Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
| Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
|---|
|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
I am here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:
- Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[1][2] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
- Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[3][4]
- Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".
I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.
- There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of
a PopeCardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [5]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [6] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)- Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- In making the following personal attack, "...FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself!", Scientus blanked the warning and then rebuffed the admin that warned him about the attack. This isn't promising.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is "anti-Semitism" racism, or is it not racism? You are going in circles. And BTW, my great-gradfather fled the Jewish programs in Ukraine/Russia. Scientus (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [7] --NeilN talk to me 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would certainly support a 1-week block. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And he's back! Today Scientus once again edited Israel concerning the issue of universal suffrage (which doesn't mean what Scientus would like it to mean). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- What is your definition of "universal suffrage"? Cause those words quite literally means everyone (universal) votes (suffrage).Scientus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, Scientus, you mistake the literal meaning of words for their meaning. See Talk:Israel#No Universal Sufferage (sic), where I addressed that question nearly two weeks ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Block
Scientus has had 16 user-page warnings since May 25, yet has continued his disruptive editing, edit-warring, defiance of Wikipedia policy and/or consensus, vile unprovoked and completely erroneous personal attacks, inability to hear, and general incompetence. Whatever may have been his past contributions prior to May 2015, he is clearly no longer here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that he be blocked, for at least one week or as long as six months -- the length at the discretion of an uninvolved admin or community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, as proposer, a block of one month, for the continued cumulative number and types of disruptions/violations. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, support, support. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --JBL (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. at least one month.Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Yeah, at least a month. If he has a number of warnings then he should be blocked for at least a month --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Lachlan Foley, genre warring again
Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([8]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.
- Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- So this on-going edit-warring and WP:DE is OK by the admins? Good, glad that's clear. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- They will not stop. Just a few from today: [9], [10] Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why are admins ignoring this? All the damage he is causing will take so much time to fix. You can't just simply remove genres with no excuse. Many of the genres are sourced, but in the article itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- They will not stop. Just a few from today: [9], [10] Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Smalljim, You have to make something. Now he makes the genre disappear from the infoboxes like here and obviously he drowns his edit by making a few domestic changes regarding the visual aspect of the infobox. This is wp:POINTy and disruptive. I'm tired of spending hours to revert his edits instead of adding historical content like I used to make on Siouxsie and the Banshees related articles; today out of the blue user:Freshacconci has the guts to say that it was my edits that were genre warring whereas he obviously doesn't know anything on Lachlan's history. Why after being blocked for Genre warring, does LF have the right to keep on acting exactly the same way without being blocked once again. Carliertwo (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment My only involvement here is at the Dear Prudence article. From what I saw, User:Lachlan Foley added a hidden message to the infobox stating that only sourced genres should be added, while removing unsourced content. User:Carliertwo reverted back to the unsourced content and incorrectly stated in the edit summary that references are not permitted in infoboxes. According to WP:INFOBOXREF, references certainly are permitted if necessary. This is the standard for all Beatle song articles as they have a history of genre warriors adding their own idea of genres to the infoboxes. Keeping in mind that the issue here involves the infobox for the Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of the song, most Beatle song articles include a reference in the infobox for genre(s) listed. I have no opinion on what the correct genre of the Siouxsie and the Banshees cover is, but it should be referenced in the text and if not, in the infobox. As for the battle between Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley, I am uninvolved (although coming "out of the blue" is somewhat WP:OWNish, as if I have no right to make an edit or state an opinion -- I won't bother with my the "[having] the guts" comment as that statement is puerile). What I saw was one editor reverting what appeared to be a useful edit in favour of a version that included unsourced content, with an incorrect edit summary. freshacconci talk to me 17:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- For Dear Prudence, what it is saying here is that LF's edit erasing the genre from the infobox of Siouxsie's version was "useful" because it was unsourced content. Well, so why didn't the 2 genres (present in the infobox of the Beatles's version) erase too? Those are also unsourced content, as it is not documented by a source in the body of the article. There are multiple issues with LF's edits, GWAR, Edit war, Spamming etc... and of course, Freshacconcci doesn't have anything to say about these issues because that it would be admitting that edit was wrong.
- Concerning the comment for ownership on SATB-related articles, one has to look at the history of this article here to see that this doesn't stand. Indeed, three users have already rejected LF's edits for edit war, Gwar (User:Greg Fasolino also shares this opinion), etc. What LF is doing is wp:PUSH and wp:DISRUPT. This doesn't have to be encouraged. Carliertwo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is my exact response to you from our conversation on my talk page. As you've added this after my response, I can only assume you did not read it there: "You are free to remove those two genres as unsupported. I don't even agree with them. I don't do a great deal of editing these days, so I'm not going through every Beatle song article to make sure the genres are sourced. I only mentioned the Beatles as I'm familiar with the issue of genre warring and I find it silly when people add absurd genres to them based solely on their own opinions. My only concern was with the Dear Prudence article because that is the one I saw. I'm not aware of nor interested in the battle between you and Lachlan Foley. That will be resolved at ANI. Since I was mentioned at ANI, I responded, explaining my edits, as I saw them, to maintain WP:V/WP:RS. If you were concerned about Lachlan Foley's edits, I don't think re-adding unsourced content is the answer. And please use the preview button before saving on my talk page. It's annoying to have repeated new message tags for the same comment." That's all. I think I've said all I can based on my involvement. freshacconci talk to me 20:31, 8 July 2015.
- I don't see a problem so huge that it needs a topic ban to solve it. Lachlan Foley is trying to get a project-wide handle on genre warring by others, which is commendable, but it appears he is taking part in some genre warring himself, at some of the music articles. I think the effort is net positive. For the negative bits, perhaps it's enough to slow him down, to set a one revert per day (1RR) limit with substantial talk page discussion required from Lachlan Foley before any further revert. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- What is going to happen if that Dan56 and many other users including me are going to check out LF's contributions and as soon as he does wp:disruptive editing which is always what he does, one will undo his work. This is going to become our new hobby and yours. Carliertwo (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Call me cynical, but I've seen in the past when other genre warriors mask the edits they genuinely care about (POV-based genre revisions) with a multitude of maintenance and generic revisions. I'm sure there's a term for that also... Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Two-week block
It seems clear from his edit history and from most of the reports of those above and at the previous ANI that Lachlan Foley is continuing what he was previously blocked for one week (his second block in three months) for: making unilateral changes to, and edit-warring over, infobox genres rather than seeking consensus. I propose an escalation to a two-week block, until he learns and understands how to appropriately collaborate on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk)
- Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - It will take hours of manpower to revise these edits, which is why at the very least, two-weeks is appropriate. Considering these type of edits are 90% of the editor's activity, I wonder if this will have any affect. If it were to continue afterwards, then the block may need to go months or a possible indef.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Earl King Jr.
Collapsing this very long and apparently admin-closed thread but leaving it here for now because of the extensive participation
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Earl King Jr. is a single purpose account dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc.]] to a single article, and reducing the text in that article. In that effort, King has successfully removed the Zeitgeist Movement page and crammed all mention into a small paragraph on the Zeitgeist (film series) page. King is tendentious and bullying in discussion. See:
King frequently attributes improper motives to other editors, accusing them of being "Zeitgiest supporters," "sock puppets," and "meat puppets." See:
King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [11] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources. My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [12] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Proposal for topic banThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The last AN discussion was [13] where Earl just wore everyone down. He is an SPA that causes more problems than benefit. I'm tired of the constant friction, so it seems the logical choice is to just act and be done with this instead of droning on about it for weeks and everyone gets tired and he gets his way. If we are here to prevent disruption, let's prevent disruption using the tools we have: Earl King Jr. is topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie, movement or any persons related to this topic (construed broadly), on article, talk pages, or any other page on Wikipedia. This is for an indefinite period of time and may be appealed at WP:AN after a period of one year.
JWilson0923, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, this noticeboard (especially the vote section) is NOT the place for idle speculation of 'puppetry', or other personal attacks. Nor the place for detailed discussion of notability/reliability of sources. Perhaps you would care to strike through some of your 'MONGO' post.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Misconception of proposalThe proposal is about Earl King Jr's behaviour over a long term period, not whether the Zeitgeist articles have become a battleground or not. These are two different issues that need to be considered separately. A quick look at the current talk pages will not give an insight into his long term behaviour. For more info see points I previously raised at AN here.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Community General SanctionsThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I have, above, said that this case should be sent to ArbCom as a matter that the community has been unable to resolve. However, there is one step that the community can take toward resolution. That is to impose community general sanctions, to allow any uninvolved administrator to act against any disruptive editor. If ArbCom takes this case, then in the final decision they can convert the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Ref: Wikipedia:General sanctions (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC))
Community General Sanctions IITo address Dennis Brown's concern that the sanction as proposed is unacceptably vague, I here offer a redraft:
Proposed, but don't mark me down as a supporter, this is for administrative clarity. I have not studied the article problems enough to support it myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration Requested
Canvassing?Please review these apparent canvassing attempts. [49][50][51][52]This appears to be coaching a side with "we"[53]. There may be more. This statement appears to be very misleading as there doesn't appear to be any language in the propose topic ban to include all of 9/11 and seems to be an effort to attract attention of editors that may have had disputes with EKJ. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If Sfarney did something wrong, I'm sure it will come out in the wash from uninvolved editors/admins when this is over. Given that EKJ is active exclusively on a couple pages, it is hard to imagine why Sfarney's posts there would be considered excessive. It also appears it is through those same posts that many of
Additional comment from Earl King Jr.That is assuming there will be a topic ban which might be assuming too much. There is no actual real body count voting on such things but there is a general consensus which can be gotten at. A general fair consensus is now not possible as an editor has gone out of their way to dig up from multiple pages any number of people that seem to have a grievance or have complained in the past about Earl King (me}. Andy the grump has been adamant about a topic ban. He also has a history of making personal attacks against Earl King that is beyond blatant [57] and [58] and [59] and [60]. Other editors have called for him to be topic banned or blocked from editing for personal attacks. The Devils Advocates recent appearance here is controversial because he has been banned currently from these types of boards. He also has been blocked previously for tendentious editing on the Zeitgeist page though that is in the past. Several editors, Andy, The Devils Advocate, SomeDifferentStuff have filed multiple Ani's none of which were acted on but are quoted that they were filed as evidence of wrong doing by King but filing Ani's is not a guilt by association generator but has been used as such. Other editors recently have called for Andy to be blocked from editing and also Sfarney to be blocked from editing. Grammers Little helper has affected what ever case he had by his alleged spamming or canvassing of anyone who is a peripheral participant in a range of articles who might come here and vote. Lobbying this Mr. Wilson who previously called King a troll editor is probably a perfect example [61]. That kind of behavior on the article is not supposed to be be allowed, calling people trolls. Wilsons talk page indicated that GrammersLittleHelper the filer of this Ani thought it best to call Wilson to the Ani which is spamming or canvassing, see his talk page as others have brought this up [62] I think we have to look at the broader elements of what is going on with people editing the article and that would mean a future of watching the article under the direction given by the Arbitration committee. I suggest this Ani has lost the basis of being valid because its originator Mr. Sfarney has gone too far in lobyying (canvassing). So, lets draw a future line in the sand. Ask the Arbitration committee for a fresh perspective and identify problems without so much drama. I propose we drop the ani now as tainted and start fresh elsewhere namely the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
|
LooneyTunerIan
This user has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.
Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [63], [64]
He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [65], [66].
Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ RobTalk 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · logs) userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please see Law of holes and WP:Wikipedia does not need you. BMK (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support permanent block, good suggestion. Flat Out (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- LooneyTunerIan your proposal of a total ban, and the manner in which you raised it, shows that you have learnt nothing. Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
LooneyTunerIan is obviously quite upset, and a short block is in order given the disruptive behavior. It is not clear to me why anyone thinks long blocks (6 months or more) are appropriate -- it seems extremely likely that LooneyTunerIan will cool down and not return to disruption after a short break, and if I'm wrong then we can deal with that later easily. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- He;s lucky I'm recommending only 6 months. I was originally tempted to unilaterally indef him per WP:NOTHERE without the tralala of this ANI thread.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support 3-6 month block, LooneyTunerIan may cool down, his facetious comments here, don't suggest that he has yet 'learnt his lesson'.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support indef block; standard offer if s/he wishes: WP:NOTHERE. Six months plus several hundred good-faith edits on Wikibooks or Wikivoyage is enough to think again before demanding allegiance. Esquivalience t 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support 6-month to indef block. The kicker is their (repeated) statement "It's the only way I'll back off". If any editor says that about anything, regarding anything, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support(uninvolved non admin) Simply WP:NOTHERE and is disruptive. I question if 6 months is long enough, but its a good starting point. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User's continued ignorance of warnings and website policies
Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)
- Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The most disruptive thing is that the editor doesn't communicate. Their edits are not AIV material, since they are not vandalism (they do make valid edits too) and I can't see the user acting in bad faith. I get the feeling that they either don't understand RS policies or simply don't care. Probably latter, considering how many "final warnings" they have received. If it is a competence issue, I doubt that bans would make any difference. Widr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I find Felipeedit's most recent edit disturbing. I dunno if it's "bad faith" or "good faith", but it's the unexplained removal of sourced content with zero edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Update: FWIW, Felipeedit has now contacted several editors on their Talk pages about this, and I've left them a note on their own Talk page. So this is moving closer to a potential resolution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it's leading to resolution; they've failed to communicate with any editor, until days following the opening of this report. And even following your note, they still do not add edit summaries, and their past behaviors lead me to believe that no resolution may come. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie, since the OP attempted pings but did not sign their OP, hence the pings didn't work. (Pings only work when the user types four tildes when posted.) BTW, I am uninvolved in this matter.Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan
- GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay I've tried to resolve this in every other way I can, and this is out of control.
GaryColemanFan is completely ignoring the rules of WP:BLP even after being advised thereof by Darkwind that the onus is on him to reliably and independently source information. Despite this, he persistently adds contentious sources for a claim as to who trained current WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy. The latest of which is a podcast which I am having checked for reliability over on the RS Noticeboard. Despite this good faith checking, Gary has now regarded my removal of what stands as an unreliable source per BLP (until RS confirms otherwise) as vandalism and in the process is using bullying tactics against WP:CIVIL to get his way - including indirect personal attacks based on comments I have made about my back up reasons (not core reasons) for my own editing simply being OR and should for that reason be ignored. It is not and never has been my core reason and anyway if there is controversy about a source, BLP places the onus on the claimer (in this case Gary) to back it up. He has not done so with proven reliable sources yet.
His last reversion can't be reverted by me because I'll be in violation of WP:3RR which is very frustrating because now we have an unproven source on the page identifying Carlo Cannon as having trained Buddy Murphy. I make this report because of Gary's conduct throughout this issue and his insistence in effect that WP:IAR be applied over and above WP:BLP and WP:V. Right throughout this I have been acting in good faith, and I believe that Gary is not and is behaving in such a manner that a block should be considered or at the very least a warning. The RS Noticeboard will hopefully carry the solution and Gary should have waited for the ruling there. As it stands, his edit is against WP:BLP as stated. If his source is verified by an admin on the RS Noticeboard that will change matters, but until then my edit should be maintained. Either way, Gary is out of line at present and I ask that action be taken. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can't recall ever having seen such a protracted and inflamed argument over something of so little objective importance: this stands out even in the context of lame edit wars over wrestling topics generally. The whole lot of you need slapping with the WP:TROUT. The content should be removed pending consensus on Talk, and the best way to fix that is an RfC. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well we've been through the BLPN already, and I took the issue to the RSN as well. So I doubt under the current conditions a consensus is even possible until Gary and the IP's treat the BLP rules with more respect. Having said that, if an RS admin can provide a definitive answer to my latest query there that may be the closure that's needed without RfC being needed. I agree in the meantime that the Carlo Cannon reference should be removed. I can't - as mentioned above. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you shouted loudly to all sorts of people about the thing you don't like, but you didn't even try to resolve it in a civilised manner. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well it's hard to be civil to the standard you're talking about when people have their blinkers on over the rules of BLP - which was a problem from the very beginning. I've tried, believe me, but it has been extremely difficult - especially when I know I'm being bullied and my automatic reaction is to strike back strongly just to show I won't be intimidated. It's very hard to go in another direction (LOL at below). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you shouted loudly to all sorts of people about the thing you don't like, but you didn't even try to resolve it in a civilised manner. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wot yo' talkin' 'bout, Willis? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Heh. (How long have you been waiting to use that one?!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well now. I left a polite warning on GaryColemanFan's talk page about his characterisation of edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" and he removed it with the edit summary stay off my talk page forever. This is now looking like a user who is actively rejecting any attempt to influence him. I do not think this behaviour is at all appropriate. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment, looking quickly at GaryColemanFan's talk page, I couldn't see any notification of this ANI. Shouldn't that be first step? (apologies if it was under my nose).Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- He removed it at around the same time he gave JzG the above edit summary. He gave me the same chorus by the way. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling this edit of yours "vandalism" does not look promising either, though I will note that it looks like the two of you have been in a content dispute for days. My other comment here is that GaryColemanFan looks like an account whose sole interest is professional wrestling articles, and that seems to be one of those areas that's ripe with problematic editing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, IJBall. It is ripe for problematic editing, and all I was doing was trying to uphold the rules of BLP in perfectly good faith. All Gary wanted to do was fill the seven year gap in Buddy Murphy's training and in effect put WP:IAR ahead of BLP to that end - ie refusing to be influenced as JzG said, even by admins like him and Darkwind. It's stubborn and it doesn't help provide encyclopaedic content, particularly truly reliable sourcing. One of the reasons why I left WP for a long time was the lack of respect for the Australian wrestling scene. This is an example of it although it's a little different to the previous batch in that the definition of "industry professional" is being applied way too freely. As noted below I have bailed on the core dispute simply because I'm tired of arguing with another editor who refused to listen, but it doesn't alter the fact that Gary has been uncivil in his dealings here and he has been a bully in the process. In fact if I remember from my last stint here he was doing it even then, so it would appear a leopard doesn't change their spots. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling this edit of yours "vandalism" does not look promising either, though I will note that it looks like the two of you have been in a content dispute for days. My other comment here is that GaryColemanFan looks like an account whose sole interest is professional wrestling articles, and that seems to be one of those areas that's ripe with problematic editing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- He removed it at around the same time he gave JzG the above edit summary. He gave me the same chorus by the way. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the edit from JzG because he has a history of incivility toward me, calling me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit" on my talk page. Regardless of the situation, any communication from him on my talk page will be removed on sight. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, though. I'm not rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy non-issue. I just don't like JzG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Incidentally, anyone find some irony in the user who reported me for supposed incivility making this edit when bowing out of the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is between me and 94, and has nothing to do with this ANI. Deflecting like that is typical behaviour of a bully. Way to provide further proof against you. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Up to a point. Five years ago you were already calling good-faith edits you disagreed with, "vandalism". And yes I called you on it - I had entirely forgotten. So now we have data points showing that you've been doing this for over five years, and that makes it even more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let's take a look at what we've got here: a discussion about my civility initiated by an editor who, just today, told another editor to "fuck off", "screw off", and called his edit "stupid". We've got an administrator who has called me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit". And my supposed crime is calling the removal of sourced information "vandalism"? Even if you don't agree with me that the edit was vandalism, you can still obviously see that my supposed incivility pales in comparison. JzG - I'm hoping you can now understand why I deleted your edit from my talk page. Keep in mind, though, that no other administrator would have received that reception. It is your history of incivility that has compromised your ability to perform the role of an administrator. If you were to remove yourself from the situation, it would have been over a while ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Incidentally, anyone find some irony in the user who reported me for supposed incivility making this edit when bowing out of the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh look at Gary deflect again. Refusing to address what he has done, preferring to have a crack at me and JzG as a clear diversion. This is about more than calling a legit edit 'vandalism'. This is about ignoring WP:BLP and trying to add a source that was not reliable (and has since been ruled as such - I'm talking about the PCW link, not the podcast) and being rude in the edit summaries towards both me and JzG again. Nice to see it pointed out that I'm not the only one who has seen that Gary has a history of incivility through bullying and avoiding his responsibilities. Oh, and he was rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy issue - and just as an aside he wasn't the only one but that's not the core issue here. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's another rude edit summary that seeks to bully. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, I have reviewed the ongoing dispute between these two users due to an edit warring report. While I did not intervene, I did notice the obviously-problematic behavior on GaryColemanFan's part and wholeheartedly reiterate to him the warning issued by JzG. His behavior is entirely out of line, and this includes his response to JzG's warning. The very thought that Guy cannot legitimately issue an administrative warning because the two users butted-heads five and a half years beforehand is completely ridiculous. And, not that it really matters, but GCF completely baited Guy to begin with, by templating him, an already long-term administrator, for disruptive editing. Tempers flare. It happens. After five years, it doesn't make a difference, and bringing it up as a defense now is nothing but a distraction. GCF, whether or not you want to listen to the warning about your behavior, it's certainly valid, and fair warning, it's not going to hold much weight in an unblock request. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Enough already
An interaction ban is unlikely to work (it would just be a question of dividing up the articles between the two warring parties, since much of the dispute is edit-warring in mainspace not talk page argy-bargy). I therefore propose: user:Curse of Fenric and user:GaryColemanFan be topic banned from the area of professional wrestling for a period of six months. The implication is that this is broadly construed, though pro wrestling is essentially a walled garden. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like it resolved itself. Appears to have been a misunderstanding regarding BLP & RS. Editors could have been more civil and patient, but it appears issue was settled. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Coleman is one of the most highly active and biggest content builders on the pro wrestling WikiProject, a topic ban would be counter productive. I'd rather they just avoid each other. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Staying off each others talk page should be enough (which would also go for Guy (Help!) as well). 194.28.127.55 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose See above note from another admin. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- You keep saying you've been rude "under provocation" as if that's some sort of excuse. Last I checked, there's no exception to WP:CIVIL. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (It appears that Curse edited his !vote explination, see this for the original one of which I was responding to. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 18:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC))
- WP:Boomerang, especially the "There is no "immunity" for reporters" section. 81.141.246.36 (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Concerns about the behavior of User:HughD
I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-civil behavior of another editor, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), towards me and others (including DaltonCastle, Comatmebro, Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin, and One15969). This editor, myself, and a number of other editors have been involved in a series of content disputes at Americans for Prosperity. HughD has been blocked several times in the past few months for edit warring on that article. He has recently escalated a campaign of personal attacks against me and others. Without providing diffs, he has accused me of "whitewashing" and "section blanking." His behavior is contributing to an increasingly toxic editing environment. His extraordinarily condescending talk page comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Last time he was blocked for edit warring, the blocking admin wrote: "This is getting out of hand; if you continue editing in this manner, you may face a topic ban or indefinite block. Please reconsider your behavior before that becomes necessary" [67]. I have asked HughD a number of times (most recently, here [68]) to discuss content over contributors to no avail. Some recent examples of uncivil remarks/personal attacks include:
- "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [69]
- "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [70]
- "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [71]
- "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [72]
- "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [73]
- "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [74]
- "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [75]
- "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [76]
- "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [77]
- "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [78]
- "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [79]
- "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [80]
- "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [81]
I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to continue posting snarky, incendiary talk page comments. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Boomerang
- Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [82] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [83] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?
