cussing RAN. But if we want a truly collegial environment, welcoming to a diverse group of editors, it's good to be aware that not everyone has the typical British attitude to profanity, so it should be avoided where possible. As for your comments about RAN not being a net positive, his copyvio issues were largely related to excessively long quotes, and haven't been happening on any scale for more than 10 years. Not sure why you complain about ancient history being raised for one editor and then raise ancient history for another? RAN has made tens of thousands of good edits, naturally there's a few concerning diffs in the mix, but considering he's generally collegial and has been hugely productive , he's obviously a net positive. Can't even believe anyone would want a block now it's been made clear no PA is intended. Oppose block. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:: The suggestion that there is racial abuse is just absurd. I'd wonder if User:Sitush was trolling a bit, by using such classic defences, that are normally seen as evidence in the opposite direction ... but I actually wonder if there might be some English-language competency issues, so maybe not. And hang on, I'm British, and Fuck off is most certainly not in common British usage, not among relative strangers in a forum like this; perhaps with your mates in a pub, in the right context. Besides, civility is one of the pillars here - it's clearly a personal attack. Unlike the alleged anti-Semitic comment, which I don't see how one would conclude is anti-Semitic, give it was Sitush that raised the anti-Semitism issue in the first place. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::: "I wonder if Sitush was trolling a bit..." Really?, you really wonder if Sitush was trolling, or are you -- as seems to be your habit on AN/I -- saying the most contrarian thing you can think of to add a little spice to the discussion and get yourself noticed? You think that, given his background, after being called an anti-Semite and being angered by it, his response in laying out the reasons why he wasn't an anti-Semite weren't intended to show why the charge was ridiculous, but to "troll" RAN?{{parabr}}In the future, could you perhaps make sure that when you stir the pot your claims at least pass the laughability test? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Hang on, you've changed my words. I explicitly used a conditional present tense, not a present tense. Therefore, no I don't wonder, but I would wonder it, if I wasn't assuming good faith and wondering if there English-language competency issues. Given the complainants generally thick skin historically, and willingness to toss out substantial abuse themselves, it's THIS that offends him? And I'm not allowed to ever ponder if they were angling for something? And now they are calling it "racial abuse"; the defendant clarified they were using the pronoun you in the second-person plural, not single -a and they did this BEFORE the ANI complaint.. Elsewhere User:Sitush tried to turn my comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=796070734&oldid=795871242 of not wanting to make a too much of a roadmap for ANI] into [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=796074343&oldid=796070887 Perhaps it should have been an ANI. Then you would have been put in a position where you would have to explain the "roadmap", whatever that may be.] which is what made me wonder about the language competency issue (given the lack of recognizing idioms and lack of awareness of common memes) This is why I'm explicitly NOT wondering if they were just fishing a bit. And "most contrarian thing you can think of ... to get yourself noticed" - simply because you disagree with me, doesn't mean you can fail to AGF and assume I've got some nefarious motive all the time; my motive is to make an honest observation, that people seem to be really over-reacting to what looks relatively innocent, rather than a personal attack. Perhaps when you people's comments; if it looks like some attack of some kind, you should count to ten, sit down, and think that if there was no malice in the content, what were they trying to say; and then it might become apparent there is a different meaning than the one you assumed. Your might want to keep out for the verb tenses as well. And why not address the substance of my comment - that there was a very clear personal attack by User:Sitush; I don't know why everyone is so willing to ignore such a blatant personal attack from someone who has a very long history of doing similar. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::When you have to Wikilawyer that much... And if you don't want people to characterize your behavior in negative ways, stop behaving in negative ways. I'm obviously not the only editor who's noticed this propensity in you, so rather than getting your back up, you might take a deep breath and indulge in some introspection. Consider that there just might be some amount of truth in the characterization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Nfitz, with each comment you descend further and further into the abyss of sheer nonsense. RAN's remark about antisemitism was clearly directed at Sitush. How you can miss that is beyond me. Sitush's language in his response to RAN was certainly not ideal, but if you cannot understand that a reckless accusation of antisemitism is more serious than an angry response by the recipient of such an accusation, you have completely failed to use common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Honestly, how you can assume that is beyond me. Which is more likely, that an editor who has not only been here for 13 years but is one of our most prolific edtors, without (as far as I know) any such reckless accusations of anti-Semitism, suddenly knocks off two of them in 2 days, or that they were merely passing comment, perhaps with some humour, of the use of such classic memes. We are required here to read comments assuming good faith; so if there's leeway to read something different ways, how would one choose something that is either less likely, or very insulting - let alone both; and if that doesn't cover it, there's Occam's razor. It's not the best edit in the world, but I think this has gone way too far. I simply don't see the reckless accusation of antisemitism - and I don't understand the reaction, if one thought it was. I don't even know why one would be that upset. If someone accuses you of something that's just completely out of lunch, I simply point to the error in their assumption, and/or confirm I am understanding their words correctly. Why expend the energy taking something personally, that might not be meant that way - particularly given the national trauma that was (is?) ongoing regarding this subject? Why not simply AGF and take them for their word, that it wasn't personal. Nfitz (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::You've done this before, taking the assumption of good faith to absurd heights. At some point, a thing is what it is, and you have to stop pretending it's something it's not because you've been told you have to: usually about the time you've twisted yourself into a pretzel. What matters is not what's "more likely", but what actually happened. You really need to stop being a contrarian for its own sake and deal with the facts on the ground. (The reality of a rock is that when you kick it, you hurt your toe, even if you assume with all of your might that it won't.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{reply|Beyond My Ken}} Only if it's Solid Rock rather than Soft rock ;) — fortunavelut luna 06:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Booooo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::"Fuck" is pretty frequently to be heard on British Television. Any anyone watch Gordon Ramsay on American television? If it isn't used there why is he allowed to use it (or is it censored?). But let's not rely on anecdotes. Let's see a study[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/17/map-curse-words-united-states-shit-asshole-fuck-fuckboy] where "A UK-based linguist created maps based on geotagged data from Twitter that show the usage rates of several popular curse words across the US" It even has a "fuck map". What is obvious is that if you live in some states the word is used rarely Twitter. Live in other states, it's pretty common in Twitter. And fuck is used on US cable tv, right? In any case, living in Britain you can still often see or hear the use of "fuck" coming from Americans. Ok, I know it wasn't just "fuck", but compared to an what Sitush obviously thought was an accusation of anti-semitism? Sure, the first should be avoided but it isn't anywhere near as big a deal as accusing someone of antisemitism. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::"Fuck" is common enough (though certainly not heard on terrestrial US television much - they even beep "fuck" after midnight, and the only non-accidental nipple I've ever heard of was in Schindler's List)! Even though you can change your dial near the border, where our biggest OTA network ran Sopranos uncut in prime time, and they can show casual nudity 24/7. But what I said wasn't about "fuck", it was about "fuck off". If it was only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=next&oldid=795801866 fucking] that was said, I wouldn't have said anything about it (nor did I mention this one before). But what was said, in an AFD, was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=795753184&oldid=795673992&title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rose_Van_Thyn Fuck off]], which unlike the simple casual use of fuck or fucking, is a clear personal attack for which there has yet to be an apology - despite the other party having quickly clarified that it wasn't meant as a personal attack, and repeating a second time that "was not in anyway intended to imply Sitush was a racist". However, the consensus here appears to be that it is a personal attack; action has been taken, so might a well move on and close the thread Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::If not on "terrestrial US television", what about on "extra-terrestrial US television"?{{parabr}}BTW, on the question of "Fuck", I recommend that everyone read The F-Word which is quite amusing, although best read in small doses -- like while on the toilet. We really must keep our wits about us concerning that word: after all, we don't want to inhibit David Mamet's work, do we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Just for clarification terrestrial television is a commonly used British expression (I believe both Doug Weller and myself are Brits); here in North America we tend to say over-the-air television (OTA), ie, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CBC, CTV, etc., instead. I'd have thought that extra-terrestrial US television would be alien-television, which is presumably any foreign TV, like BBC or Univision :) Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC
::::::::::::Thank you for that, the term was unfamiliar to me. As for "Over-the-air", perhaps it's an age thing, but I'm more familiar with it being called "broadcast television". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to interject at this point that if "PA is irking me" I would suggest going to "MA", per WP:OTHERPARENT. EEng 08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that the circumstances per FeydHuxtable would make a block of RAN undesirable at this time. And after all, it's not RAN's fault that Nfitz keeps idiotically insisting that Sitush needs to be sanctioned for telling RAN to fuck off. Can we please consider the RAN issue closed and instead look at Nfitz's behaviour here (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=prev&oldid=796122153 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=prev&oldid=796070734 here], where he pointlessly pesters users by repeating his already wordy comments)? I'm sure there are ways you can help Wikipedia, Nfitz, but commenting usefully on ANI doesn't seem to be one of them. Do you even notice how people are getting increasingly irritated at you, suggesting you "take a deep breath and indulge in some introspection" or that "you have completely failed to use common sense"? You wonder if Sitush was trolling "a bit"? You wonder about Sitush's language competency? At least, that's how I read your less than crystal clear "makes me wonder language competency issue, given the lack of recognition idioms". I won't throw "language competency" back in your face for that phrasing, because that would be rude, but I do wonder if you take the trouble to proofread your posts at all. Your "{{tq|"Fuck off" is a clear personal attack}}" has impressed nobody, and yet you keep repeating it, without explanation (what's personal about it?) and without, to all appearances, consulting the personal attack policy. Now, after you have personally made the thread so much longer than it need be, you belatedly concede we "might as well move on and close the thread". I hope that means you're done bloating up this thread, pointlessly poking Sitush, and wasting time. No need to respond. Of course I don't mean to prohibit you from responding to me, but if you do, please let that be that. Altogether, you might do well to cut back drastically on your commentary at ANI before somebody opens a thread to propose banning you from it. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC).
