::*And now {{User|217.38.96.72}}. My, does this guy have ''nothing'' else to live for? — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::*And now {{User|217.38.96.72}}. My, does this guy have ''nothing'' else to live for? — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::And now {{user|217.38.179.4}}. This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::And now {{user|217.38.179.4}}. This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
== Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia ==
[[metawikipedia:Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban|Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy]], this is a notice to a community in which [[User:WayneRay|WayneRay]] participated in that [[metawikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_WayneRay|there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia]]. Members of the community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --
— '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
:That guy needs to be gone. Can non-admins participate? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
::Don't see why not. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|Hello!]]</sup> 00:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
::Yes. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 01:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
::Considering it was started by someone who is banned on enwiki, I think it's safe to say that everyone is welcome to participate on that RfC. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]])</small> 02:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
:::And Cirt was kind enough to inform us here because the person who alerted the other wikis also happens to be banned on enwiki. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 08:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Except now Cirt is proxying for a banned editor. Two, in fact. [[Special:Contributions/107.181.21.54|107.181.21.54]] ([[User talk:107.181.21.54|talk]]) 15:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::No, he's making the announcement in his own capacity as a member of the metawikipedia community. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
[[User:WayneRay]] has now been globally banned under the [[m:WMF Global Ban Policy|WMF Global Ban Policy]]. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<span style="color: #008000">"?!"</span>]] 10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pingingisnot enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions
BLOCKED TWO WEEKS
I carefully read this section as well as the archived discussion where the editing restriction was enacted. I appreciate the concerns of the editors who advocated for a warning only, and I realize that Wtshymanski has not edited (as of this writing) in more than ten days. I also understand the value of a long-time contributor. However, he not only violated the terms of the edit restriction, he did it knowingly while this discussion was taking place, all the while advocating for the ban to be lifted. This pattern of hit-and-run violations followed by brief disappearances smacks of gaming the system, and it cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, I have blocked Wtshymanski for two weeks and warned him that subsequent violations of his editing restriction will result in longer blocks. Katietalk15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In March 2015, Wtshymanski(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log) had an editing restriction imposed because he was routinely reverting any edit made by an IP address based editor regardless of whether it was vandalism or a good faith edit. The editing restriction was:
Wtshymanski (talk·contribs·logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.
On the 23rd March 2016, Wtshymanski reverted an IP editor in violation of this ban with this edit.
On the 16th March, Wtshymanski reverted an IP address editor with this edit. This was an indirect revert (by copy pasting) of thisgood faith edit made by an IP address editor. The ban was enacted precisely to stop this last behaviour.
Note: that the ban was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski was disguising reverts of good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism. This is also a known tactic: to carry out an apparently harmless edit in amongst a raft of other edits to check if anyone is watching. If they are not, it is back to business as usual. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) This was a perfectly good revert. However, a ban applies and it's indefinite. Nevertheless, I find swinging the ban hammer based on a single (good) revert a little too much. The remedy was proposed to break a pattern, and this edit can hardly be said to fit that particular mold. Don't try to kill a gnat with a howitzer... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about this because although I'd fully support these particular edits (one is vandalism, one an error) there is a problem here that Wtshymanski acquired a richly deserved editing restriction to limit. He is in breach of it.
I favour no action here, as I can't see that any action would be any more than punitive. However he should be reminded that the restriction is in place. Any further reversions like this are likely to attract sanctions.
I'm mostly unimpressed by the IP editor here trawling to find excuses to bring Wtshymanski to ANI weeks after an uninvolved event. In what way is that a constructive action? Is there need for a WP:BOOMERANG here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Andy nailed it. The vandalism revert was brainless. yes W should not have done it, but pointless to punish now. But spank that petty IP. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion If Wtshymanski didn't breach the ban for over a year (block log is clean since 2013, so I can only assume this is the case), and their first technical slipup was not of the same disruptive kind that led to the ban in the first place, perhaps someone should suggest appealing the ban, or maybe putting them on probation where they can revert clear vandalism, mistakes, etc. for, say, six months, before the restriction is lifted entirely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An examination of Wtshymanski's editing history answers your point. Since the ban in March 2015, Wtshymanski has only made a handful of edits (19 to be precise) up to March of this year. He has since then sprung back to life with nearly 200 edits.
Someone above dismissed the second example that I posted as an 'error'. In what way? The IP editor made a good faith edit that was technically correct. It might be argued by some that we don't call batteries as cells in every day parlance but that is not the point. Wtshymanski reverted the edit against his ban. Part of the original complaint was that Wtshymanski was not checking the history prior to his actions.
That is interesting, and does make me lean more toward a six-month probation period before all sanctions are lifted than simply immediately lifting the sanctions, but then again you might be just as much at fault, because apparently an IP editor has been trying to goad Wtshymanski into violating their restriction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. I have had no interaction with Wtshymanski for well over a year (apart from placing the required ANI notice on his talk page). Also forgive me but I have had to make this post from an alternative platform because the ANI page refuses to update on my regular PC. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (AKA 212.183.128.252)[reply]
The IP who was reverted for their error went to 3RR to push an unsourced and incorrect change, in quite a proscriptive form, "properly speaking, a battery consists of two or more cells". This is simply wrong (1 cell is still a battery), especially when stated so firmly. So whoever reverts it, that's not a statement that belongs in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before considering a reduction in restrictions, please look at the pattern of behavior here:
Some of the above incidents that should have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so Wtshymanski's block log does not tell the whole story.