| Diffs copied from above |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here are warnings and mentions of misconduct removed by Hugh from his own page: And here are examples of similar warning he was quick to place on my talk page and others: Hugh has himself been warned about edit-warring several times in the past: /3RRArchive274#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Champaign_Supernova_.28Result:_No_action.29 |
DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable start. It would be helpful if Viriditas took the same pledge. It might be adequate to allow the article to attain some semblance of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read WP:TLDR. I see good faith disagreements, not any incivility. Reading the talk page, it is clear that HughD disagrees with the consensus on most issues, and is right on a few issues. The correct way to proceed when you think the local consensus is wrong, is to open an RfC. And at some point, you need to accept the consensus and drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a content dispute
There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[84] just to pick an obvious example.
Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:
Top Organization Contributors
RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%
2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%
4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%
5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%
6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%
7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%
8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%
10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%
11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%
12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%
13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%
14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%
15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%
Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]
It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.
BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.
Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/
Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support.
This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to WP:DRR if they cannot resolve the dispute on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is a content dispute here; however, HughD has never accepted consensus except when it can be interpreted to agree with his POV. When it cannot be, he finds another noticeboard to seek "consensus". Few of his proposed edits are unrepresentative of the source, which is often reliable; but he includes only statements from a particular viewpoint, and adds more of them than are warranted. I cannot give a specific example of "cherry-picking" except his removal of third-party approval of "secrecy" of donor lists, but the entire funding and transparency sections are much too long with respect to the weight given in reliable sources. Even that would be a content dispute, except for the edit warring and his refusal to understand that his stated interpretation of guidelines can be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- My previous comment seems to have been misplaced. I do much of my editing on a smartphone, and cannot easily copy diffs into my text. However, I might be more easily convinced that Hugh is not being intentionally disruptive if someone could point out a single edit which could be considered "pro-Koch". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be interesting. He has posted here [85] that he views AFP as "a key player in the organized, corporate-funded suppression of unions in the US" and here [86] that "I would say AFP has done more to raise the avg temp of our planet than Watts ever will" [87] The attempts (here's another [88]) to convince members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour to adopt the article seem like an attempt to recruit like-minded editors to edit the page in a certain way, AKA Wikipedia:Canvassing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Out of context, those quotes look like canvassing. In context, they emerged in longer, more neutral, discussions, to increase awareness among editors interested in a topic. One sentence at the climate change task force talk page displays HughD's unfortunate tendency toward polemic in talk pages. Collaboration is always going to be difficult on articles about political 501(c)(4) organizations (Dark money), but I don't see a pattern, or an individual diff, from any of the 3 named editors (HughD, Champaign Supernova, Dalton Castle) that crosses any line that requires administrator involvement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
HughD's behavior
I was "pinged" about this discussion when it was first opened, and have given some thought to responding here in the intervening days, not least of which was due to HughD's seeming targeting of those who disagree with him. While HughD's behavior is based on a content dispute, it has led to inappropriate behavior by HughD. I'll try to keep it brief; while the length and breadth of HughD's behavior makes that difficult, I'll try to summarize below.
Here are the actions which HughD has directed at me:
On 6/15 this notice. The DS notice on the talkpage was put there by HughD, not an admin. This was done so that Hugh could then post the DS warnings on the talkpages of editors who were in disagreement with him. This is a course of action I've actually never seen attempted before.
On 6/18, he posted this incorrect notice, in violation of ANI requirements. The result of that ANI discussion was no action against me.
On 6/29, he posted this (unsigned). The result of that posting was no action against me.
Not satisfied with that result, HughD then posted this notice on 6/30, which again resulted in no action against me. However, while it was still on-going, Hugh posted this notice on 7/1.
During the last week or so of June, Hugh filed the following:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner
- a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity
In addition, he has opened numerous discussions regarding his viewpoint on the article talkpage in the last two months (a very nice recap can be found Talk:Americans for Prosperity#NPOV issue HERE on the talkpage - the response by Champaigne Supernova. Every one of which consensus has been against, e.g. over inclusion of Koch Brothers, too much detail on funding, and most specifically, NPOV. Even after consensus has been reached on the NPOV issue, he then tagged the article for an NPOV issue. After consensus. I think Hugh confuses consensus with unanimity.
His disruptive behavior goes back to at least 2012, when this occurred:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued) 09/12 - where he vowed to "never edit war again"
I didn't do a search on the intervening years. But in the last 3 months, he's been involved in numerous actions, and been blocked 4 times:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked) May 2015 - Even here, EdJohnston wrote, "HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem."
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action) The only reason he was not blocked was he apologized, and the admin accepted that.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Safehaven86 reported by User:HughD (Result: Referred to ANI) see the end of that thread.
I think HughD has displayed a pattern of behavior which is not conducive to the health of Wikipedia. Over the last two-three months, he has consistently failed to adhere to consensus reached on talk pages, he's been involved in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COATRACK and WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to posting on 8-9 different venues in an attempt to get someone to agree with him: Edit Warring noticeboard; ANI; NPOV board; Reliable sources; 2 project talk pages; the AfP talkpage; and the Wikiproject talkpage). This forum shopping is beginning to bear fruit, since several of the editors now active on the talk page have been recruited from those other forums. Each of those actions, in and of itself is fine. But combined they show a pattern. And it's not a pattern of consensus-building and compromise. During one of HughD's attacks on me, an admin, Monty845, suggested I might take it up at WP:AE, but that did not seem to be an appropriate forum, or at least I couldn't see how it applied, but Monty is more experienced than I am. Not sure what, if anything can be done, but this is getting tiresome at this point. I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles. Thanks for your time. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment and participation, Onel5969. This supposed "content dispute" has brought up multiple issues regarding HughD's behavior. When it comes to consensus, he ignores it. He is not helpful nor friendly when it comes to understanding differences. I have only received negative comments from HughD, some of which have attacked me personally as a user. There are ways to discuss content in a friendly manner -- and honestly I am not sure if HughD is capable of this at this point in time. I would have to agree with everything the above user has stated, as well as the statement "I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles." Cheers. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- All of the evidence and discussion in this thread indicates a content dispute between involved parties who have been editing in this area. There is no good evidence supporting a topic ban of any kind, at least one that would impact HughD's editing. When asked to provide a single diff supporting their contention, not a single editor can do so. Instead, we are subject to long, off-topic screeds by editors who have been involved on the other side of the content dispute, links to ancient disputes, requests to prove negatives and other fallacious arguments. In conclusion, no diffs supporting a topic ban, just mud flinging. On the other hand, I would certainly support a topic ban on the editors listed above who have been repeatedly caught whitewashing and violating NPOV in the Koch-related area, and who have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy into railroading one of their few critics who has pointed to their problematic edits. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- He seems to refuse to accept consensus and uses boards and relentless RfC's and tags to assert his views. The current dispute centers on building a COATRACK into . The AE request against Arthur Ruben appears retaliatory and forum shopping. AR doesn't appear to have contributed here but one forum wasn't enough. We how have a dubious assertion about the TeaParty case at AE (which is only plausible if that article becomes a COATRACK). And the 4th version of an attempt to add material that has been rejected multiple times. When new edits are rejected, we call the articles version "consensus" and HughD appears to ignore this. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, are you suggesting that the Americans for Prosperity article is not within the scope of the Tea Party case? That's clearly incorrect, as anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at reliable sources on the subject can clearly see. I can cite a lot of high-quality evidence to back that up, but it might be simpler and easier if we just agree to call a spade a spade here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- He seems to refuse to accept consensus and uses boards and relentless RfC's and tags to assert his views. The current dispute centers on building a COATRACK into . The AE request against Arthur Ruben appears retaliatory and forum shopping. AR doesn't appear to have contributed here but one forum wasn't enough. We how have a dubious assertion about the TeaParty case at AE (which is only plausible if that article becomes a COATRACK). And the 4th version of an attempt to add material that has been rejected multiple times. When new edits are rejected, we call the articles version "consensus" and HughD appears to ignore this. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Notice: On Arbitration Enforcement board as well
- A filing by HughD against Arthur Rubin on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is running in parallel with this discussion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur Rubin.
- This does somewhat complicate ANI responses but admins and editors should feel free to review or participate in both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see much participation here by Arthur Rubin. The material that HughD argues should be included is outlined extensively here and in the other forum and an RfC on the talk page (4th time to be discussed). Three fora seeking help with a minority viewpoint seems a bit much. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing on Bill Cosby
Administrative attention seems to be needed on Bill Cosby. There appears to be a single editor, Georgeivs vid, editing against consensus to remove information regarding the sexual assault allegations.
Judging from this recent talk page conversation with NeilN, the RfC regarding the allegations (which so far overwhelmingly supports maintaining mention of the allegations in the lead) was needed because User:Georgeivs vid desired to change established version to remove any mention of the sexual assault allegations.