:*Keep insisting he needs to be sanctioned? I only raised that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=796122561&oldid=796121723 once]; by the time I returned that evening, it was clear there was no consensus for that. I said I didn't think Sitush was trolling, but perhaps that was unclear with my grammar. I proofread all my comments earlier today and I am actually horrified at how poor the grammar and spelling were, not to mention the missing words - I will start proofreading closer. I thought that telling someone to "fuck off" in response to what they write, is an insult; obviously consensus is against me. I was done with this on Friday. I only returned on Saturday because of Sitush's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=796258323&oldid=796257457 comments] were so misleading; and while here, I simply clarified that it was only the phrase "fuck off" that I thought was the insult, not a simple adjective "fuck" (or noun or adverb really). I'll try and be less verbose. Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::*That would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{Clear}}
Inappropriate changes to the list of catholic scientists
{{Atop|self resolved John from Idegon (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)}}
There are some articles in need of attention. E.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lay_Catholic_scientists. The modifications done by Akasseb do not paper neither required nor appropriate. I fear this is some kind of vandalism aimed to hit this particular religion. It would be helpful to go deep into it.--Pra1998 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:WP:BRD? I see no attempt to truly discuss this with the editor besides your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Lay_Catholic_scientists&diff=next&oldid=796135048 immediate call for administrators] in reply to his reasoning on the talk page of the article. I see no need for an administrator to be involved. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, which I have done for you. nihlus kryik (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:Here is my response to Pra1998, as found on the talk page of the List of Lay Catholic scientists: It escapes me why you have written this here. No scientists have been deleted in an absolute sense. Rather, all the of the churchmen-scientists were removed from the List of Lay Catholic scientists because of double counting (they are all on the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists). Also, I have a vested interest in making sure this is done right: all of those scientists were originally added by me (take a look at the edit history). I am also the main contributor to the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists. Furthermore, beyond my history with these articles, I have a deep knowledge about the historical relationship between the Church and science (I've been studying it for a decade) as well as a graduate degree in theology.Akasseb (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
::It is all ok. Sorry for bothering.--Pra1998 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
{{Clear}}
[[:User:ClueBot NG]] is malfunctioning
{{atop|result=Bot is working fine. OP blocked 31 hours by Primefac. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)}}
This bot reverted my legitimate edit to "Curtis Lazar" and left a "vandalism" warning on my talk page.
GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)GoFlamesGo
:Actually, it isn't malfunctioning. Although your edit wasn't vandalism, it wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I wouldn't even call the bot response a false positive. I further note that your conduct at Johnny Gaudreau is less than exemplary. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
AlexTrevex Pt. 2
{{atop|Indef'd for constant soap boxing and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Blackmane (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)}}
- {{user5|AlexTrevex}}
Following up on this report, after a stern warning from {{u|Beyond My Ken}}, the editor is still engaging in the same type of disruption; posting short, extraordinarily poorly-worded diatribes against skeptics/scientists and promoting pseudoscientific subjects, particularly alt-medicine. Diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detoxification_(alternative_medicine)&diff=prev&oldid=795949821], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupressure&diff=prev&oldid=795936020], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supernatural&diff=prev&oldid=795918019] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_herbology&diff=prev&oldid=795148114]. The description I gave represents 100% of this user's edits. They don't have even a single edit to article space, just these little mini-diatribes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:Looks like someone who isn't here to build an encyclopedia to me. Also looks like someone who is randomly concatenating fortune cookie messages. A Traintalk 20:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::I hadn't noticed the lack of edits to articles. I'd say the combination of that and the talk page comments adds up to WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, WP:NOTBLOG, and, not the least WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::What's fringe about {{tq|Mermaids exist. Barack Obama saw them in the government lab}}? [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=794489057#Cryptozoology_is_a_science_fact] EEng 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::::"Government labs" are an old wives' tale. They've been debunked by The Skeptical Inquirer, as well as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawson and Allan Sherman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:*Scuttlebutt is that he became unbalanced (literally) when he shaved off his moustache. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
=Proposal=
OK, the mermaids put me over the top. Because he is either a fool or a troll, but either way someone who is WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, User:AlexTrevex should be indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked. The mermaid thing was enough to push me over the edge, too. I've left instructions on how to appeal his block should AlexTrevex desire to contribute constructively instead of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
Annoyance by claims of no changes made
{{atop|(non-admin closure) Issue solved amicably. Kleuske (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)}}
- {{Userlinks|80.181.119.244}}
- {{Userlinks|Redmary73}}
- {{Pagelinks|Template:Weapons of mass destruction}}
Both the IP and the user have been non-stop annoying my Talk page and clogging my email with messages such as "Please fix your mistake" or "I can't see Italy in the list" even after I answered the edit request the IP made. This, to me, does not make sense, and I even tried to tell them to refresh the page/purge the cache, but they keep doing it. I don't understand! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:Update: IP claims I am "avoiding" the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked him to add Italy in the list of Weapons of mass destruction article.Italy in fact has the referred article Italian nuclear weapons program.He said yes but he acted the oppsite.You can judge easily.Or he lied or he is unable.80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The User/IP asked for a change to the template Template:Weapons of mass destruction with an edit notice. Jd22292 performed it. The user then took to his talk page to repeatedly ask why it wasn't done. The issue is that the user was reading the page Italian nuclear weapons program and it had not refreshed yet. I purged the page. The update is now visible. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to see the article if has Italy.80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:Here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWeapons_of_mass_destruction&type=revision&diff=796437408&oldid=758891758 diff] of the change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:IP: Please stop messaging Jd22292, the change was made. The article has to be refreshed before it shows, and I have performed that. Jd22292: If you're aware of page purging and had an idea what page the editor was talking about, it'd probably be best to just help them and purge. Purge is not a feature most editors know about. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::I have also purged Weapons of mass destruction. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{note2}} Other pages that have the template transcluded will also need a purge to reflect the changes. The purge has not happened on each. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw ,you are right and i beg your pardon.I saw Redmary73 didn't last in write you.80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- This should safe to close. The IP has acknowledged that they made a mistake and unless Redmary73 plans to continue insisting that Italy was not added the main issue have been resolved and all parties should move on.--76.65.42.75 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
You are right and i beg your pardon.You did really a good job!80.181.119.244 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
ElRon lives!
{{atop|status=Indeffed|result=Blocked indefinitely by Alex Shih, nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 20:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)}}
We all thought that L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, but here he is editing Wikipedia as User:L Ron Hubbard! What are the odds? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:This template {{userlinks|L Ron Hubbard}} makes it easier for others to check on this editor. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Removing ref improv templates & adding non-RS by [[User:WikiEditCrunch]]
{{user|WikiEditCrunch}} has been removing {{tl|refimprove}} from articles without making any improvements or adequate explanation:
- The Doors: "Template removed:Plenty of sources;All check out;Outdated template"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doors&diff=prev&oldid=791516163]
- Babelsberg Studio: "Outdated template:Enough references"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babelsberg_Studio&type=revision&diff=794115104&oldid=790374225]
- Meredith Corporation: "Page has enough references for verification"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meredith_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=794540603]
- Robby Krieger: "Enough verification refs"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robby_Krieger&diff=prev&oldid=794690523]
- Roll with It (Oasis song): "Enough sources" (actually dmy temp, refimprov was next)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roll_with_It_(Oasis_song)&diff=prev&oldid=795791074]
However, it is a series of removals, reverts, and addition of problematic (non-RS, not-in-source, etc.) references to The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song) that prompted this report. As commented on Talk:The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song)#2017 referencing problems & user:WikiEditCrunch:
::"The article has sections of unreferenced text, including quotes. Some sentences read like commentary and appear to be WP:Original research. {{u|WikiEditCrunch}} has been removing {{tl|refimprove}} without adding WP:Reliable sources that support the text and they have added some links to user-generated websites (all bare URLs). Specific edits include:
::*20 July 2017 – removed refimprove with no changes to article; edit summary: "Deleted unnecces template";[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=791452848&oldid=788973893] was reverted.
::*20 July 2017 – removed new refimprove & added two bare URL inline cites to "It was deleted from the set list thereafter" sentence (neither ref mentions this); edit summary: "Issue resolved:Added additional sources".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=791513929&oldid=791469144]
::*16 August 2017 – added "Live performances" section without refs & improperly linked album.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=795783078&oldid=795557616]
::*16 August 2017 – removed new refimprove & dmy templates; edit summary "Bot mistake";[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=795797968&oldid=795793014] was reverted.
::*17 August 2017 – removed new refimprove & added two bare URL inline cites to ""The Ocean" refers to the sea of fans seen from the stage at Led Zeppelin concerts, to whom this song was dedicated" (neither user-generated website ref mentions this is RS); added bare URL inline cite to "In concert, Plant always updated the lyric to reflect her current age, as captured on the Led Zeppelin DVD which features a performance of the song at Madison Square Garden in 1973" (apparently OK); added bare URL inline cite to "It is also part of the bands live concert soundtrack album The Song Remains the Same (album)" (duplicated a link to a video that was already in "External links"); edit summary: "Added more sources;Enough refs".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=795901432&oldid=795800002]
::The user has been warned twice on their talk page with {{tl|uw-tdel2}} & {{tl|uw-tdel3}} (see User talk:WikiEditCrunch#7/17). Refimprove templates will continue to be re-added and problematic sources removed as necessary.