Whenever a line is drawn that Wtshymanski is not supposed to cross, he stands on the line with his toes hanging over it and makes random short dashes over the line and back. This generates endless debates as to whether sanctions are appropriate for the minor infraction.
Also note that whenever Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself or comment at ANI (statistically, this is a great strategy for avoiding sanctions) but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". If he stops editing, please don't fall for this trick again.
Whenever administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his behavior. He has repeatedly responded to warnings on his talk page with a comment that he has been taken to ANI, no action was taken, and therefore his behavior is acceptable. "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[1]
The good news is that Wtshymanski responds well to even short blocks. A 6 or 12-hour block will cause the specific behavior that led to the block to stop for many months and even years. The other good news is that the vast majority of the time he does really good work, and we have a shortage of skilled engineers who can detect problems in highly technical engineering articles. The bad news is that every so often Wtshymanski pushes the engineering equivalent of fringe theories and pseudoscience, and in such cases he refuses to accept any feedback from the other skilled engineers who are working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those come from before -- some long before -- the restriction was put in place. Wtshymanski technically violated his ban twice, in a benign manner that others agree with on the substance, but thee also got in fights with IP editors and new editors as four years before the ban was put in place and managed to avoid restrictions because they were right on the substance then as well. Per what the IP said above, technically it would be impossible for a dozen instances of violating the ban to have already gone unnoticed, because they've only been actively editing for a few weeks. Retroactively blocking Wtshymanski for an edit they made back in 2011, because it my have been in violation of a restriction placed in 2015, even for only a few hours, is a terrible idea. I don't know if it was your intention -- I actually doubt it was -- but I know for a fact that there are contributors on ANI who actively try to enforce restrictions ex post facto, and I can't shake the feeling that some of them get their way, so even accidentally giving them their way here would be a disastrous misstep. And fourteen threads on multiple forums (only six on ANI) over more than half a decade is pretty average, and possibly below average for someone who's made on average around 13 edits a day for over a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where has anyone suggested that Wtshymanski be blocked for an edit made in 2011? Guy has provided some context but that is basically all. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but at least one IP editor is requesting thus, and taking a rather cloak-and-dagger approach to it; posting links to discussions from five years ago may not muddy the waters any further, but it hardly helps the situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. My "posting links to discussions from five years ago" helps the situation a lot. This is a case of long-term behavior, and the fact that he was doing the same thing five or even ten years ago is extremely relevant. I presented the following context:
Wtshymanski does a lot of good work and should be retained if at all possible.
Wtshymanski is usually (but not always) right when it comes to questions involving engineering and technology.
Wtshymanski often ends up battling IPs and newly-registered users who are pushing engineering pseudoscience, often for commercial reasons.
Wtshymanski exhibits long-term problematic behavior and will not collaborate with other established Wikipedia editors who have technical skills.
Wtshymanski (unlike most editors who end up at ANI) is extremely responsive to sanctions, and a very short block usually puts an end to the particular behavior being addressed.
As a sometime critic of WTS, I looked at the two WTS diffs in the original report. The first one was a straightforward vandalism revert that nobody should get worked up about. The second was more problematic but should have been discussed with WTS before bringing it here. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a recent recurring issue, the report and its followup came across as axe-grinding, as per Andy Dingley. I think an admin should leave WTS a talk message linking the second diff and asking him to be more careful, but more immediate action against WTS is not needed. The batteries/cells thing should be discussed on the article talk page. The reporting IP's style also reminds me of a certain someone but I'll leave any decisions about that to others. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the restriction Because frankly, it's ambiguous and can be wikilawyered to death and has no teeth at all - as evidenced here. What's the use of a ban on reverting IP edits if we're not going to enforce it? Take of off, let WTS go willy nilly all over the project, and let's just look the other direction because, once again, productive editors are above community critique. Save us the ANI discussions for a worthless ban and just take it off (I'm being sarcastic and serious at the same time, get rid of it).--v/r - TP06:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that no administrator seems to be willing to even caution Wtshymanski when he violates this, and the easily-verifiable fact that Wtshymanski consistently interprets administrator inaction as permission, the restriction has already been effectively removed. We might as well make it official so nobody wastes any effort reporting future violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So today we see the return of Wtshymanski, a first post to this thread asking to have the restriction lifted, then within the hour a reversion of an IP: clearly vandalism, reverted. Yes, this is "clearly vandalism". However this restriction does not have any exclusion clause for "clearly vandalism" - rightly so, because although no-one is going to object over such clear vandalism, the problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement over what is "vandalism" has been questioned in the past.
For today though, I see that someone under an editing restriction choosing to flout it so obviously during an ANI thread is hardly encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Observation of this forum shows that for threads of this type, it requires someone to propose what action is required to be taken and for there to be community support for it. That being the case ...
Proposal 1
That Wtshymanski be formally warned of his breach of his editing restriction and that a block will be imposed for any further breach. In view of the nature of the reverts, I think a block now would be counterproductive, and with the lack of activity for a couple of weeks the admins may well consider it time served.