Meanwhile, multiple editors have worked on talk page to create an improved, neutral and brief mention of the allegations for lede summary, including: Cwobeel, Gaijin42, LavaBaron, AtHomeIn神戸, BlueSalix, Anythingyouwant, and Louieoddie but Georgeivs vid keeps reverting. It seems a warning regarding consensus and also that unfavorable does not equal BLP violation might be helpful. If disruption continues a topic ban should perhaps be considered. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, Qualudes are Schedule I in the USA, so there is no way to get them legally in the US unless you are a research facility with permission from the DEA, so his removal of "illegal" to describe them is factually wrong. As to the allegations, WP:WELLKNOWN plus the consensus in Archive 2, plus the ongoing RFC seem to make it clear that there is a strong consensus to include this in the lede of the article. I've skimmed BLP and BLPCRIME again, I don't see any policy justification for excluding it and the allegations are difficult to ignore if we truly follow the sources. Care must be taken, but it would seemingly be irresponsible to have nothing about this string of events. Reading though the archives, it appears he is using obstructionist tactics and hollow wikilawyering to get his preferred version, thus whitewashing the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Quaaludes appear to have been widely prescribed in the US until about 1984 as a legal drug. AFAICT, the drug is still available in other countries. Again, AFAICT, Cosby's statements indicate he obtained the drugs by prescription in the 1970s - when the drug was quite legal as such. Collect (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- This neglects to consider the required warning label that accompanies such prescriptions in the U.S. which states: "Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed", so illegal seems an appropriate description for Cosby's admitted use of Quaaludes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The claim was made that it was per se an "illegal drug" - that a person can illegally dispense a legally acquired drug is true of every single prescription drug in the US - the edit did not refer to Cosby's act as being illegal, but to the drug itself at the time. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The timetable matters, other countries do not since that is the country where this happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- And at the time he appears to have acquired the drug - the statement is that he did o with a prescription for a legal drug. And every scrip drug can be illegally redispensed <g> (including such drugs as Atenolol, Metoprolol, and barf bags [89] ("I once obtained, just for asking, a large plastic measuring cup (of the sort I think you're supposed to pee in). The purpose was because I was driving a friend home who wasn't feeling well, so I asked if we could get a barf bag and that's what they gave me. Even this innocuous-looking plastic item was so labeled.") - the edit alas called it per se an illegal drug. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- This neglects to consider the required warning label that accompanies such prescriptions in the U.S. which states: "Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed", so illegal seems an appropriate description for Cosby's admitted use of Quaaludes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That discussion with NeilN was in May, and this user's conduct does not seem to have improved since. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That discussion is a good example of how things went. At that time it was decided that it was undue to include any mention in the intro at all, and my editing was thanked by several people. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- One of the editor's first edits gives an indication about how he feels about the subject. [90] It seems he is equating mentioning the controversy in the lead to Wikipedia saying Cosby is guilty. [91] --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the editor in question has been duly alerted as to this fact, but remember that all of BLP is under DS, so AE or individual admin action are valid paths to resolution here. (PErhaps an alert, followed by a very stern warning that a topic ban or worse is likely to follow if things continue is in order?) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alerted. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad more people are paying attention to the article. I content still that if there is a mention in the lead or intro of his biography that it HAS to be neutral and abide by BLP policies. Others keep adding material that seems to be in violation of that.
There is a discussion if ANYTHING should be in the lead at all, and another discussion of what that might be. So far I've come the closest with a proposal that is neutral and non-sensationalistic. If Wikipedia wants to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia just say so and I'll clear out of here, until then I think Wikipedia should be cautious about asserting how rape-y Cosby is, as there is still no criminal charges or evidence he committed any crime. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Georgeivs vid Per WP:WELLKNOWN the standard is a notable allegation, not "conviction" or "charged". These clearly are notable allegations. And as of yesterday, there is evidence, his own words. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can't whitewash things in the article by changing "sexual assault" to "misconduct". [92] Dream Focus 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Read the talk page. It wasn't my idea. Let's just throw out all the rules and call him a rapist, that seems to be the goal here without any evidence. Gaijin42, check your facts. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can't whitewash things in the article by changing "sexual assault" to "misconduct". [92] Dream Focus 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Georgeivs vid Per WP:WELLKNOWN the standard is a notable allegation, not "conviction" or "charged". These clearly are notable allegations. And as of yesterday, there is evidence, his own words. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Georgeivs vid, being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone. If the sources are mainly saying it was sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and it is highly substantiated, then it is neutral to use those terms. Your attempts to whitewash the lede in particular are sanctionable because they are causing disruption. You have already been formally warned that BLP topics like this fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning any single admin, at their discretion, may sanction you by a topic ban, block or other sanction if you violate the principles here. You need to let that sink in while you argue here, all alone, while everyone disagrees with you. Simply put, if you don't stop and change your methods now, you will be prevented from editing the article using one of many methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've not attempted to whitewash anything. Whatever Wikipedia reports should be from reliable sources and reported neutrally. My editing reflects that. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apropos of nothing, but this discussion may have interesting implications for the couple of RfC's currently going for whether the specific abuse allegations should be mentioned in the lede at Dennis Hastert (RfC here) and whether it's appropriate or not to include press coverage of whether Ariana Grande is a diva (RfC here). The interesting thing about BLPs is that you'll get plenty of editors strongly on both sides of these questions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with you, IJBall, I think those other RfC's (one of which I commented on, to be completely transparent) are very well brought up in this discussion, to a point. The issue here (and in those discussions) is two-fold. First, is the "fact" well-documented enough to include in the article. Clearly, in this case, it is (I'll leave those other RfC's for those talk pages). Having established that, is the incident significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead of the article. Single incidents (unless of a consequential nature), or even periods of bad behavior, in my opinion, do not warrant inclusion in the lead. And in some instances, might not even warrant inclusion in the article. But certain acts do. And I've changed my mind on Mr. Cosby. A month ago, I would have argued against inclusion in the article. However, with recent evidence coming to light, I can see no way to ignore it in the lead. It is a significant event, and will have a lasting affect on Cosby's legacy. Now, regarding this editor's behavior. Clearly not in the spirit of building consensus. Whenever an editor takes it upon themselves to be a defender of an article/concept, ignoring the consensus of other editors, that is an issue, particularly so since Wikipedia is built on consensus. Dennis Brown's observation is perhaps the most concise about this: "being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone." Georgeivs vid has misunderstood the concept of NPOV, and then, based on that misunderstanding, acted upon it. I would have hoped that through discussion here, he would now have a better understanding, but his continued arguments do not appear to reflect that. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think knowing the history of the article even going back two months would help see my editing for following consensus and trying to ensure we didn't violate BLP. Consensus was, a month ago, that any mention in the intro was UNDUE. And many of the editors here took part in those discussions and didn't agree. A current RFC was in process to see if there was now support to include something but it hasn't yet ended so editors here took it upon themselves to declare the outcome. So your judgement of my actions is missing a lot of detail including that most of what we currently have is due to my editing it and adding sourcing. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with you, IJBall, I think those other RfC's (one of which I commented on, to be completely transparent) are very well brought up in this discussion, to a point. The issue here (and in those discussions) is two-fold. First, is the "fact" well-documented enough to include in the article. Clearly, in this case, it is (I'll leave those other RfC's for those talk pages). Having established that, is the incident significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead of the article. Single incidents (unless of a consequential nature), or even periods of bad behavior, in my opinion, do not warrant inclusion in the lead. And in some instances, might not even warrant inclusion in the article. But certain acts do. And I've changed my mind on Mr. Cosby. A month ago, I would have argued against inclusion in the article. However, with recent evidence coming to light, I can see no way to ignore it in the lead. It is a significant event, and will have a lasting affect on Cosby's legacy. Now, regarding this editor's behavior. Clearly not in the spirit of building consensus. Whenever an editor takes it upon themselves to be a defender of an article/concept, ignoring the consensus of other editors, that is an issue, particularly so since Wikipedia is built on consensus. Dennis Brown's observation is perhaps the most concise about this: "being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone." Georgeivs vid has misunderstood the concept of NPOV, and then, based on that misunderstanding, acted upon it. I would have hoped that through discussion here, he would now have a better understanding, but his continued arguments do not appear to reflect that. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors here are judging me a bit harshly when all I have been doing is trying to enforce Wikipedia's own policies. Exactly the point that I have been making for weeks is that any mention in the intro section by default becomes undue. Presently Cosby's biography intro, likely the only thing many readers will bother to absorb is taken up 25% by unproven, unverified, scandalous accusations. Eclipsing his decades of work. I am hardly the only editor who has expressed this concern. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- What they are criticizing isn't your ideas, it is your methods. Reverting back and forth, not listening to others and considering their reasons (WP:IDHT) and an almost hysterical attitude about the edits. Once you see that are you are clearly in the minority, WP:BRD is pretty clear in that you must form a new consensus to make the change. Your actions and reactions almost smack as if you are in his family or in his employ, or simply so starstruck you can't accept that many, many sources have discussed this. NPOV means neutral, but you clearly have an agenda here, to water down the facts, and that dog doesn't hunt here. You've been given the information about how and where to form a consensus, you've been warned of the consequences if you continue to be disruptive. At this point, whatever comes next is pretty much up to you. Debating it here is pointless, this isn't a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling my editing hysterical is not in alignment with reality. I have been listening all along even though those who want to include more rape accusations certainly are choosing to ignore the BLP concerns myself and others have raised. Defending my actions is all I have been doing here since I was alerted to join the discussion. I hope other editors have actually have been disruptive will be facing the same consequences. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
CFCF Not Here on E-cigs
CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions
here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.
here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.
here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that
- and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus
- and here he 1 click archives without response
here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.
here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.
here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.
- here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.
here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion
I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.
I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- [Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
| Off Topic about QuackGuru |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick
Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.
- Spacklick's top edited pages:
94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham
- Jytdog's:
675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
- SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.
- Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[93] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[94] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[95] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[96] In June SPACKlick wrote" "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[97] He was recently warned again about NPA.[98] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[99] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[100] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
General sanctions are failing
General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
- S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[101] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[102]
- S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
- Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Long-term vandal turning to harassment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 and the latest threat there against me from IP 38.95.109.53, and see the archive and the number of socks for the scale of this problem. This is an individual who is very destructive, but seems to be using a wide range of IPs that cannot be range-blocked. Is there any way anything can be done here, other than my happening to spot vandalism and reporting to SPI almost on a daily basis, and then having to accept this kind of harassment in return? (Note that I'm not bothering to inform the IP of this, as it's dynamic and already at least the third one they've used so far today). Mr Potto (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- And now this on my talk page. Also Dick Vitale is the latest vandalism target, if someone else would care to watch it. Mr Potto (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- And this Mr Potto (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Dick Vitale and your user talk page semi-protected, registered accounts blocked. More admin eyes would be good as this vandal is persistent. --NeilN talk to me 10:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Some more admins watching this one would indeed be very welcome. But are there any procedures for tackling such long-term vandals other than this "whack a mole" approach? It just seems like a horribly inefficient approach to maintaining a web site. Mr Potto (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are all the IPs from one ISP? There was a spate of problems with another user, but when the decision to go to their ISP was made, they backed down. Won't mention who per WP:BEANS. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know which ISP the registered accounts have used as checkusers can't reveal that, but at least one was apparently using a proxy. Of the three IPs used today, 38.95.109.53 appears to be with PSINet, and 77.243.189.212 and 185.93.180.67 are with GlobalAXS Communications. Mr Potto (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps indefinite semi protection of your talk page is the way to go. You will want to set up an "IP only" page though. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blackmane's idea is sound. It shifts the vandalism, which will likely continue, but out of sight. And you don't need a checkuser to tell which ISP an IP uses. For instance: [103]. All that is public record, do a little digging you can find out for most any IP, at least around the western world. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Might do that if it continues there, but vandalism and threats on my talk page are easily reverted and ignored. I'm more concerned about the possibility of significant damage to articles. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just ask any admin to set it up if you want to do that, it isn't hard and most know how. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Report on StanTheMan87 personal attacks
- StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The user recently behaved in an impolite manner toward me. I opposed a name change and when he saw my reasoning did not persuade him, he charged me with 'Pushing POV'. I told him that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" was regarded as personal attack. He had already said that Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE"
which was weird to me, because one may have a different opinion and it does not necessarily a sign of POV pushing. However, I tried to explain how I think about the issue and presented my own reasoning but he replied that he still could tell me that I had POV to push because of 1- My reasoning and 2- Because of the details on my user page. The second one seems like a racist accusation (refer to my user page please). I took another step and tried to further explain why I opposed the change, but he did not pay attention to my last warning on taking WP:PA seriously and said:"the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise."
As, I had already asked him to avoid PA, I'm sending the report here.
Comment: Two other editors had discussed him about personal attacks and throwing insults (I'm not judging these two cases as I don't have enough materials to judge and just am commenting to let the admins know about the possible background of him). Mhhossein (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Commenting to point out this edit summary:
Info-box is fucked. I cannot be bothered manually editing all the shit I added. Congratulations to user Anasaitis for fucking around with it, you absolute hero.
[104]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see enough here to warrant action. Uncivil a few times recently? Sure. But I don't see this rising to the level where an Admin is going to act on anything... And EvergreenFir already previously warned StanTheMan87 about one of the instances of incivility. Unless StanTheMan87 keeps at it, I don't think anything is going to happen here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me clear up one thing, the comment "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence was regarded as personal attack" is factually incorrect. It might be ad hominem, but not a personal attack. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, the gold standard around here. Single instances are generally overlooked, it takes a little heat sometimes. Ongoing ad hominem is disruptive, however, so action generally requires demonstrating a longer term pattern. I'm not saying he is right or should get off scot free, I'm just making sure you understand the standards here. The worst of it, [105] isn't technically a personal attack, although it borders on it and is uncivil. He is being more than rude, but I think your bar is set a bit too high here, EvergreenFir. StanTheMan87 does need to back off, however, or he will be looking some kind of sanction, sooner rather than later. I'm about to call it a night, but wanted to get those points across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not the filer, but I agree Dennis Brown. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, adjusting to new glasses and just flubbed that up. Hard to read now that they letters are crisp ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Legal threat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit summary [106] from User talk:50.92.182.24 includes a legal threat as follows: "If you would like to dispute the right to present an invalid birthdate please feel free to contact TMKO Lawyers". Agtx (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I blocked them for the legal threat, but I suggest checking to make sure that birthdate is actually sourced, otherwise it needs to be removed, via WP:BLP. Even if they are right on the merits, that doesn't override WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- DOB seems well sourced. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the sentence "If you would like to dispute the right to present an invalid birthdate please feel free to contact TMKO Lawyers" does not strictly constute a legal threat. The semantics infer that if we want to take something up, we can initiate action. At best it's an invitation to us to take legal action. Therefore I do not believe this is truly actionable from an admin/WP policy interpretation. Whatever, there is probably no harm done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It still qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the threat is somewhat veiled, but I decided that it was better to take it seriously than to ignore it. Note that TMKO refers to an actual law firm in Canada specializing in entertainment matters (although called TKO now -- Taylor Klein Oballa), which makes the comment seem somewhat more like a threat. Agtx (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimately what has happened is that the subject is likely, through a proxy, contesting the DOB. Per WP:DOB it's best to leave the DOB stubbed down as it is. Keegan (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The policy says to just stub down to the year, not the day. The year is the most useful and what they contested. Whether motivated by inaccuracy or vanity, I can't say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimately what has happened is that the subject is likely, through a proxy, contesting the DOB. Per WP:DOB it's best to leave the DOB stubbed down as it is. Keegan (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- A thinly veiled or poorly worded threat to take legal action has the same chilling effect, the same intimidation factor, which is why I made the block, Kudpung. That is typically my compass, the chill, not the likelihood of it coming to fruition. It isn't an easy line to draw oftentimes, but of course I'm fine with reverting if a consensus feels it was premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- No worries Dennis, it's just my pedantic perception as a linguist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has its own definition of what is considered a "legal threat". It's not limited to explicit "I'm going to sue" types of statements. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- No worries Dennis, it's just my pedantic perception as a linguist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- That article is a promotional mess that has my deletionist impulses going full tilt. I took out the yearless birthday but left the rest intact. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with the NLT block. While it's not a direct legal threat per se, it certainly seems to be implied: essentially, "my edit is right and if you want to dispute it, you can talk to my lawyer". Regardless, it looks like we've found a source for the restoration of the information. If it proves to be a proxy and the person returns to the article, we should semi-protect it. This is not a contentious piece of information and it is now sourced. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Owning issue with another editor, Part 3
This is a follow-up to the first two ANI reports (Report 1, Report 2) concerning the ownership issues exhibited by Gabrielkat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The same complain remains from the previous two reports; Gabrielkat is exhibiting owning issues on the updating of episode counts on soap opera pages (primarily The Bold and the Beautiful, though in recent weeks, has extended to other soaps, in other primary: General Hospital) as in correspondence to the WikiProject Soap Operas, which should also be noted they are not apart of (and while they don't need be, it is still alarming as they've not been active in updating soap-related articles in their edit history). Gabrielkat has gone on to revert my edits on several occasions, only to re-instate them as their own seconds later (I have the notifications of being reverted if anyone wishes to see screen-captures). I warned the user about this behavior (Message 1, Message 2) only for said-warnings to be reverted almost immediately, with no discussion or response from Gabrielkat, and for their editing to continue. They've been warning for disruptive editing by other editors, and said-warnings have gone to be ignored or ultimately removed from their talk page. It is my belief Gabriel is on a soft-path of owning the page and only intending to edit for their own personal gain (I cannot state otherwise as user refuses to correspond with me), and given their edit history from their talk page, they seem to be a bit uncivil. Again, I can only go off of their behavior towards me and my attempted correspondence to them. This could also stem from me reverting them with their edit violate the consensus at the Soap Opera Project when they updated the episode count prior to the final airing of the Friday airdate episode, but surely this behavior should not be tolerated for the fear of it boomeranging out of control. On Friday, May 22, 2015, they admit they want to update the episode count by stating "Let me update the weekly episode count". If that isn't an attempt to own the page, I don't know what is. User also received two warnings from Administrators on the website: one from Adjwilley (1) and one from Dennis Brown (2), the latter of which was a "final warning", per Mr. Brown's own words. And following Mr. Brown's final warning, especially where their updates with General Hospital are concerning, they continued their pattern of updating prior to the show's final week episode completion, which again is a clear sign of attempting to "own" the episode count, per their own request (linked earlier in this and previous reports). And today, July 10, 2015, they've done it yet again. The user has also resorted, at one time, to mimicking my edit-summary in reverting my own edits, which I also preceive to be a potential borderline personal attack against an editor, though again, this is unfounded, though highly suspect. It's alarming, to me, that this behavior is still being seen as acceptable to the Wikipedia community; it is counterproductive to what Wikipedia stands for as a collaborative experience. And I hope that justice is finally served on this issue once and for all. I alerted both Mr. Brown and Mr. Adjwilley on their behaviors last week, and no resolution was given, so I am re-opening the complaint, as I was instructed to do. livelikemusic my talk page! 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I updated the weekly episode count for General Hospital fair and square, so you should be thanking me. Gabrielkat (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean when you say "fair and square"? Unusual in this context, I don't want to assume your meaning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- How is it exactly "fair and square" when you've been warned about editing prior to episode ending; the episode was still airing content at 2:57pm. And the incivility in your tone is off-putting. And why, persay, should I be "thanking you"? Again, that would assume personal ownership, and feeds into my claims of a personal attack. The fact of the matter is you've continued your pattern of ownership and have ignored multiple warnings, the final two coming from Administrators and consequences should be taken. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I updated the weekly episode counts for all US soap operas last Friday, and that was after their final episode week completions, so how would that be "ownership"? Gabrielkat (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not on General Hospital; the episode is still airing at 2:57pm eastern time, therefore, it goes against the week completion and signifies ownership, which (as I pointed out in my filings), you've been warned about prior. And you ignored those warnings. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I updated the weekly episode counts for all US soap operas last Friday, and that was after their final episode week completions, so how would that be "ownership"? Gabrielkat (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- How is it exactly "fair and square" when you've been warned about editing prior to episode ending; the episode was still airing content at 2:57pm. And the incivility in your tone is off-putting. And why, persay, should I be "thanking you"? Again, that would assume personal ownership, and feeds into my claims of a personal attack. The fact of the matter is you've continued your pattern of ownership and have ignored multiple warnings, the final two coming from Administrators and consequences should be taken. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean when you say "fair and square"? Unusual in this context, I don't want to assume your meaning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A serious question: What is the source that is reporting these numbers? If this has not been published, and is based upon these editors' "viewing experience" and updating the counts manually after the episodes have aired, then isn't it just original research? I see no source provided for these figures presented on the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of policy is impeccable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then, by extension, a source needs to be found (some exist, such as this one[107] which listed 12,776 episodes as of March 29, 2013) and provided, and only be updated once a new published source is found. Am I correct here, as well? Scr★pIronIV 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@ScrapIronIV: Per {{Infobox television}} it states: "The number of episodes released", meaning if the episode has aired, it is enough of a qualifying source. And if you notice, on the General Hospital page, it notes that the 13,000th episode aired on February 24, 2014, and episode count has been increased off of said-date, also in-counting pre-empted airings. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, {{Infobox television}} isn't a policy, but WP:V is. One of our most critical ones, I might add. For normal stuff, it isn't a biggie but when it involves contentious edits (and by the point, it is obvious these are contentious) then we hold verification to the highest standard. By any standard, if it is reverted, it is contentious and needs true sourcing, which would solve this problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Then I believe, in order for us to maintain the WP:V policy, the additions should be reverted until an actual source is found. Certainly, this is a very contentious issue, with three ANI discussions on it. And ALL editors (not just these two) should be required to cite an actual source if this field is changed. I am more than willing to perform said reversions, if there is a confirmed policy regarding it. I do not want to add fuel to the fire, but editors need to learn to find and report based on sources. Scr★pIronIV 19:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- But the count number is not what's in question and being reported on; it's one editor's attempt of owning the update increment and not receiving the proper punishment, despite their continued ignorance of warnings from fellow editors and administrators, you being one of those admins. Because, if that's the case, more than a daytime soap opera needs a situation for episode counts, and that would include a mass-update and a potential removal of parameter. And on that note, the template should explain that, as well. As the template leads it to believe a source is not required once an episode has aired; it even states an inline citation is only required to provide sourcing that an episode count is greater produced beyond what has aired. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not taking away from his previous problems, I'm saying that User:ScrapIronIV is completely correct. Since there is so much debate around it, really what is needed is a direct source for that number, and the template being updated to be consistent with policy. No matter how you slice it, policy really dictates that this be verified with a reliable source. I think a primary source would be fine in this case, but a source. And technically, it shouldn't get updated until a new source is found for the new number. Simply put, the template is wrong, and out of step with policy. And policy trumps template every time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Then why not just exclude episode count, then? Because then you'll have to go to all television series, not just daytime soap operas, and cite episode counts. And as it is, the episode count itself is not what's in question; it is one editor's ownership and ignorance of the warnings placed against them. Punishment should be implemented as their editing is against what Wikipedia stands for, which is what Dennis Brown stated in the last filing, as most coverage for soap operas generally do not produce production numbers, unlike primetime television. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- None of us gets to perform original research on any article. The episode count was not an issue until you made it an issue. Now it IS an issue, and it needs to be dealt with, per policy. Nobody said maintaining an encyclopedia was going to be easy. Sources, or it didn't happen. Scr★pIronIV 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then I propose removal of the episode counts from soap operas, as it seems a bit pointed to target soap opera-only articles with the sourcing, unless you propose also going for primetime series, as well? livelikemusic my talk page! 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's a difference of scale, though – I can easily go to EpGuides.com or TheFutonCritic.com, etc., and find verification that, say, Person of Interest has aired 90 episodes. Because the daytime soaps air 5 times a week, 200-someodd days a year, for 30 years, finding sourcing for the current episode count is probably going to prove to be a lot more difficult. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then I propose removal of the episode counts from soap operas, as it seems a bit pointed to target soap opera-only articles with the sourcing, unless you propose also going for primetime series, as well? livelikemusic my talk page! 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The episode count doesn't need to be totally excluded, though. As you say, the fact that GH recently passed 12,776 episodes aired is a fact that can easily be sourced (and included in the article text); that will similarly be true for the other three U.S. daytime soaps when they pass certain airing "milestones". I would agree, though, that removing the episode counts from the Infoboxes of all of the still-airing U.S. daytime soaps would probably be a good idea... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It should be done, as IP's, anonymous editors and new editors are going to try and bump the count, which is partly why it was agreed to do once-per-week update of the episode count. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- None of us gets to perform original research on any article. The episode count was not an issue until you made it an issue. Now it IS an issue, and it needs to be dealt with, per policy. Nobody said maintaining an encyclopedia was going to be easy. Sources, or it didn't happen. Scr★pIronIV 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Then why not just exclude episode count, then? Because then you'll have to go to all television series, not just daytime soap operas, and cite episode counts. And as it is, the episode count itself is not what's in question; it is one editor's ownership and ignorance of the warnings placed against them. Punishment should be implemented as their editing is against what Wikipedia stands for, which is what Dennis Brown stated in the last filing, as most coverage for soap operas generally do not produce production numbers, unlike primetime television. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not taking away from his previous problems, I'm saying that User:ScrapIronIV is completely correct. Since there is so much debate around it, really what is needed is a direct source for that number, and the template being updated to be consistent with policy. No matter how you slice it, policy really dictates that this be verified with a reliable source. I think a primary source would be fine in this case, but a source. And technically, it shouldn't get updated until a new source is found for the new number. Simply put, the template is wrong, and out of step with policy. And policy trumps template every time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, {{Infobox television}} isn't a policy, but WP:V is. One of our most critical ones, I might add. For normal stuff, it isn't a biggie but when it involves contentious edits (and by the point, it is obvious these are contentious) then we hold verification to the highest standard. By any standard, if it is reverted, it is contentious and needs true sourcing, which would solve this problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@ScrapIronIV: Per {{Infobox television}} it states: "The number of episodes released", meaning if the episode has aired, it is enough of a qualifying source. And if you notice, on the General Hospital page, it notes that the 13,000th episode aired on February 24, 2014, and episode count has been increased off of said-date, also in-counting pre-empted airings. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then, by extension, a source needs to be found (some exist, such as this one[107] which listed 12,776 episodes as of March 29, 2013) and provided, and only be updated once a new published source is found. Am I correct here, as well? Scr★pIronIV 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
ScrapIronIV's solution (see: The Bold & The Beautiful) may be the way to go – if the IP's try to change the sourced number, they can simply be reverted on WP:V grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to see how that works out, though, I'm cautious about it. I guess time will tell how that will workout. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- One rule to keep in mind: It is better to be verified than perfectly up to date. That is core to everything we do at Wikipedia. A short article that is perfectly sourced is better than a long article full of original research. There is no need to update it every time an episode airs, 1500 vs 1550 means very little in the larger scope of things. It would be much better (and within policy) if that entry said "over 1400" and had a rock solid source. Reliability matters when building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I'm willing to see how the sourced edits hold out with some caution. However, I'm hoping also does not excuse the actions of Gabrielkat in the long-run terms of things. Their behavior is very much concerning, and not with the concept of what Wikipedia is meant to be about, and I believe their comments here prove that; they seem more fixated on "winning" and being thanked, than working towards the greater good of the encyclopedia. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- FTR, I agree with you that Gabrielkat's actions through all of this (I've been following your filings on this from the start...) are definitely concerning. One of two things will happen now – 1) now that the soap episode counts have been "locked up" using WP:V and "milestone" numbers, Gabrielkat will drop the stick and their conduct will improve, or 2) Gabrielkat won't drop the stick, in which case WP:ROPE applies. Let's hope Gabrielkat chooses Door #1... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, if Gabrielkat tries to restore the weekly "update" of episode numbers (even with sourcing), I think WP:RAWDATA can be invoked as a reason to reject that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Someone needs to go through the templates and normalize them with policy as well, so we don't have this problem again. I'm not a template guy, but would attempt if not for waiting for a call to hopefully go out. For a change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I'm willing to see how the sourced edits hold out with some caution. However, I'm hoping also does not excuse the actions of Gabrielkat in the long-run terms of things. Their behavior is very much concerning, and not with the concept of what Wikipedia is meant to be about, and I believe their comments here prove that; they seem more fixated on "winning" and being thanked, than working towards the greater good of the encyclopedia. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:V and WP:OR are all good, but that's not the problem here. The episode count can easily be verified by visiting the show's home page. [108] clearly shows that episode 7117 aired on Thursday July 9th. It's not controversial information, doesn't need a secondary source, and simple arithmetic is not WP:OR. The problem is a petty (IMO) argument between two editors who want to be the one to update the count each week. User:Gabrielkat, in the past, has reverted User:livelikemusic's updates when the latter got to the page first, leading to warnings about article OWNership. Now Gabrielkat has taken to updating the count a couple minutes before the episode finishes airing. It's a small problem, and we don't need to insist on a big bureaucratic solution like making their Wikiproject use months-old
secondarysources. Anyway, I have taken what I believe is the appropriate administrative action, with a punishment I believe fits the crime. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)- They do matter, and I said primary sources are fine, but they need to not update until the primary updates. I was hoping that would slow down some of this, as speed is part of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- But again, that could just cause a potential boomerang effect on the count; we should leave them as they are, with milestone updates and secondary/third-party sources, as it's likely going to end patterns of behavior and ownership. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Totally agree – the more I think about it, the more I think WP:RAWDATA should be the guiding principle here. It's not just the daytime soaps – a lot of editors follow the TV show articles around just so they can update the episode count on a weekly basis. This seems like a lot of wasted effort. To my thinking, episode counts should probably only be updated at the end of every season (Primetime series) or after certain "milestones" happen (daytime soaps). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is unless the series has ended—which was previously mentioned, I cannot recollect from whom, though. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in WP:RAWDATA suggesting that once a week is too often to update the episode count for a TV show. One of the things that makes Wikipedia unique as an encyclopedia is that we can stay up to date. If it's a matter of server bunnies or wasted manpower, I think it we could easily kill more bunnies and waste more time trying to enforce seasonal updates than just letting fans continue to update the count once a week. I guess I still see this as a small problem of two editors in a petty disagreement with a solution that requires only a small behavioral change. Gabrielkat needs to wait until the episode ends before updating the count, and livelikemusic needs to stop running to AN/I when Gabrielkat jumps the gun. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is unless the series has ended—which was previously mentioned, I cannot recollect from whom, though. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Totally agree – the more I think about it, the more I think WP:RAWDATA should be the guiding principle here. It's not just the daytime soaps – a lot of editors follow the TV show articles around just so they can update the episode count on a weekly basis. This seems like a lot of wasted effort. To my thinking, episode counts should probably only be updated at the end of every season (Primetime series) or after certain "milestones" happen (daytime soaps). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- But again, that could just cause a potential boomerang effect on the count; we should leave them as they are, with milestone updates and secondary/third-party sources, as it's likely going to end patterns of behavior and ownership. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Heh. I'm surprised you didn't block for 7,117 seconds...