::— /s/ Ojorojo 17 August 2017"
Since then, we have been going back and forth.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_(Led_Zeppelin_song)&action=history] I tried adding a RS referenced quote about "the sea of fans" (from the original source), but WikiEditCrunch reverted/replaced it with a user-generated source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=796134165&oldid=796124542]
WikiEditCrunch has been editing for 2+ years and has rated/assessed a lot of articles. They should be familiar with WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Citing sources, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, and basic copyediting (The Song Remains the Same (album) is written as The Song Remains the Same in articles, punctuation, spacing, etc.). However, these and other policies/guidelines are not followed. And now, they've added {{tl|uw-disruptive1}} to my talk page?
—Ojorojo (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{comment}} Being discussed with the editor. Alex ShihTalk 01:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
::: WikiEditCrunch continues to add bare URL citations to sources that don't appear to support the text.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_%28Led_Zeppelin_song%29&type=revision&diff=796233408&oldid=796188544] Additionally, they have once again removed {{tl|refimprove}} ("Thre article is now well sopurced with reliable/independent/known sources."), despite the fact that there are several statements in the article that are not referenced ("Some speculate that{{nbsp}}...", "Others are of the opinion{{nbsp}}...", etc.). At a minimum, they should be restricted from removing any reference/citation/source related templates from articles. (see also their Request for page protection for The Ocean (song)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=796235121&oldid=796234743#The_Ocean_.28Led_Zeppelin_song.29]). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Kazakh tennis
Laura Shalabayeva and Anastasiya Zakharova have been created and then deleted as non-notable about three times now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JulianLeeberher09/Archive. They have now been recreated again by {{user|TwoLittleCat2}}. I am assuming that this is another sock. Is there another way to prevent this from continuing? Note from the previous investigation that the user is using minor changes in spelling of the names to create these articles. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:Saw Shalabayeva when patrolling CSD. I've salted. StarM 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Endless disruptive edits, and total refusal to discuss their edits
{{vandal|Appah Rao}} has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive960 discussed here before], in a report that by most here was seen as "just" a content dispute, but this is not about content disputes, but about a total refusal to collaborate with other editors, discuss their edits on the talk pages of the articles edited, and get consensus for their edits. Appah Rao obviously dislikes the use of "decisive" in the short summary in the infobox of articles about historical battles and wars, all over the world, and just removes it, without ever discussing the change (I looked at their contributions but didn't find a single attempt to discuss their edits on an article talk page...), and edit-warring over it against anyone reverting them (see their contributions, all of their many edits, many of which are reverts, removing exactly nine bytes removed "decisive", as did quite a few of their other edits..). And not even discussing it afterwards, when being contacted on their talk page (their talk page history is full of attempts by other editors, me included, to make them understand how things work here, posts that are quickly removed by them...). And they've been doing it since their first day here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea&diff=prev&oldid=790587831 their second edit] removed "decisive" from the outcome of the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which very much was a decisive American victory, and my previous contact with them was about their repeated removal of "decisive" from the outcome of the Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–39), which also was a truly decisive victory since it ended a long period of almost continuous wars, and brought 150 years of peace to the region. A discussion where they made false claims about what had happened, and when confronted by me over it, just deleted my comments, but let their own lame-ass excuse stay on their talk page. Their contributions, with ~180 edits on articles, most of them removing "decisive", and only seven on article talk pages, some of those being undiscussed moves of articles about French regions, that were promptly reverted by other editors for being moved to totally wrong names, clearly shows that they're not here to collaborate, only to push their own agenda. So the sum total of their activities here is that they're just a big time-sink for other editors, here only to "right great wrongs" (why else would anyone systematically remove "decisive" from the infobox of every article about a war or battle they see?), and not to collaborate with others, and build an encyclopaedia.... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{comment}} To clarify what the original poster is saying, this is a common problem faced by WP:MILHIST: Arbitrary removal of "decisive" from the term decisive victory simply because of personal taste, when the historical outcome has been clearly established by reliable sources. It is a content dispute only when it is being done with one subject/area of interest, but it is certainly not a content dispute when it is being done indiscriminately across wide different areas of interest without the regard to the context itself. The issue is currently being discussed with the editor. Alex ShihTalk 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I'd be inclined to give a free pass, were it just a matter of the pattern. As you say, it does suggest someone who is making changes on the basis of some highly idiosyncratic semantic standard, without due consideration for what the sources say on the matter. But even so, were they discussing/dropping the matter in any instance where they were reverted, I would probably be inclined to call it a good faith (if perhaps less than ideal) approach. But it's the edit warring that elevates this to outright disruption and that's the behaviour which I think most pressingly needs to be addressed. Well, that and (if I am reading the above correctly) removing other user's comments from talk pages in violation of WP:TPG.
:::All that said, from the discussion on their talk page, it doesn't look like the user is completely entrenched and unwilling to adapt their approach; from discussion there, it looks like they are content to add citation needed tags. That strategy itself might still lead them into some conflict (especially if they try to mass-paste it across the same span of articles they've simply been removing the term from up until now), but I think it still offers some cause for optimism, because it demonstrates that Rao is doing this from the perspective of an editor, with a rough policy argument in mind, not just some compulsive need to remove the word because it doesn't equate with their perspective. Hopefully the user transitions that to a more engaged and discussion-oriented approach. Snow let's rap 06:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I've also noticed some editors who feel that such adjectives are POV in historical articles. I think it is much too cramped an approach.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Anon reverting my edits out of spite
{{atop|(non-admin closure) A sort of peace has broken out and complaint has been withdrawn, nothing more to do here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Current IP {{userlinks|2602:304:788B:DF50:95CC:313F:A69C:59A9}}
January to August IP {{userlinks|2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B}}
This is my first ANI so bear with me. When I revert this IP (s)he goes into my contribs and reverts something from me.
At Watchmaker analogy I reverted
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watchmaker_analogy&diff=prev&oldid=796375738 here and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watchmaker_analogy&diff=next&oldid=796406140 here.
(S)he proceeded to revert me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miracles_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=796435934 here.
I had similar problems with this anon last March. Also starting with me reverting him at Watchmaker. Different IP but the same person. fwiw here is a discussion on my talk page. These are my warnings to him User talk:2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B#Bebop, here are the diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bebop&diff=prev&oldid=772042679 one, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=772165440 two, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_geological_features_on_Pluto&diff=prev&oldid=773833871 this one he was right.
Also note when editors come on his talk page he's more often than not confrontational and snippy.
My issue here is that he's starting this behavior anew and I'm quite certain the community has strict policies about this kind of disruption.
If I don't present my case well here - let's hope I don't get too much practice. SlightSmile 21:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:WP:HOUND is what you are looking for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:RE Watchmaker, I would suggest when someone is removing un-cited WP:OR that you not reinstate it unless you are in the process of providing a citation - as one of the defenses to a hounding accusation is that it is perfectly acceptable to check another editor's contributions if they are making problematic edits. No comment elsewhere as I have not gone into either your or their editing history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::Whatever argument, WP:OR or otherwise a disruptive editor uses, it is a judgement call to revert or not. One could argue (s)he's gaming the system. Even if he's right and I'm wrong at Watchmaker, I have never seen this hounding behaviour being tolerated.