Support: As proposer. I would observe that if editing restrictions are not going to be enforced then, taking Guy's point above to its logical conclusion, WP:RESTRICT might as well be deleted in toto. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read (some) of the above.: The purpose of an editing restriction is to protect the ostensible work of the encyclopedia, not to provide fodder for Jesuitical level discussions of fine distinctions. I would agree with the above proposals to remove the ban. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If, and only if, Proposal 3 fails, then I will support this because it's better than the alternative. Otherwise, I Oppose. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 2
I might have supported option 1, but as there has now been a further infringement as in the next section, I have to propose: that Wtshymanski be blocked from editing for a period of at least one month. This is to reflect the blatant refusal to abide by this restriction. Certainly, no consideration should now be given to lifting the restriction.
Support, but I don't believe in mandating block lengths. That should be left to the discretion of the blocking administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just checked, and WP:3RRNO states that reversion of obvious vandalism (including page blanking) is not subject to sanction. If this is correct, then isn't it inappropriate to block him over it? If I've misinterpreted the policy somehow, I'm open to retracting my vote, but for now it seems like this doesn't qualify. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Retracted.[reply]
You have misinterpreted the policy (easy to do -- it isn't clear about how it interacts with bans). Let's start with an easy case. Assume that I get banned from editing Wikipedia. Am I allowed to revert obvious vandalism four times because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit. So let's assume that I get topic banned from all banana-related pages. Am I allowed to revert four times on Banana because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit to that page. The 3RRNO exception is only for those who are otherwise allowed to edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the proper policy regarding this is WP:BANEX, which allows reversions in cases in which no reasonable person could disagree - which I believe stuff like page blanking would be. ansh66604:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy starts with the phrase, 'Unless stated otherwise...'. In this case: it is stated otherwise because the editing ban specifically states, 'Wtshymanski is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address' (my emphasis). As I read the above, this was rendered necessary because the original problem (reverting good faith edits from IP adresses in pursuance of a campaign against such editors) was being disguised as legitimate reversions. It therefore makes sense to ban those legitimate reversions so that not only are judgement calls are avoided, but it also avoids Wtshymanski gradually eroding the boundaries. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is specifically worded that way so that restrictions with the "any edit" wording may still revert obvious vandalism. The "unless stated otherwise" would be "...is banned from reverting any edit, including obvious vandalism...". ansh66618:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the original ANI discussion, it seems clear that the intent "was any edit including vandalism" (the original proposal was "any edit broadly construed"). I was aware of a follow up point made to the enacting administrator's page, where he confirmed that "any edit" included vandalism from IP editors. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Banning someone for edits no sane person would disagree with seems pointless and counterproductive. This ANI-case reflects the shortcomings of the ruling, not some misbehavior on the side of the subject of discussion. The proper policy is WP:IAR. Kleuske (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating my earlier Oppose for the same reason. Granted 3RRNO doesn't cover this situation, but it seems needlessly draconian to ban him over this. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wtshymanski, in spite of clearly being aware of this discussion about his editing restriction has blatantly and in defiance of the restriction reverted yet another edit made by an IP editor. I acknowledge that the revert was of pure vandalism, but I perhaps need to remind the contributors here, that the restriction was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski, in his campaign to drive IP editors away, was deliberately disguising reversions of good faith edits as vandalism. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A quick look at the diff should be sufficient to determine if he's violating any policies, and I'm really loath to block someone uncomfortable with the idea of someone being blocked for reverting unambiguous vandalism, whatever the context. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (edited for clarity; see below)[reply]
@Gimubrc: Your response to this proposal gives the very clear impression that you are an administrator when you claim that, 'I'm really loath to block someone for reverting unambiguous vandalism'.(my emphasis) However a quick check reveals that not only are you not an administrator, but you have only had an account since the end of January this year. At the very least, you are not acting in good faith. At the worst, I have seen editors blocked in the past who have falsely claimed administrator privileges. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any misunderstanding; I did not mean to claim or imply I was an admin. I have edited the offending comment to make things more clear, and struck out the original wording. However, please don't be so quick to assume bad-faith deception, rather than a simple miscommunication. I simply weighed in on a matter I had an opinion on. My vote also stands. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also support; I see an IP (surprise) grasping at straws to get a productive editor who hasn't done anything wrong punished, and removing the possible loophole which is presented would be most ideal. ansh66618:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leave the restriction as it is and now start enforcing it too.
The problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement is not trustworthy as to what is "obvious vandalism". I have no problem with him reverting obvious vandalism; I do have a concern with him reverting non-vandalism and camouflaging this under "vandalism". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as an actual example of that behavior is presented, I'm willing to entertain the assumption that this claim has any merit. I've asked for such examples, but none have been forthcoming. Until that time, WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about twelve examples of reverting good faith edits? That is how many examples were given in the original ANI which someone obligingly linked above, so they already have been presented. You obviously didn't take the trouble to read it. I shall provide the link again. The ANI is here. It was reported in the ANI that it only included examples from a restricted time frame in order not to make the ANI complaint too long. There were five initially though it continued to document a further seven reverts of good faith edits after the original complaint was made, several of which were disguised as reverting vandalism when they were not (and a good few reintroduced vandalism that the reverted IP editor had removed). It was also stated that there were copious examples from before the time frame (which I can confirm that there were - actually going back several years). 86.149.141.166 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That was a year ago. The edits referenced above, however, are fully uncontroversial. Apparantly, his judgement has improved somewhat. Unless you can show me a recent transgression, WP:AGF and WP:IAR apply, as far as i'm concerned. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy to game. If, as Andy Dingley claims (and the edit history seems to back him up) Wtshymanski makes a bunch of edits reverting obvious vandalism from IPs and then when nobody is paying attention slips in reverts of good edits, you would see fully uncontroversial edits at this stage. The only "judgement" involved here is Wtshymanski judging how best to do what he wants without interference from the admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the examples given are not fully uncontroversial. In the second example given in the original post above, the IP made what must be considered a good faith edit given that it was technically correct in every detail. The term battery (in the article's context) is the collective noun for cells. Thus a single cell is technically a cell and not a battery. Thus the IP's edit was resolutely not vandalism. I would agree that WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that as most people refer to single cells as batteries and not cells, that Wikipedia is justified in doing the same - but that is entirely beside the point. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 86.149.141.166. Clearly the decision about whether to call a single cell a battery is a content dispute (and a pretty ordinary one of the kind that happens in the engineering articles all of the time). It should have been dealt with by talk page discussion, and if that didn't work, by dispute resolution -- and indeed the rest of us who work on engineering articles typically resolve disputes like this with little or no drama. This[2][3] was anything but uncontroversial. It was Wtshymanski testing the limits to see if anyone would notice and enforce the restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to be charitable and suggest that Wtshymanski may not have been aware that the original edit was made by an IP editor. But, when I check the article history, I find that Wtshymanski copied back the precise wording from before the IP edit (and therefore an indirect revert for which he is banned). Wtshymanski cannot have avoided but seeing that the eidit was made by an IP editor. By performing the indirect revert, he has made it appear that he has just performed a routine edit, something the wording of his edit ban was clearly crafted to prevent. I agree with Guy that Wtshymanski was deliberately trying to game the system. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Strongly opposed because, based on past performance, opening a loop hole like this will result in the inevitable flood of reversions of IP edits disguised as reverting vandalism, which is where this all began. 85.255.232.149 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As OP, I concur. It is clear that there is a good consensus that some action should be taken by the admins, though opinion is divided as to what. Option 3 is a non starter as it was proposed under the illusion that all Wtshymanski's reverts were uncontroversial. In fact the second of the two in my OP was completely controversial, as others have agreed.
I would suggest that this is not left unactioned, but at the very least, Wtshymanski should be formally warned of his breach and of the consequences of any future breach. 212.183.128.147 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think it's a bit premature to refer to Option 3 as a "non-starter". Currently, the option stands at three editors in support (myself, Ansh666, and Kleuske) to three opposed (which are an IP that I assume is you, Andy Dingley, and Guy Macon). That's a 3:3 deadlock, not a consensus, and it's a little disingenuous for you to characterize an active debate as a "non-starter".
Likewise, Proposal 2 stands at 3:4 (3 support to 4 oppose), and Proposal 1 is also deadlocked at 2:2 (if we disregard, as we probably should, Wtsh. voting in support of himself). Granted, I'm not an admin and can't give a definitive judgment here, but it doesn't seem to me like we have a meaningful consensus on what action to take at the moment. --Gimubrc (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't characterize a deadlock as a proposal "failing", to be honest. At any rate - I will only support #1 in the event that #3 is not chosen as the solution. I'm thinking of its as a preferential ballot or something: if whichever admin closes this rules out #3, then & only then would I be willing to support #1. This said: my support is for #3, and I oppose #1 unless #3 is declared not on the table by an admin or by unambiguous consensus. I should probably refrain from conditional endorsements in the future, I guess; too much confusion potential. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted; I was counting votes based on inferring support from comments rather than just counting the instances of bold text - I'll keep the correct counting method in mind next time. Also, if Kleuske proposed it, and given his comments throughout I don't necessarily think it's out of order to assume he supports his own motion, technicalities aside. I've tagged him so he can comment further and make his support "official" if needed. This said, my point above stands: a deadlocked point which is still being discussed is not a "non-starter", and shouldn't be ipso facto excluded from administrator evaluation. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't count me as !voting unless I write SupportorOppose. In this case, my comment agreed that the examples given are not fully uncontroversial and the IP's edit was not vandalism. That isn't even close to supporting or opposing Proposal 3 (amending the ruling to include the words "except blatant vandalism".) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page Clarawood
User:Davey2010 has posted to my user talk page accusing me of disruptive editing and stating that I will be blocked if I do it again [4]. The issue stems from a reversion I did of an edit to the page by User:CDRL102 in which they said that a statement was an opinion. In reality the statement was referenced and was a matter of established fact. I explained my reversion substantially on the Clarawood talk page however this page was changed by Davey2010 and the sections deleted [5][6]. Instead of taking my comment and explanation on board the immediate reaction from Davey2010 and CDRL102 was to accuse me of ownership and inexperience. Davey2010 has previously stated to me that there are Guidelines and Policies on Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow them and anything I have done has been referenced to such. Davey2010 however, admin or not, seems to have the attitude that he can do anything he wants. This is demonstrated by the original AfD he and CDRL102 raised for Clarawood which was closed after approx 1 hour and which was reinstated after a Deletion Review [7][8]. In other words he has a pattern of what could be termed disruptive behaviour himself and deliberate ignorance of Guidelines and Policies.