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The block length was set to equal the length of time that they jumped the gun. (See [109]) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
BerkeleyHeights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refuses to accept decisions made by consensus to Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, and removed this talk page comment which addressed their disruptive editing. Based on their user name and history of contributions, this appears a single purpose account, and there may be a conflict of interest; this edit inferred a personal knowledge of elected officials in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's best to use the other means of appropriately dealing with an editor before bringing them to ANI. I have left some of the appropriate warnings on their talk page. If they persist, take them to WP:AN3. I don't see any COI in the usual sense of the term, since they are adding negative information to the article. Nor does that talk-page post imply any actual knowledge of elected officials; it's more like bizarre bluster. If you feel the username is inappropriate, address that on WP:UFAA. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, since he's a new editor without any guidance, someone needs to post the appropriate guidelines on his talk page: WP:RS (which patch.com is not; he may be pushing an article he himself wrote on that site), WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BRD, and so on. At the very least, he should be encouraged to do the WP:TWA. He's pretty much operating blindly and has stepped into a minefield without knowing it. I think, despite his bluster, he needs the assumption of good faith, and needs education. He has never even gotten any welcome messages or Teahouse invites. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Well, at this point the editor is blocked for continuing to edit war. His edit summaries and talk-page pronouncements have long since ceased to make sense, so I propose a site ban for incompetence, or trolling disruption in the guise of incompetence, if this sort of behavior continues after the block expires. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Dblama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This user originally came to my attention over at Wikimedia Commons after numerous copyright violations and sockpuppeteering. (The user is also using the accounts Durlavkt7, JasonStack43, PurNep – falsely claimed to have pending change reviewer privileges, SadiU7 and Snubssulky here on English Wikipedia.) I noticed that he falsely claimed to be an administrator and a bureaucrat (in addition to overstating his experience here by eight years) on his user page. When the message from User:220 of Borg about this went unanswered for three months, I decided to remove the false claims myself. The response was to replace my user talk page with "FUCK YOU LX!" and another fuck you on his own. I'd appreciate if an actual administrator could educate User:Dblama on appropriate ways of addressing other volunteers. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Boy, between the fraudulent Admin/Bureaucrat claims, and the personal attack/violation of WP:TPO, I'm wondering if a block is in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@LX: it looks like you forgot to notify Dblama about this discussion (see instructions at the top of this ANI page for details) – I have gone ahead and notified Dblama for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Ah, I see now that you did, just not with a {{ANI-notice}} template. Sorry! - My bad! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @LX: Thank you for bringing this up here. I should have followed it up myself. Indeed, that rude response is uncalled for. In addition to comments above, Dblama seems to be a bit of a SPA as a large proportion of their edits are to create/edit pages relating to a particular Nepalese family. Their move log may need reviewing too when the move rationale, which I mentioned to them on their talk page here back in April, includes "To make it easier for Nepalese national to find the page". 220 of Borg 02:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it possible that both were working together to create drama and play a game of sockpuppets as there were confirmed E-mail conversations between them? Pinging @Mar4d: TopGun @Mike V: Human3015 Kautilya3 GB fan @AsceticRose:. --Drama kings (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- And who are you? -- GB fan 15:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Markandrewz and legal threats
Markandrewz (talk · contribs) has been editing here since 2009, almost exclusively to post autobiographical material (e.g., [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]). Several editors have advised him of the potential problems with this and of the requirement to provide reliable sources for all claims (including Cullen328 and MelanieN at User talk:Cullen328/Archive 23#Mark Andrew Zwartynski, NeilN and myself at User talk:Markandrewz, and Laszlo Panaflex at Talk:Captain Beyond#Removal of member background information). He has responded to a recent request of mine for independent sources for his claims (which wasn't even directed specifically at him) with what seems to be a legal threat:
…if you keep making disparaging comments about me in public I "will" take action. Enough of your catty slanderous remarks about me - or this will escalate to a very unpleasant legal situation. Hear me now Psychonaut, Cease and desist with disparaging me and my name… Come out Psychonaut and be prepared to respond to the disparaging remarks you have made about me to a judge in a court of law.
— User:Markandrewz
He also says that he is a lawyer and that he will "pursue all matters allowed to [him] by civilized peaceful society" if I do not accede to his enumerated list of demands.
I'd appreciate it if an admin could look into this. For reference, the entirety of my interactions with him can be found at User talk:Markandrewz. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
While it may not technically be a legal threatit is a threat. It is not acceptable for users to make demands of other users under some sort of vague threat. I have blocked the account for a week with a warning that further such behaviour will result in an indefinite block. Chillum 15:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose a strict reading could interpret it as a legal threat, if another admin thinks my block was too short feel free to adjust it. Chillum 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I read this as an unambiguous legal threat and recommend that the editor be blocked until the legal threat is withdrawn. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it does seem to correspond pretty well with the example legal threat given at WP:NLT: "If you continue to do Wikimedia activities, then I will be contacting my lawyer to make trouble for you." Of course, in his version I was "making disparaging comments", though as far as I can tell it was really my "doing Wikimedia activities" (i.e., asking others for reliable sources) that he was objecting to. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose a strict reading could interpret it as a legal threat, if another admin thinks my block was too short feel free to adjust it. Chillum 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is a legal threat. I missed the part about the court of law. I have accordingly adjusted the block to indef and will point out our legal threat policy to the user. Some effort should be made to see if there is anything we should not overlook, I am have breakfast right now myself. Chillum 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The account may be used by multiple people. Someone who signs as "J.P." claims not to be Mark Andrew Zwartynski, and the account then claims to be Mark Andrew Zwartynski. This should be resolved before the account is unblocked. It may be this is the reason why the account variously claims to be an IP attorney, guitarist, manager, etc. We may be talking to a revolving group of employees under a shared corporate account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the issue of who operates the account was already resolved at User talk:Cullen328/Archive 23#Mark Andrew Zwartynski. Mark claims that his friend Jerry Page, a professor, briefly operated the account without his permission. However, all the claims of being an attorney, guitarist, touring manager, vocalist, keyboardist, songwriter, sports executive, business development specialist, author, marketing associate, descendent of royalty, and member of Captain Beyond, whether they were made by Jerry or Mark, unambiguously refer to Zwartynski himself. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Rolandi+ and Alexikoua's behavior in Balkan-related articles
- Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [118] [119]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.
One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.
- Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [120] [121] [122] [123]
- Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [124] [125] [126]
Other examples with some recent edit warring include:
Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [127] [128] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [129] [130]
Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [131] [132] [133].
While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ RobTalk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[134]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[135]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.
- About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [136] [137]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [138]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [139], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [140]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [141], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [142] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [143]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [144]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [145] [146] [147] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [148], [149] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [150] [151], [152], [153], [154]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [155]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [156]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [157], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [158] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me.
He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikipedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You are making personal attacks here,
: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"?Who is this user in the reality?Strange.
Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ RobTalk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
POV pushing Userbox
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In User:TopGun's Userpage, I found this Userbox template.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saimdusan/Userboxes/Kashmir
TopGun is currently facing six months topic ban. Considering the nature of that Userbox, those Users who use them should be topic banned with Kashmir related articles. --112.79.39.150 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- IP 112.79.39.150 geolocates to India. Mr Potto (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- This shows from where Mr.Potto originates from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr_Potto#July_2015
I don't want to make any personal attack, It's Potto who started it. --112.79.35.118 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm from the UK and of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origin (and my IP is 82.35.107.31 and belongs to Virgin Media UK), and I don't see why someone who is not part of your regional bigotry should not want to see improvements to articles about both Pakistan and India. I also made no personal attacks on you at all, I merely stated the simple fact (which is available to anyone) that your IP is in India. Mr Potto (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Krakkos and HistoryofIran
Krakkos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These two keep adding the word "iranic" to almost all Turkish/Turkic related pages and removes the words Turk, Turkic, Turkish etc. They accused me to be SP of an effing user named tigril or something like that. And after my every single edit on wiki, they change mine and add a note that says "SP of tigril". I'm asking admins to check my account and tell them if I'm sp of tigril or any effing user or not.
According to these people; First people call themselves Turk in history is iranic. Don't believe me? Check Ashina page. According to these people; Seljuks were hating Turks and they were actually iranic. According to these people; Avars are uncertain origined people. It doesn't matter for them how many ref says Avars were Turkic According to these people; Cumans and Kypchaks are not Turkic According to these people; Sultanate of Rum actually iranic According to these people; Azeri Turks are iranic
And after all, they accuse me with being a nationalist. Please tell me which of us is nationalis.
They work as team and keep change pages and I, as an alone user, always facing to involving an edit war.
Enough is enough! BöriShad (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're link to HistoryofIran is wrong; i've changed that. You've already been subjected to a CU by Callanecc, who declared you a
Possible sock of Dontbesogullible and Böri, who were both considered 
Likely to each other. There has been no action by administrators yet. Meanwhile you're continuing to promote the agenda of LTA User:Tirgil34,[159][160] illegimately removing high-quality sourced content,[161][162][163] edit warring,[164][165][166][167][168] and leveling baseless accusations of sockpuppetry[169] and racism.[170] There has now been more than a month since the CheckUser exposed BöriShad. Administrative attention is way overdue. Krakkos (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Iran? Sounds more like Australia. (In addition, BöriShad, I gather English isn't your first language, so it's a little hard to determine everything you're complaining about here.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I see you failed to notify HistoryofIran. I have. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:BöriShad has been edit warring over a multitude of articles, with an extremely pro-Turkic POV. Anyone that disagrees with said user is subjected to edit-warring, foaming-at-the-mouth racist rants,[171][172][173][174][175], accusations of sockpuppetry,[176][177] and accusations of supposed ethnicity(I think you also an iranianvery typical for an superior aryan-iranian I believe this "editor" suffers from battleground mentality(ie. the constant edit warring) and is not here to build an encyclopedia but to right great wrongs against Turkic peoples(Page was cristal clear until iranians ruined it.That page edited by pan-iranians, check former version of that page. These page was quiet clear until pan-iranians destroyed them.). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow...with rants like that, why hasn't the OP been blocked before? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:BöriShad has been edit warring over a multitude of articles, with an extremely pro-Turkic POV. Anyone that disagrees with said user is subjected to edit-warring, foaming-at-the-mouth racist rants,[171][172][173][174][175], accusations of sockpuppetry,[176][177] and accusations of supposed ethnicity(I think you also an iranianvery typical for an superior aryan-iranian I believe this "editor" suffers from battleground mentality(ie. the constant edit warring) and is not here to build an encyclopedia but to right great wrongs against Turkic peoples(Page was cristal clear until iranians ruined it.That page edited by pan-iranians, check former version of that page. These page was quiet clear until pan-iranians destroyed them.). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
BöriShad, Wikipedia is not Facebook or texting or a playground. Your post lacks credibility because you are not using capitalization (not even in your thread title), are using text-speak abbreviations, and are using thinly veiled vulgarities. If you want us to take you seriously, write like a serious adult. Otherwise, I think you may be in for some sort of a boomerang here. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Boomerang block of BöriShad
Based on the evidence posted by Krakkos and Kansas Bear (and we haven't even heard yet from HistoryofIran, who had not been notified of this discussion), and based on BöriShad's rants and his apparent childishly disingenuous denials of sock/meatpuppetry, I think it's pretty clear that BöriShad is a battle-seeking Turkic ethnicity warrior. Ethnicity warriors do not belong on Wikipedia, and virulent cases like this need to be stopped in their tracks. I propose a block for BöriShad, length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Further discussion
(This space is for further discussion about BöriShad, Krakkos, HistoryofIran, or any related users/matters.)
User:Scytsari
Scytsari (talk · contribs) is POV-pushing on the article Tajiks in blatant disregard of Wikipedia's WP:V policy. The issue is that is he is clearly intent on adding several medieval Persian people to the article's ethnicity gallery who are not ethnically Tajik and which do not have any references on their pages which claim so. Most of these peoples' articles do not make any mention of 'Tajik' in any context. He has reverted my removal of this OR three times, each time alleging it was 'vandalism': [178], [179], [180]. In addition, he reverted User:Khestwol's removal once: [181]. In one of the aforementioned edit summaries, he also accused me of having a personal agenda ([182]).