::We've all seen IPs and new editors come in here and think they're the boss. His bad faith reverts of my edits is unacceptable and I refuse to start being intimidated by this kind of combative behaviour. If I did one tenth of that, go into editors' contribs who revert me and revert something out of spite how many seconds would it take you to block me. SlightSmile 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:::[http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Slightsmile&users=2602%3A304%3A788b%3Adf50%3A8cdd%3A5461%3A389a%3A631b&users=2602%3A304%3A788B%3ADF50%3A95CC%3A313F%3AA69C%3A59A9&startdate=20170101&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki How is he hounding]? All I see is a content dispute on Watchmaker analogy, which the IP was correct on, and some other reverts that were quickly handled. Also, the IP edits substantially on pages you have not. — nihlus kryik (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Thank you NK. I see it now he's a regular at the miracles article. His revert is still iffy and out of spite but I won't push it on that one. Please note the two reverts in March https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bebop&diff=prev&oldid=772042679 one and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=772165440 two are definitely unacceptable hounding. I can't make an ANI on something that far back, but if it starts again I expect the people here to step in for me. He made it clear on his talk he would do tit for tat reverting. Editors shouldn't have to take that kind of harassment. Meanwhile I withdraw my complaint. SlightSmile 12:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::That is not hounding. Hounding would be following an editor on every single page they edit and undoing it all, or showing up in every single talk page the user contributed to. Neither one of those is the case here. It is merely a content dispute. — nihlus kryik (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::At Watchmaker we could argue whether or not it is content dispute. That section had been there for years and along comes the boss who's gonna kick some ass. Combative behaviour. Do I have to paste the March diffs from my 12:22 post again! If it doesn't officially qualify for hounding it's definitely a form of disruption. Look again. How many seconds did you say it would take the community to block if I went into an editor's contribs? SlightSmile 14:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Two reverts is not hounding. Please assume good faith. — nihlus kryik (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Good faith that's a good one. Know anymore funny jokes? SlightSmile 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Look at my talk. I did tons of assume good faith. SlightSmile 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::So are there more than these 2 reverts (from March)? Are we missing some other "hounding" or "harassment"? I'm a bit lost here, I confess. Is there some connection between the March edits and the recent edits that convinces you that this is the same person "hounding"? WP:SPI will investigate that for you, if so, although it would need good behavioural evidence by now. -- Begoon 12:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::There's no doubt it's the same person. I realize that three reverts, two of them months ago seems trivial but as I noted, they assured me on their talk they would do tit for tat reverting if I should revert them while (patrolling is that the word?). I've seen editors blocked for less. It's not the three reverts in themselves, it's more like, is this the start of a pattern. As I stated above I withdraw my complaint for now but what's my recourse if they do it again. When has this combative behaviour become acceptable? What am I missing here. SlightSmile 14:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::We have come across each other maybe 3 times in 6 months. if that is hounding, you might as well close the whole project as people edit topics of interest and see each other often while editing these common areas of interest. The questionable behavior is on the filers part, they reverted to include what is clearly WP:OR which is in the first diff and then left a snarky edit summary (which was later reverted by another editor for... clearly being original research). As far as the discussion on my talk page months ago, they left a snarky comment there too, so they got a snarky comment back, it is after all my talk page. I follow no one around, the only editor I have ever had a serious disagreement with it Apollo the Logician and he battled many other editors. My edit history speaks for itself. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::Hey nice to see you again. Note I gave up the word hounding long ago. I'm not going to start digging up diffs on your combative behavior at Watchmaker and apparently neither are the admins here. The Watchmaker issue seems to be resolved anyways so it's unlikely we'll meet again but if we should cross paths for whatever reason you are not to go into my contribs to make a point. SlightSmile 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That would require one to assume I went into your contribs to make a point in the first place. Too bad you didn't go back to the first edit in the Watchmaker thread where you reverted me in support of Apollo the Logician, (who is now banned). Apollo was also the one who made the section unencyclopedic https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watchmaker_analogy&diff=767194952&oldid=767108523 and you followed it up with another revert after I returned the article to the long term stable version by telling me "Personal analysis - write a book" in the edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watchmaker_analogy&diff=770801277&oldid=770799605. That is ACTUALLY how we first met. So if you want to accuse other people of bad behavior, at least have the competence to include the full story. I don't have anything else to say, I will assume it is a big misunderstanding. I can assume good faith. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::All good. Nothing more here. SlightSmile 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
[[:User:ClueBot NG]] is malfunctioning 2
{{atop|result=Filer again blocked, this time 48 hours by User:Alex Shih. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}}
This bot reverted my legitimate edits to Johnny Gaudreau and gave me a vandalism warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFlamesGo (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:Nah, he's working just fine. You were reverted by more than one editor who told you not to add that information and to discuss the matter. You did the opposite of that. While I would not fuss at a human editor identifying your edit as vandalism, you did behave in a way that would reasonably make a clever bot think you were engaging in vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::The OP made the same complaint about another of their edits in #User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning up the page, where they were told that their edit was inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I assume User:Beyond My Ken meant inappropriate? Given they got blocked for it there. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Yes, thanks - fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{Clear}}
User:Edwardx
{{atop|First rule of socking: "Hey, everybody look at me! I'm a new account trying to get an existing account in trouble! For really dumb reasons!" is a pretty stupid way to go about socking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}}
This user is continuously tagging pages which passes notability. Even though the user has many years experience , he is not even looking at the refeneces to check whether it is reliable or not. Quoting some recent incidents [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jibin_George_Sebastian Tagged Prod, this page has enough and more reliable references including interviews, radio interviews etc ] , [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beat_of_Indian_Youth Previous tagged CSD , when removed with reason, placed Prod even though it has enough reliable sources] These 2 articles are related and One article was created by me. Being an user with around 11 year experience as per the wikipedian's front page, the user is not follwing Wikipedia guidelines for placing tags in pages.Interesting thing is that many articles created by this user is also tagged for deletion by other admin. Those were created without following guidelines of wiki. This is not good for wikipedia and it must be warned. Any one is free to talk to me at my talk page BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC) BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:Do you have any evidence of him mis-tagging articles that someone besides you did not make? Because that's gonna be the thing that distinguishes whether he's mis-tagging articles or you're just assuming bad faith and making a revenge post. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::Are we supposed to assume Bettersmiley's name and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beat_of_Indian_Youth&action=history interest in this article] is just a startling coincidence? An article that was created by a sock and edited almost exclusively by other socks? Are we also to assume their keen interest in this dude by the same sock farm is also a coincidence? I think not.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Some admin action required for [[Zapad 2017 exercise]]
User talk:Vladimir serg has been continuously reverting the artcile to outdated and totally inadequate version, without any explanations, or discussion. The account is solely used for reverts of this artcile.Axxxion (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:Yo {{u|Axxxion}}, it's a clear content dispute at the moment, and they generally don't get covered here. But since that editor soes seem to have been engaging in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vladimir+serg&limit=50 slow-burning edit-war], you might like to file a report at WP:WPANEW. About which behaviour, incidently, they have now been advised upon. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Thanks for your intervention. But I disagree with your interpretation of the situation with this article: there is no actual dispute here: very easy to see that if you will take a closer look at what has been happening there for the past several weeks. For there is no real editor behind the account User:Vladimir serg, which is in reality a single-purpose account used exclusively for mechanical reverts of just this particular article to the text, which in turn is a machine-translated Ru WP version of the corresponding article from late June, whereas the article needs regular update, as it is about an event that is to happen. These reverts are in effect disruptive activity, pure and simple. The article needs semi-protection status, which is also called-for due to the fact that the topic is potentially politically loaded and controversial.Axxxion (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::Besides, there is an obvious Wikipedia:Civility issue with this account′s last (and only) posting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Axxxion&diff=prev&oldid=796386411]. All attempts to engage the person behind this account in any discussion have been futile. Most likely he has no English-language competence, in the first place.Axxxion (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
[[Voltron: Legendary Defender]] unregistered user problem
Hi there! This unregistered user 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 keeps adding non-essential details to the article's episode summaries. I have explained why i reverted the edit, but it does not seem to take and the user has resorted to name calling. I'm unsure how to progress.--Refuteku (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:You, of course, are presenting only your side of events. You labeled my editing "vandalism" BEFORE I applied any epithets, which is in fact what led me to it. And the evaluation of my edits as "non-essential details" is purely your subjective opinion. I also provided corrections to passages poorly constructed by even an objective measure. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::I should indeed have used the term "disruptive editing", that is correct. Now about the episode summaries. The character Pidge's gender had no relevance to the plot as none of the characters performed any plot related actions due to this revelation. And most of your grammar corrections were unsuited for an encyclopedic article.--Refuteku (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::No, "disruptive editing" is NOT correct. And your assessments are still your subjective opinions, despite your attempt to claim otherwise. For example, "continually" was the correct word to use, rather than "continuously"; but you first dismissed my entire edit within 3 minutes, clearly without careful consideration. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::No, it's correct, since you have refused to discuss your edits in a civilized manner. Continually and continuously can both be used, if that's what you are hung up about. It's better to revert a large edit entirely, and then add the proper stuff from it afterwards which is now have done. This is preferably done by the first user, but as you started of by being aggressive i figured you were not interested in that.--Refuteku (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I have not "refused" anything! You never offered the opportunity; you only reverted "vandalism". You are DEAD WRONG about "continuously/continually", not that, as you well know, that is really the only issue. Your summary reversions put lie to any notion that I am a sole, or even initial, aggressor here, "not interested" in discussion -- which raises another issue: your continual distortion of the situation. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- One of the more entertaining page histories I've seen in a while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&action=history]. And continually is decidedly the right word. EEng 17:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:Continually it is then :)--Refuteku (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
If only there were some way these disparate editors could combine their efforts to form, say, a giant robot with a blazing sword. But I digress. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:lol, well, the effort needs to come from both users.--Refuteku (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
A plague on all their houses, but especially Refuteku's. Most episode summaries, especially of animated series, are pretty much "non-essential details" themselves, and srguing about individual summaries is so plainly content dispute that it's hard to see Refuteku's accusations of vandalism against an apparently new editor as the actions of a reasonable, good faith editor -- especially without the slightest effort to use the article talk page. Violating WP:BITE does more damage to Wikipedia than adding a few words more than a guideline calls for does, by any rational measure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::I see, well i do apologize for using the word "vandalism". I was slightly annoyed by the all caps "Leave it alone" revert the user did. I think it was after the second revert that the user wrote on my talk page and i tried to make it clear why i reverted the users additions. Albeit i did not explain it from all angles in my response. And i probably should have told the user to stop editing until we reached a conclusion.--Refuteku (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Here's what this all boils down to: As Wolfowitz points out, there are no hard and fast guidelines about what is vital or appropriate content for a plot summary (it would be impossible for the community to construct a one-size-fits-all standard for a vast array of narrative works) so it is up to involved editors to discuss these details and form a consensus or reasonable compromise solution. You have instead decided to immediately engage in an WP:Edit war over the matter and then, when this didn't work, flown here in the hope that we would impose your idiosyncratic interpretation of the plot of a cartoon most here will not have seen. You've missed about twenty dispute resolution steps inbetween this most trivial of content disputes and filing a complaint at ANI. You made no effort to so much as begin discussion this on the talk page, let alone avail yourself of a WP:Third opinion or other community process for breaking the deadlock, if it came to that (though, frankly, if you two are incapable of coming to a compromise on this matter, Wikipedia as a process is not going to get any easier for you). The IP can be forgiven (briefly, if the behaviour does not persist) for engaging in the initial edit war, but you have been here for more than 11 years it seems, and even with very intermittent activity, you ought to know that edit warring is not permissible.
:::This is clearly a content dispute. Were it my call, I'd be half attempted to hand you a 24-hour WP:BOOMERANG block for edit warring, violating WP:3RR first and then coming here to complain about an IP you are clearly displaying WP:BITE towards, who has violated no policy with their additions and has only become disruptive insofar as they emulated your edit warring behaviour--then send you both back to work more constructively on the content issue, pulling in outside perspectives if you really can't agree on whether it's worth mentioning what "Princess Allura's mice" are up to. Instead iw ill simply urge you to undertake that effort at discussion now, before you end up earning yourself such a sanction.