I am being accused of not being willing to work collaboratively and unreasonable "ownership" style behaviour concerning the page Clarawood. As I have previously argued in the AfD, talk pages and the Deletion Review this is not the case and there are very substantial references on the page and I have encouraged and asked for any problems others have with it to discuss them particularly on the talk page. The edit by CDRL102 demonstrates the importance of this as they were factually wrong. I have also been accused of reverting every edit anyone makes. This is also quite simply not true, but I have reverted non-constructive edits and explained why I did so.
I have followed process in anything I have done here, I have not deleted other people's comments or blankly edited fully referenced material and I have not acted outside normal process and policy. Davey2010 however has done these things and I feel that it would be pointless and impossible to have a rational discussion with him on his talk page which is why I am raising this ANI instead.
I have no problem with constructive edits to any page, that is what a collaborative encyclopaedia is about, however I think I am entirely correct when I say that edits must actually be constructive and based on fact and if they are not then it is fair to revert them.
I think I am also entirely correct to say that Davey2010's behaviour has not been perfect and I hope this can be looked into Clarawood123 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR - Yep I gave them a strong warning as they've heavily been trying to "promote" the article and clearly do have OWNership issues with it,
Yep I've wiped their article talkpage posts as it was more or less moans over reverts and some were unrelated to the article - I never ever do this however in this case filling the talkpage up with crap isn't ideal either -Most of it belonged on a user talkpage,
Yep I did move the article to a sandbox as CDRL was more than happy to work on it although it was reverted by Sandstein as there wasn't really any consensus at DRV for my actions,
So all in all I believe my actions overall have been okay and the only person that should be blocked is Clarawood123 for their huge amounts of disruption not only on the article but also on the DRV and the AFD. –Davey2010Talk14:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit this page, most of my edits were reverted. It was then userfied to me to improve the quality, once it was put back into Clarawood, User:Clarawood123 deleted my revision and copied and pasted his last edited revision before it was userfied. Since then, I didn't try to restore some of my improvements as I'm not going to waste my time and have it reverted again, although I did try to edit the opening paragraph, which surprise surprise was reverted. So User:Clarawood123 seems to have an Ownership Issue. CDRL102 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Many editors are trying to improve the article and they're simply reverting everyone and everything, Personally I don't think even a long block would change their ways so personally think they should be indeffed, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think going right to site ban is over the top. Perhaps a 6 month topic ban, to give this editor an opportunity to demonstrate they can learn the site's editing guidelines and contribute effectively to other areas of the project. Either we gain a productive editor, or they blow it and then they get a site ban. - theWOLFchild20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on this wiki please log in for a support/oppose-statement, it simplifies the evaluation for counters (of course it's anyway no vote.) –Be..anyone (talk)21:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Support a Topicban I notice the article is named Clarawood and that the user is named Clarawood123. With the ownership issue this is rather striking. While I can't say there's exactly a COI but their connection to Clarawood does seems likely to be apart of the reason for their disruption.With an indef topic ban they can build up other contributions outside of their single purpose and in 6 months they can appeal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
opposeas@HyperGaruda: points out Clarawood123 does seem to be mindful of the ownership issue and can be expected to take that into account in the future. They are a new user and should be given the opportunity to correct course. In the event they do not they can be banned accordingly later. As opposed to banning her some more experienced editors can step in and assist in the article such as by fixing the article or tagging an issue with it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong oppose on the following grounds: a site ban is overkill; this proposal is brought forth by someone who either doesn't want to take responsibility for their Wikipedia edits and activity by registering an account or they are a sockpuppet. I'm very uncomfortable giving this proposal any credence based on the fact that the IP proposer could be anyone who has edited here previously under an account or another IP and is currently blocked or are IP hopping or just playing games. And just for the record: the account we being discussed here for some kind of sanction/ban is way too new for anyone to be calling for a site ban, topic ban, and saying they aren't welcome in Wikipedia. WP:BITE immediately comes to mind. Clarawood123 HAS less than 80 edits at this writing. Some folks just don't get Wikipedia at first and mistake it for something other than an encyclopedia project that has extensive rules, guidelines, policies, and the like. To some, it's just an online site where they can add some stuff rather than actually seeing the bigger, more serious picture. What should happen is someone very experienced and/or very patient needs to volunteer to mentor this individual, put them in the right direction, give them sound advice, and get them editing productively, not set them up to create another account and get into the sockpuppet death-spiral. Which is what will happen if they are site-banned or topic-banned. This is a bad proposal and it's a bad precedent to allow an anon-IP to suggest such a strong move and editors going along with this should seriously rethink their agreement with the proposal, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉✓01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assuming good faith, guys. If you had checked my contribs, you'd have seen that I've been on this IP for a while. As for my proposal: here we have a blatant promotional account who is trying to force their own POV on an article, without and against consensus, and you're proposing we treat them like any other account 142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here with this current IP only since January 2016, from what I can see. My concerns are well spelled out and I don't think they are unreasonable. And yes, I do think we should treat them like "any other account" -- something they are and something you are not. If you want to be taken seriously in situations such as this, my suggestion is you also get an account. I'm sure there are admins and other editors who will disagree, however, I am just as certain there are admins and other editors who would agree. It's no big deal to have an account, after all. Why not create one? -- WV ● ✉✓16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should this point be forced? No. Is it our business as a community when an IP is looking to have a newbie permanently banned from editing? I think it is. I've said what I had to say, and am fine dropping the issue of this IP not having an account from here on. But I won't keep silent over a permaban proposal when I don't think it's warranted. -- WV ● ✉✓16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to thank the various participants for their advice and guidance. It seems that I am being portrayed as someone who simply just reverts everything for the sake of it because I am new and unwilling to learn. This is not the truth. It also seems that those who have supported this position have taken others' comments at face value and have not checked into the history of any edits or reversions I have done or the comments I made to support those.