I explained many times on Talk:Tajiks that references would be required (on the subjects' pages) for such claims and that my removal was in accordance with WP:V. His first comment on the article talk page does not address WP:V, instead addressing a different point, and goes on to question my education before calling my removal vandalism [183]. I again reiterate that references would be required on the subjects' talk page and he goes on a rant in which he tells me to go educate myself (he advises me to read a source which I had posted earlier in the discussion, nonetheless) [184]. In between his four reverts and uncivil behavior, he has not once bothered to provide a single reference on either the talk page or any of the subjects' articles in support of his claims. This is getting ridiculous; two other users have already told him to stop adding unreferenced original research: [185] and [186]. Yet he refuses to get the point. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposals – sanctions against Scytsari
- I propose a ban against adding images to Tajiks, unless he comes here and states that he understands now and that if he desires more images he will ensure beforehand on Talk:Tajiks that he has consensus and that the nationality/ethinicity is properly sourced with community-accepted reliable sources. Also, I propose a site-wide ban on using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. Also, I propose a strict adherence to WP:BRD. I propose also that violation of any of these proposals will result in a block. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Mass deletion / PROD / redirect of mall articles under the guise of WP:COI
- Joseph2302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These two editors have been redirecting articles without discussion and PRODing several articles in mass. Its too many articles for me to create individual links for here, but the links can be found by looking through their contributions.
I was initially tipped off to what was happening when Jytdog first added a COI tag to Westfield Plaza Bonita. Then the same user went ahead and deleted most of what was in the article and then added a Speedy Deletion PROD before just going ahead and redirecting the article without discussion. I mean who wants tot wait a whole week for a PROD to mature, right? So I reinstated the article, but then I was Reverted by Joseph2302. So much for having a discussion.
This is not an isolated incident. There are several articles that have been redirected or have had PRODs added to them by these two.
I did remove a PROD at another article titled, Westfield Santa Anita, but it was immediately reinstated with a message telling ME to discuss, which is supposed to be against the guidelines.
Also, at Westfield Mission Valley, Joseph2302 nominated the article for deletion, while Jytdog came along and pretty much deleted most of the content, without discussion. Now I realize that articles need citations, but they should have requested the cisterns before deciding to remove content. I tried to put the information back per BRD, but Jytdog would rather edit war,
In addition at Talk:Westfield Mission Valley, Jytdog begins a discussion and then 3 minutes later leaves a message wondering why I haven't responded as a way to make it look as if I'm not discussing. Seriously, 3 minutes? Give me a break.
This is far more than one editor, myself, can handle. This may be a larger problem as these two may have been doing this for a far greater amount of time than just today. Please help.--JOJ Hutton 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong here, if you read the thread at WP:COIN#User:MallExpert, you'll see this was a massive COI issue. And it's perfectly acceptable to remove completely unsourced content, per WP:VERIFY. As for the redirects, I thought it was beneficial to have a redirect rather than a promotional article with no sourcing and no verifiability, and so was bold in trying to cleanup the COI mess. Fact is that it's a COI mess and we are trying to clear it up. There's enough admins that frequent WP:COIN that if we were doing something wrong, it would be noticed very quickly. This is standard COI cleanup, and it's only you that appears to have a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- These articles have been around far longer than when that single editor decided to edit the articles. And everything that that single editor added has been deleted or reverted. How is there still a COI problem then?--JOJ Hutton 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- COI stuff needed removing, plus basically everything in those article was unsourced, and so per WP:VERIFY should be removed. If you actually read my discussion on the redirects I created, I wanted to remove the unsourced, promotional articles, and then if they were notable then someone could replace it with a sources-based, neutral tone article. Everything I did was in good faith and for the benefit of the encyclopedia, to clearup the COI mess and remove unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- These articles have been around far longer than when that single editor decided to edit the articles. And everything that that single editor added has been deleted or reverted. How is there still a COI problem then?--JOJ Hutton 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- we are dealing with a widespread case at COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:MallExpert and Jojhutton is freaking instead of talking. They have used Talk twice - here asking what is going on (apparently didn't read connected contributor tags) which I responded to right away and explained and asked what the concern was here, to which they never responded.
I've asked them to talk many times (here, here, here and specifically why they were restoring unsourced content here and again here, to which they responded here at 00:14, which is almost a full hour after they first got upset. (that note just says, "Seriously? It's been 3 minutes?") I replied to that here and again no reply.
And now they filed this. I don't know why they are not talking. What is going on, is easy to explain. And I do not understand restoring unsourced content. Why are you doing that, Jo? And why, instead of talking to me at your talk page or an article Talk page, do you come here to ANI? Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, you aren't going to pull this BS about me not talking. You starter a thread on one page and then 3 minutes later you "call me out" for not discussing? I don't think so. Plus pick a page. I can't follow you around to every single talk page you happen to decide to start a thread on.--JOJ Hutton 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's his typical practice, to ignore conversations that he doesn't like and to spread comments all over. If I get time, I'll pull some diffs, but he tends to forum shop as well. The other thing that he will do is comment about others and then complain when his conduct is criticized. His editing is very disruptive to the project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I think he opened discussions at least 3 separate article talk pages. Then he complained in his reply above that he left me three messages on my talk page. I've replied on my talk page, several times. I do not know why he is making the accusation that I am not discussing.--JOJ Hutton 01:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jo, you first objected at 23:20 here asking what was going on. I replied to you four minutes later here. Instead of responding, you did all this edit warring and fighting, and never talked back. Why did you never talk back? Real question. I tried very hard to get you to talk back to me. I am still trying now. Please talk with me. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing is wrong with Jytdog and Joesph's behavior, this is general standard COI editing examination and cleanup and I'm not sure why Jojhutton is trying to impede it. Spam and paid editing are serious problems on Wikipedia which need editors like Jytdog and Joesph to fix them. I see nothing wrong with opening additional threads on talk pages when an editor refuses to engage on the already open thread at WP:COIN. Meanwhile, Jojhutton's behavior could be considered both edit warring and hounding of the above editors as well as assuming bad faith. Additionally, as seen above, they have deliberately misrepresented the behavior of Jytdog and Joesph. Admins should consider a possible WP:BOOMERANG for Joj's conduct. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Winner 42. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I also concur - it looks like an obvious case of advertising, marketing, and promotion - all 3 of which are prohibited by WP:NOT. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The so-called COI account, had only a single edit to that and to any page. That edit was reverted, but is now being used as justification to delete every article that the editor edited, even though there is no longer a COI issue Thats not what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia. If the editors want the articles to be deleted they should request a deletion. They do not continue to redirect the articles. Plus, if there was a question over the lack of citations, then they should have made requests for those citations rather than simply deleting everything. Imagine how bad Wikipedia would be if we deleted everything that didn't have a citation. Request one first, then if one is not provided in a fair amount of time, then perhaps the information could be deleted.--JOJ Hutton 02:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I also concur - it looks like an obvious case of advertising, marketing, and promotion - all 3 of which are prohibited by WP:NOT. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Winner 42. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing is wrong with Jytdog and Joesph's behavior, this is general standard COI editing examination and cleanup and I'm not sure why Jojhutton is trying to impede it. Spam and paid editing are serious problems on Wikipedia which need editors like Jytdog and Joesph to fix them. I see nothing wrong with opening additional threads on talk pages when an editor refuses to engage on the already open thread at WP:COIN. Meanwhile, Jojhutton's behavior could be considered both edit warring and hounding of the above editors as well as assuming bad faith. Additionally, as seen above, they have deliberately misrepresented the behavior of Jytdog and Joesph. Admins should consider a possible WP:BOOMERANG for Joj's conduct. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jo, you first objected at 23:20 here asking what was going on. I replied to you four minutes later here. Instead of responding, you did all this edit warring and fighting, and never talked back. Why did you never talk back? Real question. I tried very hard to get you to talk back to me. I am still trying now. Please talk with me. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I think he opened discussions at least 3 separate article talk pages. Then he complained in his reply above that he left me three messages on my talk page. I've replied on my talk page, several times. I do not know why he is making the accusation that I am not discussing.--JOJ Hutton 01:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's his typical practice, to ignore conversations that he doesn't like and to spread comments all over. If I get time, I'll pull some diffs, but he tends to forum shop as well. The other thing that he will do is comment about others and then complain when his conduct is criticized. His editing is very disruptive to the project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, you aren't going to pull this BS about me not talking. You starter a thread on one page and then 3 minutes later you "call me out" for not discussing? I don't think so. Plus pick a page. I can't follow you around to every single talk page you happen to decide to start a thread on.--JOJ Hutton 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with what JOJ has done here, which is trying to save content. We don't delete articles without good reason, and we don't have that here. First, the articles that are being deleted or redirected have clear notability, apparently WP:BEFORE was not done. I'm a deletionist, and even I see that this is wrong. Second, you don't move the conversation to a bunch of different venues, which is a habit of Jytdog--you pick one and discuss it there. Third, when a question comes up about deleting articles, you stop and discuss it, not continue to mass-PROD articles. GregJackP Boomer! 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Jojhutton, you can contest a non-discussed blanking and redirect simply by reverting. A contested blanking and redirect then must go through the other channels of deletion -- either PROD/Speedy/AfD. You can contest removal of content by reverting wth an edit summary and opening a discussion on Talk, per WP:BRD. If the content was unsourced, you can request a placement of a "refimprove" or "unreferenced" tag at the top of the article, and agree with other editors how long the article can remain largely or completely unreferenced before removal of the unsourced content. An article should ideally not be gutted without discussion while an AfD is in progress -- there should be one process at a time. Per WP:PROD, you can contest and remove a PROD simply by a talk-page or edit-summary statement and a removal of the prod tag -- you should however ideally provide reasoning somewhere, not simply remove the tag; that said, a removed PROD must not be replaced, per the statement on the template "If this template is removed, do not replace it." After that, Speedy or AfD would be the other editor's next options, and you can contest those through the normal channels (there's a button to contest on the Speedy template, and !voting on the AfD). That said, I'm not sure this needed to come to ANI. You've only mentioned two articles, and the procedures I've outlined are straightforward. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ETA: Discussions about article content or fate should be on the article's talk page, not elsewhere, as per usual Wikipedia guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I did only mention two of the articles here. But in fact there are probably 30 or more. The user contributions should reveal most of them.JOJ Hutton 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another tip: Do not force ANI readers to do your research for you. Present adequate evidence, or don't file on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- On first look these are high-volume, low quality edits, combined with edit warring that is destructive to the articles in question. This looks like one of those waves of strident deletion that occasionally washes up in the project. Simply deleting every piece of content for all of the shopping malls of one of America's largest developers, nominating clearly notable articles for deletion after gutting them of content, etc. because one of the editors — not the one who added all the content — has a COI, also appears to be a WP:POINT violation. I would suggest that these all be rolled back to their stable versions so that more cautious editors may discuss the matter if need be. There are also more appropriate procedures for dealing with COI. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