:::Also, though I don't want to give you the impression that this is the correct space to debate content matters, I think you should expect (if you can't compromise and need to bring in other opinions--which would be a further waste of editorial time, but i suspect that is where this is headed) that you will probably not get your way on some of those edits; the revelation that a major character has a secret identity of an alternative gender seems like the kind of detail that warrants half a sentence's worth of mention, whatever story it takes place--and in this particular case, a quick Google search suggests that this twist reveal has actually become a bit intertwined with the show's WP:NOTABILITY: [http://decider.com/2017/01/18/voltron-legendary-defender-netflix-explainer/], [http://collider.com/voltron-legendary-defender-netflix-pidge-transgender/], [https://www.themarysue.com/can-we-cool-it-with-the-women-disguised-as-men-trope-already/]. Again, please reserve your commentary on that issue for your forthcoming (and I'm sure very grounded and reasonable and within scale and perspective) arguments on the talk page, and don't delve into it here; I'm simply trying to point out that I think you're going to need to be flexible here. Regardless, discuss what is best for the article and stop trying to impose your preferred version as mandate. Snow let's rap 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Clear}}
Blocked in violation of policy
{{archive top|This LTA is best known for catching yet another boomerang. Nonetheless, administrator {{ul|Winhunter}}'s actions have drawn significant criticism from the community, upon which this forum has no further power to act. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Dear administrators,
Recently, I found that a number of article about galaxies contained fanciful names invented, apparently, by an amateur astronomer from Belgium. These names have no legitimacy, no recognition and no place in any encyclopaedia article. So I began to remove them.
At 00:02 on 29 July, I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGC_523&diff=prev&oldid=792830747 this edit]. At 00:05, the edit was undone by User:Winhunter. At 00:06, they left me a message accusing me of vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=prev&oldid=792831200], and at 00:07, they blocked me for 72 hours, claiming vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Winhunter&page=User%3A2.25.45.251&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1].
WP:VAND says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." It later says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
It is not possible to perceive my edits as vandalism. They were clearly not intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. They were clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. Nor were they misguided, disruptive or wilfully against consensus. Indeed, they had been explicitly endorsed by a consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#CMG_-_.22Catalogue_of_One_Thousand_Named_Galaxies.22]. So the block was obviously wrong.
The administrator who placed the block has made less than 200 edits since 2010. Approximately 30 of these were on 29 July this year, when they went on a spree to undo my edits. They broke sort ordering in a table that I'd fixed, replaced incorrect punctuation that I'd removed, and of course replaced nonsensical galaxy "names" in a series of astronomy articles.
The administrator was vaguely questioned about the block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winhunter&diff=792933576&oldid=792855503], but has not responded. Given their extraordinarily sparse editing history, it seems unlikely that they ever will. They have not edited since their spree of reverts ended in the small hours of 29 July. The block was obviously incorrect, and the failure of the administrator to explain or account for their actions seems to me to fall far below the standards you expect. So I raise it here for your awareness. I think that an administrator who barely edits in a decade and then places such an obviously wrong block is a problem. I hope that you agree. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm gonna have to agree with the IP here. The block, in my opinion, was unwarranted. In particular, what's more troubling is that the blocking admin clicked the block button after the second warning when it is normally after four warnings unless the user is only here to truly vandalize. The IP's edits were seriously not vandalism at all. And 72 hours is seriously harsh. All of the IP's edits were WP:BOLD. Also, to revert all of the IPs' edits was also really unnecessary unless you have good reason (e.g., sock). In terms of content, I agree with the IP. The source used to name NGC 523 comes from a blog and the names are not known per consensus at the WikiProject page. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Someone needs to go back to admin school, and in the meantime needs to account for his/her actions. EEng 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{ping|Drmies|Anthony Bradbury|Berean Hunter|Winhunter}} Pinging the admins who made the blocks. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not to stir the shit, but I'm here to thoroughly agitate the fecal material. I just want to say that I'm not surprised an edit summary with the phrase [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=793060374&oldid=792980939 "removed idiotic dithering and insults. just how stupid are you?"] resulted in a block, though to be fair, there's something to be said for letting a recently blocked editor vent a little. But we have to give admins the same leeway we give other users; if an admin blocks after being called stupid and accused of "idiotic dithering" for trying to give good advice to someone, we should show said admin a bit of patience, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is a separate matter. I said that when my appeal against the block was treated with contempt and trolling, something I plan to discuss once we have established whether the block could have had any possible justification. I do not think shit stirring like this is helpful. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also don't selectively quote me please. The edit summary continued it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits, and to recognise that the block was an extreme violation of policy. but you don't even have that.. This was 36 hours after I had been blocked for no reason, and after two administrators refused to help. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, that's how ANI works. We look at ALL of the aspects of the case, not just the ones you'd like us to look at. While I understand your frustration at the block, you need to understand that civility is required. Your best course of action would be to apologize for it, or at the very least make clear that you understand that it's not acceptable. Note, I am not saying Winhunter's block was valid, but you both have issues in this case that need to be addressed. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Taking a look at my block log, I'm of the mind that it's a lot more helpful than insulting an admin trying to help you. The fact that you're still calling that help "contempt and trolling" is probably not helpful, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: No admin was trying to help. What makes you claim that they were? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Berean Hunter was offering you advice, and has even indicated that they were sympathetic to your situation before you blanked your page with that insulting edit summary rant and caught a block extension for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case". 2.25.45.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::It is true as anyone can see in the diff I posted. If you feel like Berean Hunter wasn't helpful or sympathetic, then I suggest you try to wrangle your feelings into something based on the real world, and not on the assumption that everyone who doesn't immediately jump to your defense with guns blazing is actually out to get you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- That was a poor initial block, and WH should respond the next time they log on. Unfortunately it may be a while, as WH doesn't appear to be very active. WH is responsible for the poor initial block, and the IP and other blocking admins and reverters share relative blame (by some formula I don't plan to come up with) for the ensuing flameout. Advice: Don't block too quickly, don't assume all IP's are vandals, don't react too aggressively, don't punish someone venting on their talk page, don't revert something you don't understand just because you see other people doing it. That said, I'd say this is something that Wikipedia is best known for.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::Oh lord that opens another can of worms. I'm not going to touch that one. Regardless, this is yet another troubling instance of administrators going well beyond their bounds with seemingly no means for the community to enact corrections. I realize there is a pending case in arbitration for something similar, but I have little faith that it will result in anything but a 'this is a one time issue' statement. We need better. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Okay I agree with Floquenbeam here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._K._Chesterton&diff=prev&oldid=791125842 is enough evidence that this is who we're dealing with. Someone needs to block ASAP. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I really do not understand what you're saying here. Was that edit a bad edit? It seems to be it was a good edit that improved the article. I think the previous was very jarring, using the present continuous tense when the guy's been dead for more than 40 years, and using five words where one would do. I think that any capable editor would wish to make the same or similar change. But you think I should be blocked for making this edit? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::I'd also add the advice: don't insist on hearing from the blocking admin first, when that person typically shows up infrequently, especially when it becomes so obvious that the block was incorrect. All in all, I'd have been pretty livid too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::: I'll just put this out there as well; an admin who (prior to reverting all of the IPs edits) had 19 edits to Wikipedia in 2017, two in 2016, and four in 2015. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::::For sure, it was a bad block for the wrong reasons, but given the above, it needs to be reinstated. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::Sorry, I keep seeing new things to comment on. Assuming this is not who I think it is, then I really think the long 1RR restriction imposed as a condition for the current unblock is unfair. Not sure how an incorrect 3 day block morphs into a 3 month 1RR restriction in order to get unblocked. Perhaps if it was also applied to WH and to the people who automatically reverted the IP again - people who actually reverted incorrectly, unlike the IP - but somehow I don't think that's likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::FWIW, I just restored the IP's edits in Contemporary Latin per WP:MADEUP and WP:SELFREFERENCE, which should have been pretty clear-cut. Like Floquenbeam, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were the IP, making good faith efforts. It's no excuse, but certainly a reason to fly off the handle. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I second Floquenbeam and Kleuske. All in all, it was a bad block from the first blocking admin. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::: Agh - that's really not good either. Whether or not the IP editor is BKF (at this point it doesn't really matter), I think there are a number of things that a number of editors could learn from the whole situation. But it did all stem from the original bad block, from an admin (and I'll say it again) with 25 edits to Wikipedia in the last three years. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Black Kite, I agree completely. I wish we didn't have such a trigger-happy Recent changes patrol who are biased against IPs, and this block...yeah. I went back through the archives of my talk page: I have been in the middle of mindless reverts on the one hand and insults on the other hand since at least 2011. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, first let's get a factor that could possibly conflate the analysis out of the way here: If you dig far enough back into the IP's contributions, you do begin to see a pattern of needlessly inflammatory language in edit summaries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=500&contribs=user&target=2.25.45.251&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=]. That's something the user is going to want to address regardless of the outcome here.