At present following the latest edits to the Clarawood page by various editors over the last day or so it is in a state where it is factually innaccurate from the very first line of the infobox, is misreferenced throughout and is in breach of copyright as legally required statements for the attribution of multiple references have been deleted. I am not going to edit it or revert it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc...all I can say is that if correcting mistakes, ensuring information is factual and ensuring that material is referenced is wrong then I am happy to be wrong. Hopefully someone with a bit of sense and gravitas will look into this Clarawood123 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarawood123, if you have identified material currently on the page that is a copyright violation, it's pretty important that you identify that content, because it needs to be removed.
Otherwise, some general comments:
Although multiple people have been involved in edit skirmishes on the article, as well as the AfD, attempts to have any discussion at all on the article talk have been weak sauce at best, and not always been done with the best tone, on multiple sides. For example, CDRL102's remark "you're incabable, that's all", is sure to lead to productive discourse, and not at all escalate tensions.
Davey2010's behavior also leaves much to be desired, such as not blanking discussion on the article talk with such helpful summaries as "Stop filling the talkpage with moans" (please see WP:NPA and WP:TPO), not to mention giving a final warning as a first warning on Clarawood123's user talk, and threatening indef, which is clearly not a thinly veiled "fuck you".
I am very suspicious of a ban proposal by an IP, especially after four comments, three of which were made by the two above referenced editors.
To their credit HyperGaruda has made a commendable effort and others should follow their example.
I admit I could've discussed it better with them but overall my behaviour was absolutely fine, They deserved a warning months ago however I left off the warnings in the hope they'd get the hint .... which they didnt hence the final...., I stated above on why I removed their talkpage comments and my edit summaries wasn't a personal attack, Ofcourse because you're absolutely perfect and haven't ever made a mistake in your life have you ? .... –Davey2010Talk18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly six minutes wasn't enough personal reflection time. Your actions have not been absolutely fine, and saying that they were is not a justification. TimothyJosephWood18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban. Well, that escalated quickly. Taking into account how new Clarawood123 is, you could be a little more considerate. From their comment above, it appears that the you do not own Wikipedia pages message has finally sunk in. Perhaps it is best if someone experienced in the Wiki-MoS checks and old version of Clarawood, such as this one, tagging problems as they go through the page (don't forget to save it to a sandbox), like I did in one section. That way, Clarawood123 can learn what exactly is wrong/unwikipedic, instead of being flooded by vague comments that the article has problems somewhere at an unspecified location. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban - I tried to talk with this user and they are 100% committed to the view everything they have done is fine and everyone else has done wrong, and cannot see their COI. They have resisted all efforts at dialogue to reach consensus (not just with me, but from day 1); this stance toward the community has been and is disruptive and won't stop being disruptive; they have no place here. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - editor has demonstrated an incapability to talk about their editing stances without some way incorporating their commentary/opinion of an editor to it. This is not a battleground. Based on the information that's relayed, Ciarawood123's condescending and ownership attitudes isn't helping anything to resolve anything. Proceeding to start massive discussions so to talk about another editor rather than just make the discussion about what it is about the article they have a problem with is not how to start an article talk page discussion or otherwise seek consensus. It also doesn't help that he edit wars and fights when others challenge him and only trying to get his way. I am not familiar with the subject area and do not make an opinion on anyone's edits at hand, but we don't always have to know which is the right version of an article to know whether an editors perception of collaboration is the correct one. Its about working with others to achieve the one goal to build an encyclopedia, not treating others as opponents when they disagree with you. Its detracting from our goals when we have people on this project that don't seem to know what collaboration and working with others truly means. —Mythdon07:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response In reply to the last few commenters - a simple search through and perusal of the entire correspondence relating to the page Clarawood, including those comments and talk page sections which have been deleted by other editors - in my view deliberately as part of their campaign to portray me as something I am not - will demonstrate fully that my focus has been on the content of the page and the quality of the information and referencing on it. When some editors have stated that they tried to improve the page but I just reverted as usual, this portays me as a disruptive and non-collaborative editor with ownership issues. But this is not the truth as I have been saying for some time now and which is the reason I raised this ANI. I will offer an analogy. If any of the editors above had created and written a page and then I came on and made edits which left it demonstrably factually wrong would they be justified in reverting those edits? I think they would. Further, if, despite having explained exactly why they reverted, they were then accused of ownership, bias and disruption would this be true? The answer is it would not. As I have previously urged people to do, please do not participate in this without fully looking at the facts and without being completely and utterly honest. The reality is that a number of those involved have not been honest, are guilty themselves of the things they are accusing me of - and worse - and when others with more rational minds have tried to highlight this to them they have blanked it and indeed acted arrogantly and rudely. I have attempted to keep my arguments and comments civil and rational and on key. I have had to defend myself against other editors which is why I have had to mention them. It was me who was the person focussing on content in the first place. As I stated above the article is now in breach of copyright, seriously misreferenced from the first line and factually wrong from the first line. This is because in their haste to make me out to be a fool and defend their friends the editors concerned have acted irrationally