:That said, most of these comments are stale and none of them (as far as I can tell) were involved with the issues involved in the content dispute or the block. Certainly, no incivility issues were cited by the admin, as they should have been if they were contributing factors to the block. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to this admin's inappropriate approach here. First off, they lept straight to a level three warning, assuming bad faith and perhaps forestalling otherwise productive discussion. Or at least, under normal circumstances it might have forestalled discussion, but Winunter doesn't seem to have cared for discussion regardless because, less than a minute later and for unexplained reasons, they changed their mind and blocked the IP altogether, without giving them a chance to process the warning and/or make a case for why their edits were not vandalism. And putting aside any possible, attenuated argument for how the IP's edits may have been disruptive in some form (and I don't think they were, in this instance) they clearly were not vandalsim. Even if said edit had been inappropriate (and they actually seem to align with our verification and sourcing policies, as well as consensus discussions on the matter), they were pretty clearly made in good faith to add permissible content, and thus not even in the remotest since WP:vandalism as the term applies on this project.
:In short, Winhunter's behaviour here seems completely sloppy, if not outright WP:disruptive. And their failure to account for any of it is not particularly reassuring; far from being a context to assume that they may have legitimate reasons for having taken the actions that they did, the fact that they may once again have gone into dormancy is actually strong additional cause to consider stripping them of the bit. We simply can't have admins empowered with the block hammer who make highly questionable choices in how they implement it, without sufficient explanation, and then just disappear into the aether again immediately. Indeed, the particular details of this case raise the question of whether it is advisable to allow a user to maintain such tools at all, after such a prolonged period of inactivity. Admins need to be completely up-to-date on community guidelines, be reasonably well-practiced in how to implement them and be regular, recognizable, and constructive contributors to the project in general. I sense we are about to hear yet more complaints about how the community ought to be able to desysop without needing to appeal to ArbCom, for the second time in as many weeks; I'm neutral on that issue, but I will say that this instance makes a much stronger case than the one that can currently be found at the top of the page.
:The one place where I will call out the IP is in their approach to that talk page discussion. Yes, they have cause to be frustrated here, but {{u|Drmies}} and other admins, having discovered the facts here, ultimately gave them a method to exit the mess and restore their full editing rights. All they were requested to do was repeat the unblock request (presumably for reasonable pro forma reasons) and instead chose to register their ire. That does raise the question of how they will cope with disputes or administrative matters in the future, I think. Nevertheless, I do think they deserve an apology for having been dropped into this mess in the first place. Snow let's rap 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that imposing 1RR as a condition for unblock is unreasonable when there's enough blame to go around, and should be removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:The whole behaviour and general gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2.25.45.251&type=revision&diff=792831300&oldid=792831200] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2.25.45.251&type=revision&diff=793060374&oldid=792980939] (then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith. The pattern seems to me easily construed as deliberately WP:disruptive.
: I also responded to the various complaints of the reverts made by me here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArianewiki1&type=revision&diff=794774357&oldid=794749133]
:NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetraquark [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tetra_quark], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, turn quickly highly combative at any even minor slight, also edits astronomical pages (especially towards images), and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. (For a non registered User, they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies. e.g. Quoting WP:IG) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::No, he for sure is for sure the BKF vandal, which is why I am concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Do either of you have any evidence to back up these suspicions? If not, WP:ASPERSIONS, if so WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Yes, I do. Check out his edit history where there are numerous removals of phrases like 'best known for' with edit summaries straight out of that LBA page. If you want actual diffs I'll post them later tonight. It's pretty obvious. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::In that case, WP:SPI is the correct place to post the diffs. Kleuske (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::{{EC}}That was my initial thought as well, Kleuske (see my comments immediately below). But now that Tarage has linked to that longterm abuse page for the editor in question, I daresay the case is pretty strong and more than satisfies the WP:DUCK test, based on the contributions I have looked at since coming upon this thread. Unfortunately, SPI is going to be of less use than usual, since the use rin question does not register and hops from IP to IP. I do, however, agree that SPI should be the next stop: a sanction can still be implmented there, even without a CU, based on behavioural evidence (which i think is strong in this case). Filing at SPI will also allow exploration of the socking issues to be disentangled from the inappropriate admin actions being discussed here. Plus an admin action is more likely to be prompt at SPI, especially in light of the fact that admins may be hesitant to be the latest to reverse this editors status after the back and forth of the last 24 hours, if they first dsicover the situation via this mess. Snow let's rap 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Fine, I'll leave it to you then. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::I do not recall removing "phrases like 'best known for'", and struggle to see in any case why you would think that could be called vandalism. It's quite ironic on a thread about being blocked with a false accusation of vandalism though. If you can find an edit of mine that you think was deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, only then you can accuse me of vandalism. You will not find any such edits. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I am pretty confident that you never act with the explicit intention of obstructing or defeating the project's purpose, for what it's worth. However, I also suspect you may have a substantial and fundamental disconnect with the collaborative nature of this project. Snow let's rap 10:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Haha, pretty sneaky sis! But this isn't my rodeo! It's your theory, and though you have me more than half convinced after sharing that link, if you're really confident, you're going to have to propose the action yourself. Snow let's rap 09:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{EC}}That theory sounds like a matter for SPI. I will say that there is apparently a second line of speculation as to this user being someone else above (at least, there is reference to such positions, apparently drawn from another discussion that is not being linked to here). I will say that certain elements of this IP's behaviour and knowledge of process do suggest an experienced editor to me, but without more substantial editing, I am not willing to assume that they are anything other than what they claim to be: a moderately experienced non-registered user who ran afoul of particularly under-experienced admin and then lacked the patience to negotiate the situation as easily as they might have. And I suspect most community members here will feel the same, pending deeper evidence.
::{{u|OhanaUnited}}, I initially shared your perspective and almost called on Drmies to reconsider repealing that restriction. Then I did a little more digging and saw the full context of how that came about. Bear in mind especially that Drmies' initial posts on that talk page were to validate the IP's position and call for all blocks and restrictions to be removed. Other admins/community members(both involved and uninvolved) then agreed, and the IP was asked to resubmit their unblock request, and was given back talk page access for that purpose. At this point the IP used that ability to speak their mind again to immediately balk and complain about the unfairness of having to take 15 minutes (at most, surely) to format that request. It was only at this point that Drmies changes their stance and implemented the 1RR restriction, while also removing the block. Even considering the frustrating and unfair context in which they were initially blocked, that was an impressive display of shooting themselves in their own foot. I'm not sure that 1rr is exactly the most targeted possible sanction here, given that edit warring does not seem to be their issue. But I suspect the intended preventative effect here was to make the editor think twice about acting impulsively when dealing with their fellow editors. Snow let's rap 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was pinged here as the blocking admin? I'm the unblocking admin, who disagreed to some extent with the initial block or at least the given block rationale; I'm the one who (with Anthony) broke a lance for the IP editor. I used to do that in the old days for some other editor whose name escapes me (though Floq might remember)...no, I can't come up with it now. Anyway, I imposed the 1R restriction because it seems to me that trouble starts when the IP gets reverted and then strikes back. {{U|Snow Rise}}, your comments are quite to the point and I appreciate them. If the community thinks that the restriction is too much, that's fine: overturn it. But do note that I have not reverted any of their edits, that I believe I have advocated for them (here and in a slew of messages on the ArbCom mail list, where this user posted with ever-increasing urgency, and that I offered assistance, saying that they could ping me if they got reverted. Mind you, I didn't even need for them to request to be unblocked again--I was just hoping they'd say something reasonable. User:OhanaUnited, in these circumstances, I don't think my restriction was unreasonable. At any rate, have at it, y'all--I did my bit by supporting the IP's initial case and unblocking them, and at the same time trying to protect all sides with a restriction that will require the IP editor to reflect and give them the opportunity to call in the cavalry--but I won't be surprised if this backfires spectacularly, given how the temperature seems to rise when this editor shows up, no matter how solid and positive their edits are. Please don't ping me anymore in this ANI thread: it's not a concern of mine. If the IP wants to ping me to point at some revert or other, my door is always open, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- But I wasn't blocked for reverting anything, or striking back after reverting. I was blocked for vandalism, when I had clearly done no such thing. I am glad to see that the consensus here seems to be quite strongly that the block was not valid. I am extremely heartened to see that someone suggested I deserved an apology for it. I am less heartened to see I'm accused of being various sockpuppets but whatever.
- As for what I said when asked to make one more unblock request: what was the need for it? I'd been blocked for vandalism, blocked for being angry about that, and then blocked for no actual clear reason for *three months*. I'd followed all the appeals right up to mailing the arbitration committee, which was crazy given how obvious it was (confirmed here) that the original block was wrong. And then someone says "I'll unblock you, but only if you ask me to one more time." It seemed really pointless. I stand by that.
- And as for editing restrictions, well I'm not likely to edit any articles for a while anyway. You'll notice I have not edited any articles since being unblocked. The whole experience of being blocked for "vandalism" when making perfectly good edits was extremely unpleasant, and doesn't particularly make me feel like fixing errors I find, far less refixing them when other people have unfixed them, having been accused of "disruption" when I did that before.
- Anyway I have found this a very useful and interesting discussion. Thanks. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Saying "I was blocked for vandalism," is not entirely true. The first two instances you were plainly blocked for saying things like "Don't be stupid." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2.25.45.251&type=revision&diff=792831300&oldid=792831200] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2.25.45.251&type=revision&diff=793060374&oldid=792980939]. You then multiplied the mistake by then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!
:::I see these blocks as a reflection of your own poor aggressive behaviour and the utter contempt you exhibit to others (including me.) This is clearly the needed evidence of "disruptive editing." None of your excuses above at all addresses your own poor behaviour, and your near continuous inflicted 'insults' to other Users if they disagree with you. Wikipedia is for editors in collaborations not those acting like vigilantes. (Some wisdom: Showing an inkling of contrition here would help your cause considerably.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Regarding Wikipedia:Vandalism it plainly says: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose,..." The word 'behaviour' here is important, and hasn't been addressed by this IP User at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::This editor accuses me of aggressive behaviour while aggressively undoing my reverts and slandering me, restoring to articles things that they themselves had described as "abhorrent" and (incorrectly) "vandalism", and responding aggressively when I asked them why they did that. They are yet to provide an answer. I do view them as a problem but that's really a separate discussion. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Go right ahead. You are falsely accusing me of something. You were blocked not just because of the edits but because of your behaviour. If someone reverts an edit once, twice or three times, right or wrong, you should attempt to seek consensus. You did not do this at all. Instead you started throwing insults. End of story. Get it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Arianewiki1, the IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. Of all the three blocks, only one was regarding civility and NPA. The other was for disruptive editing. I don't know if you're insinuating that the IP was vandalizing, because that is entirely false. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Hooo boy, if somebody filed an RfA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winhunter 2 today, they'd get WP:SNOW opposed out of the door. How times change. Meanwhile, I have been in 2.25's shoes myself as I used to edit logged out at my local library for security reasons - see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 45#The war on IPs continues, and I seem to recall I was pretty pissed off when I got hit with a two year block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::The first one is even more telling, but in both Winhunter expresses a very personal take on fighting vandalism, clearly identified as arising out of their frustration as non-sysop to be able to stop them more immediately and effectively. In fact, at every opportunity and before all other factors, they identify their reason for wanting tools to be the ability to rapidly block vandals. That's pretty telling under the present circumstances. It seems these days, in the few minutes they can spare the project every few years, the user now has no time for warnings or discussion before blocking on their vandal assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that I'm low on AGF for the IP, we do owe them for bring this to our attention and I think this matter should be referred to ArbCom, regardless of whether or not the IP gets boomerang blocked for socking. Snow let's rap 10:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- IMO this is why admins should need to earn their wings every year, and not just by making X admin actions; they can't just disappear for over a decade and then swoop in and do stupid $#it with the tools and get away with it. There needs to be a requirement that admins make at least X number of actual edits (not admin actions) every two years or they are de-sysopped. We've been skirting around this problem for way too long and I've seen way too many absentee admins do stupid stuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::That would help considering the other contributing factor of this issue: editors who became admins in the early days of Wikipedia, when the requirements for a RfA candidate were much lower. Cjhard (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't think I would survive a reconfirmation RfA, I've made too many enemies. I suspect if you tried to make it policy, the turkeys would gather round and prevent a vote (or a !vote) for Christmas, even though in principle it's a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I don't know, I think those voting against a reconfirmation RfA based on nothing more than a personal grudge would be identified as doing so and would be discounted when establishing consensus, just as the case would be in regular RfCs. But you're not wrong that it would perhaps be more of an issue. That's something in favour of Softlavender's idea of an increased minimum standard of activity to maintain sysop status: it provides an objective standard, avoiding the axe-grinding issue completely. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I mentioned this possibility above, and though I can't recall having seen it anywhere before, I can't fathom that it has been suggested repeatedly over the years. It's definitely a more reasonable solution than recurrent RfA's in my opinion. That's just begs for disruption and bad blood from a completely needless airing of grievances, which the most disruptive editors will be most certain to turn out for. But a minimum standard of activity? That's completely called for. I'm surprised we don't have it, except to say that the community probably wasn't thinking in the longterm as we originated and perpetuated the process; only with time has the need become obvious. Seems like something that is ripe for VPP, if you ask me.Would need broad support from existing admins though, to survive the community process. Snow let's rap 12:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- SPI clerk comment - based on the IP's behaviour here and the non-CU technical evidence available to me, I can't reason a situation where this IP is any other than the Best Known For long-term abuser, who is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=700172815&oldid=700171836#Proposal_to_community_ban_the_.22Best_known_for_IP.22 banned by the community]. If you want, compare in particular the IP's archived diatribe on their talk page with their comments in the linked ban discussion. While I respect that several admins here have taken it upon themselves to overturn what does appear to have been an inappropriate series of blocks, along with whatever's going on behind the veil of ArbCom, the community ban has been neither appealed nor overturned, and as such I have re-blocked the IP for 3 months to enforce the banning policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you Ivan. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
= Admin acct =
{{green|"That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case"."}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=794828315&oldid=794827808 link])
My responses show that is patently false and the fact that they cherry-picked a sentence from within a post that contains evidence that contradicts them is telling.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=792917685&oldid=792832937 1]
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=792924809&oldid=792920289 2]
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=792936908&oldid=792926259 3]
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=792980939&oldid=792975073 4]
I would still like to hear from Winhunter regarding the IP's initial concern. Has anyone emailed him?
BKF will have an additional ax to grind with me. His employer contacted me last week and I supplied them with lots of details. They identified him. Different managerial levels are involved and he has received formal counseling that he is not to use their network to edit Wikipedia again to which he has agreed. They are interested in him being a "good neighbour" from here on and it is ironic that I had just written someone looking into the case an email reply detailing the standard offer, how he should contribute elsewhere for no less than six months with an account and that he would have to request a ban appeal from the community. They intend to monitor the situation. That said, since the IP hints at inappropriate admin actions on my part, I'll refrain from commenting further on a possible socking connection here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've emailed Winhunter.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::I'm not certain that this is the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (if he doesn't scream abuse at my sympathetic reply above, it isn't), but if it is, he is community banned and should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I have to support {{U|Arianewiki1}} above - Behaviorally, this really looks like TQ. Scr★pIronIV 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::He's been blocked as a sock of BKF. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Oh fair enough. He'll be back on another IP soon enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::Berean Hunter thanks for your email, apologies I was busy during the week so couldn't respond to this thread earlier. I do recognize I could have actioned the original block in a better way so thanks for everyone's feedback. Noticed the thread is now concluded though if anyone require additional information from myself please feel free to reach out. -WinHunter (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
I'm reaching out. What does "I could have actioned the original block in a better way" mean? EEng 05:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::I'm open to suggestion for improvement. At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal. I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning . -WinHunter (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::*Respectfully WinHunter, those responses are insufficient to address the questions being asked by the community members here. This thread is not in fact "concluded" and I dare say that it's an indication of your inexperience with this community in the decade since you became an admin that you don't realize that. The IP was banned for being a likely sock of a user banned for behavioural problems, but that doesn't let you off scott free for your involvement in this matter. You instituted a block for another user for vandalism, even though most every editor who has reviewed those edits agrees they are not WP:vandalism in any sense relevant to this community's guidelines. More seriously, you applied the block without any warning, discussion or effort at clarification with the user in question, (unless you count a level three template slapped to their talk page less than one full minute before you blocked them anyway). Then you immediately disappeared as the situation exploded, leaving other admins and the community to deal with the fallout of your actions while the user disruptively worked their way through every community process they knew of (both on the site and off), armed with a legitimate claim of admin abuse which only amped up their existing persecution complex and gave them an excuse to game the system.
::**I admit I am not an active Wikipedian, though I did not intend to "disappear" and when someone emailed me I immediately login over my iphone and tried to respond with my thinking at the time. I am not saying I did the right thing at the time and I do apologies for all the trouble as a result of that action, I was trying to explain my thought process and mentioned that I am open for suggestions for improvement. I am happy to review the latest policies again to refresh my knowledge and if the community still find next admin actions unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future.--WinHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:::You say: {{tq|"At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal."}} Well...why? Legitimate users remove content across multiple related articles as a matter of daily business here; that is not sufficient cause in even the remotest sense to use your privileges to block. You then go on to say {{tq|"I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning."}} But the reality is that you didn't provide any explanation of your block, beyond the erroneous "vandal" in the block summary, nor did you provide any real warning or make any real effort to discuss the matter with the user that you decided (on apparently no hard evidence) was a vandal. You got lucky this time that your random block happened to be a banned user, but the community is now reasonably asking if your lack of involvement here over a long period of time makes you a problematic steward for our most significant (and thus potentially disruptive tools). Sorry to be so strident about it, but your answers are not particularly reassuring me, because they seem to indicate you don't know basic proceedure for our WP:BLOCKing policy. Snow let's rap 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::*(ec)Winhunter, please go to Arbcom and hand in your admin tools. You are very lucky that the IP you blocked turns out to be a banned user, but the reason you blocked them was absolutely wrong. "the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject" is not vandalism if the editor is correct and the data needs removal. These kind of edits need discussion, not the admin hammer, and that you still defend your block indicates that you have not learned anything from this episode. Coupled with your almost complete lack of edits and admin actions for years and years now makes it clear that you are no longer to be trusted to act as admins should. Fram (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::*Agree with both of the above, in particular the call to resign. As I said on another thread, "We seem to have a mini-epidemic of editors in positions of trust who don't know which way is up, possibly due to limited experience editing articles and discussing with other editors." An admin with 3600 article edits and 350 article talk edits??? [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Winhunter&project=en.wikipedia.org] And how does someone with that few (not-deleted) article edits accumulate 3300 deleted edits? Plus, he still doesn't doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong. EEng 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::::The reason of the high delete count is I decided to volunteer over recent years to helpout on WP:CSD as I have more limited time after my day job, and I hope you would find most of those deletions uncontroversial (like user request for their own userpages / obvious advertising etc). As I responded to another editor above I am happy to learn from this experience and review the latest policies, and if my next admin actions is still unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide on my future. --WinHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::OK, that explains the deleted edits, but that leaves everything else. You still seem unable to enunciate what you did wrong in this case, which is _______________________________ (fill in the blank, please). EEng 16:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I'll do you one better. "The reason I need to be an admin is _____________________." --Tarage (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Winhunter}}, your failure to engage these concerns is extremely troubling. EEng 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
::* Agree with Fram and EEng. As a fellow Hong Konger, I would also like to ask you to hand in your admin tools. Removing inaccurate contents is something everyone does, IP or registered. Your revert could be viewed as repeated insertion of "Introducing deliberate factual errors", which ironically is grounds for yourself being blocked. I also think everyone here agrees that the resignation of WinHunter's admin rights, if that happens is considered as done "under the cloud". OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
=Proposal: Kick to ArbCom with community recommendation =
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = There is clear consensus from this discussion and the comments above and below that administrator {{ul|Winhunter}}'s recent block and failure to adequately respond to inquiry is a dereliction of administrative accountability. As neither the community nor its administrators are empowered to act in this situation, the community requests Arbcom's urgent response. (Amended close, original [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=795979604&diff=prev here].) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
----
It seems that WinHunter is either unable or unwilling to provide significant explanation or engagement regarding the substantial community concerns relating to the problematic way in which WinHunter has approached the use of their privileges--as well as other concerns regarding whether they have sufficient experience, perspective, and engagement in the project to be serving in an administrative capacity. At present, WinHunter seems to either be trying to ride out the scrutiny, or else the handful of brief and insufficient responses above represent the sum total of their ability and desire to explain actions which, consensus in this discussion seems to clearly hold, were deeply problematic (and if I can add my own impressions, indicative of a lack of even the most basic understanding of our blocking policies).