and rashly and frankly do not have knowledge of the subject they were dealing with. Pointing this out does not make me disruptive, it does not mean I am moaning, it does not mean I am unwilling to collaborate, it does not mean I cannot self reflect or that I have a conflict of interest - it means that an article which was factual and fully referenced has been vandalised in a way which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. By those who are accusing others ie me of the same actions. I am getting rather sick of this ongoing nonsense myself and sick of constantly having to defend myself from people jumping on the bandwagon without checking their facts Clarawood123 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarawood123, not a word you wrote there acknowledges that you have done anything wrong. As long as you maintain that stance, you are, in my view, going to be an endless source of disruption. Everyone is new, but most new editors do not cause this level of disruption, and most new editors are willing to listen and to learn. If you were self-aware and willing to learn, and not focused solely on blaming others, I would not be supporting a site ban. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Jytdog it does not acknowledge I did anything wrong because I did not. The only thing I appear to have done wrong here - aside from some minor mistakes at the very start - is have a username which some have assumed means I am an SPA. It doesn't, but I haven't had the chance yet to get into Wikipedia and my first article was written about something I am an expert on. Nobody knows what other potential articles I might write or what contributions I may make. As I tried to point out to you, but you were unwilling to reflect on your own actions and words, if an article is fully factual and referenced and someone claims it is not and makes a sweeping edit which then actually does leave it innaccurate and unreferenced, then an editor would not only be within their rights but expected to revert to the original. This does not make them disruptive, but it would highlight the other editor who has left the article in a bad state as disruptive. Me not agreeing with you does not mean I cannot look at myself, it means I do not agree with your analysis, and my disagreement is based on facts and evidence not blind assertion. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have made so many mistakes. None of them fatal or unusual. The unusual, fatal mistake - the reason this thread is here - is your inability to be flexible, dialogue and learn. You are profoundly unfit for Wikipedia, where the bedrock policy is consensus. I am wrong sometimes, btw. Not here. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose ban for now. Other editors' attempts to deal with the content and ownership issues have been as significant a cause of this situation. This discussion has brought it to a wider audience; the response from Clarawood123 has is not ideal but is understandable. More time is needed. Peter James (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban but they just need to learn how to write, I understand what it's like to be a young editor - and so I can see the frustration of why others weren't happy with me - and take it from me, Clarawood just needs to wise up and bit and learn how it all works, move on to a project maybe and help out there. But with a ban they won't learn so it's not a good method. CDRL102 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair they've been problematic since March and nearly a month later and nothing's changed in terms of their behaviour, How do you know they're young ? ... They could be 85 all for you know ...., Don't get me wrong I would absolutely love to give the editor a chance however with the amount of disruption caused here I honestly can't them ever changing their ways here .... There's only so much WP:ROPE you can give.... –Davey2010Talk00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(with clarification) - I think the person needs some mentorship, as my first Article got AfD'ed and I didn't like the way it happened, but that is the lessons needed to learn how we are required to format our contributions. I agree that the person has displayed obvious recalcitrance, and am suspicious of the name's involved, but in the spirit of "good faith" think some mentoring would be good. Nuromsg me02:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:CDRL102 advises that I just need to learn "how it all works". Presumeably this would include such issues as not deleting from articles established academic facts which are referenced. For example such as they did as described on the Clarawood Talk page here [9] which was the edit and revert which kicked off all this nonsense. User:Davey2010 states that I have been "problematic since March" and talks of the "amount of disruption caused". Presumeably his own listing of the article for AfD and subsequent actions in closing it after an hour, deleting comments and discussions on Talk pages, threatening me with blocking etc etc and therefore me having to raise this ANI - it was in fact me who raised this about User:Davey2010 - were not in any way disruptive. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi made sweeping edits to the Clarawood page. The edit in which they left the page in breach of copyright was labelled "irrelevancy", the edit in which they adopted CDRL102's change to the opening statement was labelled "unsourced WP:OR" despite the fact that it was in fact referenced and was NOT original research as explained previously, they removed a lot of detail under the label "unsourced" despite the fact that it was not only heavily sourced but the source was the official record of the construction by those who built the estate (but of course they had already removed those references as "irrelevant"), they then removed even more stating it was a synth and also that the sources were "crap". If the offical Government record held at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland is a "crap" source then God help us in trying to find good ones. Others have made helpful edits by leaving the article completely and utterly misreferenced in other words there are references on the page - from the first line - which bear no relation to the statement or fact they supposedly back up, there is now some very bad grammar on the page including mispelling, and as I have also previously mentioned the article is factually wrong in multiple places from the outset. People need to get real here, see that my arguments on this have been driven by a desire for proper content and proper procedure; recognise that a number of those attacking me and my actions have been completely in the wrong despite their assertions to the contrary; get this article restored to the way it was before it was vandalised ie my last edit; if there are genuine problems with how it was written then raise those issues particularly in discussion on the talk page where I would be more than willing to learn or amend if appropriate; stop playing the issue as being my inexperience and