However, ultimately the removal of tools is ArbCom's purview, so I don't see what more is to be accomplished here. We could long-term block WinHunter, but that does not seem the most transparent way to address the root issue, nor do I think we should prevent the user from possibly returning to the project to contribute productively in other capacities (unlikely as that seems given the user's lack of activity over the years since getting the bit). I therefore propose that we resolve to open a report with ArbCom, but that the report be coupled with a link to this discussion and a strong community endorsement that ArbCom investigate the issues here (and, depending on the result of this poll, a strong recommendation to desysyop). I was hesitant at first to suggest such an approach on the basis of one major incident, but the responses above have been wholly insufficient to assuage my concerns as to whether the user is an appropriate steward of the ban hammer, and I don't think I'm the only one. Snow let's rap 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: Since WinHunter has said that they are willing to accept community consensus on their future role as an admin (without specifying a particular community process), we can also consider asking them to voluntarily relinquish their tools, if the poll suggests they should, thus saving some time in the process. If they are unwilling to part with the tools on the basis of the community consensus here, then we can proceed with the request for review by ArbCom, no harm done. Snow let's rap 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support (as nom). Snow let's rap 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support WinHunter clearly has no real need for the tools, and no good idea about how they should be used. Please voluntarily tyurn in the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I'll take a look over this and file a case if consensus supports it. Twitbookspacetube 02:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::Like Snow said, wait and see if {{u|Winhunter}} has the courtesy to simply resign ("under a cloud", of course). EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Considering their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt it. But I'll give it a week or so. Hopefully the knowledge that another ADMINACCT case is heading there should be enough to get something out of them. If their response is anything like what it took Arthur a couple of months to produce, i'll be filing the case anyway. Twitbookspacetube 05:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Snow and BMK. EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. And this should serve as a wake-up call for all admins that they can no longer dish out blocks with impunity if they cannot satisfactory justify their actions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I do not concur with your sentiments. I do not believe that "all admins" need a "wake-up call", but that the vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job. They don't need or deserve to be lumped in with an egregious example such as this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::Well, just to be clear, I wouldn't be making this proposal, but for the fact that the issues are particularly egregious; I can't ever recall seeing another pattern of facts surrounding the improper use of blocking privileges quite like this. There are occasional sloppy or involved blocks that stand to have some scrutiny, but the distinguishing factors here are this user's tangential involvement with the project, single-minded reasons for wanting to be an admin, and lack of basic familiarity with the relevant policies. If not for that highly specific combination of factors, I would not have made the proposal--and I I'm not sure that all three apply to so much as a single other active admin. None that I've come across, certainly. Snow let's rap 05:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
::: {{re|Beyond My Ken}} "Vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job". That part I agree. But within last 30 days alone, we have 2 admins, including this one, who failed to satisfactory justify their actions (the other being [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Request_for_diff.28s.29 this case] which I'm sure you're aware of its existence because you commented on it). And these are the only complaints that surfaced because the affected party knows where and how to complain. Think about how many newbie biting incidents that didn't get reported and this number would have gone up. Two in a month isn't something we should be proud about. At any rate, admins have to be accountable for their actions and that's a given when they decide to run for it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: Of course admins have to be accountable, and most of them do so willingly. As for 2 in a month - since there weren't 2 such last month or the month before, I'd say it's just random, the normal distribution of disconnected events, uncorrelated to the quality of our admin corps.{{parabr}}Look, I know there are some bad admins out there -- believe me, I've run into a few, and it's shocking simply because it's so rare. Most of the admins interactions I've had have been perfectly normal and justifiable, and if I'm being called to task, I've generally deserved it. We have 1,250 admins, over 500 of whom are active, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of handfuls of bad ones, at the very most. So, I still think you're wrong about the necessity of a "wake-up call" to all admins. What we need is better procedures to get rid of the handful of bad apples, not swatting our admins en masse on their noses with a rolled up newspaper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::That more or less sums up my position; the fact that we've had two public discussions about possible admin misconduct this month doesn't add up to me to say much about admins on the project in general. I find most act with restraint; indeed, if there is a problem these days, it's in getting an admin to act definitively on a pressing matter--but that's another discussion altogether. I certainly didn't intend this proposal to be a wake-up call for anyone; the facts are just particularly compelling that there is are basic competency/engagement problems, in the present case. Snow let's rap 08:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. The user's inactivity, combined with their recent poor decision and poor response, suggests that they shouldn't be an admin. Perhaps this should serve as a lesson for us about having inactive admins. If you aren't a reasonably active contributor, you probably shouldn't be making administrative decisions. It's like any volunteer situation—while volunteer help is always welcome, you don't want some guy who only pops in a few times a year to be ordering other volunteers out of the building. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. The IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. From the beginning, it was clear that this block was wrong, and wrongly done. And should have been reverted by the blocking admin, as soon as the consensus became clear on this matter. Perhaps (understatement) the IP has to be blocked for other reasons, by another admin. But it remains that WinHunter messed the situation... and failed to clean it. Don't keep the mop, if you don't understand what cleaning could mean. Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support on the stipulation that part of the case also be able the community's ability to restrict/revoke mops for behavior like this. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::ArbCom has no jurisdiction over the community's ability to desysop. The only non-ArbCom solution is to block the admin. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Then who does? --Tarage (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::::The community itself. It would require a policy change, usually via RFC. ArbCom is not supposed to make policy, rather enact it. A community desysop procedure does not exist, although I share your opinion that it should. -- Begoon 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support as per BMK. Bentogoa (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Proceed with caution I can only assume the author of this proposal has never actually dealt with an Arbcom case; the part about "with a community recommendation" is almost cute. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::Are you intending to attempt to sound as if you are talking down to somebody there, from a place of superior / more worldly perspective, simply because you have gripes about ArbCom? No, I've never been a party to an ArbCom case, and quite happy to be able to say that. But like any other member of this community who has been around as long as I have been, I'm hardly ignorant of how matters are handled/unfold there. Or of the passive-aggressive contempt that flows in their direction from some corners of the community, regardless of the context in which their name is invoked. In any event, as I see it, we don't really have an alternative course of action here. Only ArbCom is empowered to de-sysop, so this matter has to be handled through that channel;the best we can do is share a link to this discussion and a comment about how concerned the community is with this particular user having privileges.
::If you have a better course of action to suggest, I'm all ears. But I don't see what your comment contributes, at least in terms of actual substance with regard to the proposal. At least, I don't understand what "proceed with caution" would mean in this context, as a response to the proposal. The worst that can happen is that they don't act, and we have to consider another sanction if this user proves problematic. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just looks like you're taking the opportunity to register your low regard for ArbCom, but without actually say whether the proposal should be endorsed or not, or providing some alternative course of action. Snow let's rap 03:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Snow Rise. Cjhard (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose based on eventual outcome. Don't want Wikipedia to become best known for feeding its own trolls. Trout to Winhunter is good enough for me. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that {{U|Winhunter}} continues to pretend he doesn't know anything's going on here should cement it for anyone still not convinced: he is absolutely not someone we want as an admin. EEng 02:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. There also needs to be a clear reform of the way administrators have been able to retain and use their tools even in spite of vast inexperience and absences of nearly a decade or more. I've seen this problem arise several times in the past few years; it is insupportable and needs to be fixed with new and stringent activity & knowledge requirements for admins. (For example, while I find it understandable that an admin might be away from WP for a year, if one year stretches beyond more than two years of virtual absence, I personally think the tools need to be removed [pending a new RfA], even if they used the tools a few times in that period.) Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::Actually, I don't think the problem is absence per se, rather that very long absence takes us back to the time when RfAs were more, um, promiscuous, shall we say. Admins minted back then who have been active most or all of the time since have stood the test of time, but cases such as this one don't have that experience to reassure us that they should ever have been admins in the first place. EEng 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
:::It's mainly the long absence, since most early-minted admins have either grown up with the project and have at least learned on the job (or they have been de-sysopped). Those who split for a decade soon after being sysopped have no clue what they are doing and no sense that they should learn, or be held accountable, or why. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I think we're saying the same thing. EEng 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
----
: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Note that in light of the discussion below and my amendment to my close, I have emailed the Arbitration Committee to review this discussion in light of WP:LEVEL2. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
----
: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