understand that the actual issue is the inability of some of the above to reflect honestly on their own actions. Contrary to some people's assertions I can and have reflected on my own and as a result have not done anything else except try and defend myself - even though as I have said the page is now in breach of copyright thanks to [User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi]] and others. Yours, anticipating that the above mentioned and others will reject this comment and redouble their attacks on me Clarawood123 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarawood123 is taking all the WP:ROPE that other editors are offering and hanging themselves. I urge the editors voting !oppose to read the intransigence in what Clarawood123 is actually writing here, and reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intransigence is defined as not willing to compromise; obstinately maintaining an attitude however it is invariably used in the context of someone who does so without reason or rational thought, reflection on their position or reference to accepted norms or processes. This is not what I have done. If it was I would admit so and move on. Instead my staunch position has been held with direct reference to multiple Guidelines and in the face of blank assertion without evidence. There is most definitely intransigence throughout this saga, and rational, sensible and honest minds - after investigation and reference to the full history of it on the various talk pages, AfD, Deletion Review, edit histories and this ANI (which I started about Davey2010) - will be able to distinguish what quarters it has been coming from eg I have been accused of reverting everything anyone else did to the page lots of times, the edit history shows that after a couple of mistakes by me initially over fair use images and trivia, there were only 2 or 3 reversions of edits by CDRL102 over a period of about 2 weeks and they were both explained fully on the talk page. The only other reversions were then the one after the Deletion Review restored the page and the one reverting CDRL102's removal of a referenced fact. User:Jytdog is currently going through the article as it has been left by others ie misreferenced and in breach of copyright etc highlighting references which appear to bear no relation to things mentioned and deleting sections of what little remains. I must point out that if those edits which left the article in this state had not been done then it would not be misreferenced Clarawood123 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose site ban. A site ban would be ridicusly harsh on a new editor with so few edits. If anything, a topic ban would be more than enough to check Clarawood123's intentions. Given they have not edited almost anything outside of the topic it has almost the same effect. Still, it leaves plenty of room for Clarawood123 to edit on something else. But before any ban at all, we should ask Clarawood123 to edit also on other topics, and let this one article grow mostly from other contributions for a while (it just passed a deletion discussion, it will most likely not be in any risk of deletion any time soon). And within a month or so, we either have a new editor, or we are sure that we do need a ban. Banning now would be based on a wild guess, that is not fair, nor useful, and quite BITEy. - Nabla (talk)
User:Nabla I get what you are saying in theory, but you should actually come try to improve the article. This person is completely unworkable. I am not exaggerating. Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They have stopped reverting people, yes, but their comments on the Talk page remain 100% antagonistic and disruptive, and above all, just not helpful. Rather than discussing anything simply, every remark is full of accusation and disdain. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well its pretty clear to me this will be closed "no consensus" but hopefully with a good, clear warning. Let's hope it takes. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and hopefully my final comment No matter how many times those such as User:Jytdog, User:CDRL102, User:Davey2010orUser:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi state things about both me and the Clarawood page, or how plausible they sound, or how much other participants latch onto their assertions, it does not make what they are saying about me and the page true. The truth is the truth and the facts are the facts and I have now urged numerous times for sensible admins and editors to please look at this fully and take my comments on board and determine who has been telling the truth and acting appropriately through this affair by reference to the facts. No matter how many times they accuse me of being unable or incapable or unworkable it does not make it the truth. No matter how many times they plant suggestions of disruption, COI, SPA, etc etc it does not make it the truth. No matter how insulting or personally invidious they are to me it does not make their assertions true. As stated previously, multiple times, the article Clarawood is now factually wrong in multiple places, misreferenced in multiple places and in breach of copyright in multiple places. This has only got worse with each edit done by those supposedly "helping" and "fixing" it. This is because the sum total of knowledge most of them have about Clarawood was drawn from the article itself (though I have reason to suspect there are some who actually do and did have agendas to change the page from the outset to fit with their personal views of the estate). Stating this does not make me uncooperative or demonstrate that I have ownership issues, it demonstrates - as it has all along - that I am rightly concerned about the integrity of the article and of Wikipedia. What is the correct position to take here? Support someone who was attacked unjustly and was a victim of lack of process and disruption themselves and allow them to leave the article they wrote in a factual, referenced and legal state? Or support those who have wildly and blankly accused them of practically everything they could accuse them of (without evidence to back any of it up) and leave the article breaching copyright, factually wrong and misreferenced? The answer is also not to delete the article, the article was fine until the recent vandalising. I STILL hope that someone with a bit of clout and sense will look into this fully, see what has gone on here and resolve things to the satisfaction of all, with all accepting things in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration which Wikipedia is supposed to typify. I have tried to follow procedure to allow this to happen, next stage will most likely be arbitration Clarawood123 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Clarawood123, I can see why they are so frustrated with you. You are really so self - absorbed that you cannot see what is happening right here in front of your nose. No, the next step will NOT be arbitration. The next step will be your editing privileges will be permanently revoked. Arbitration is for intractable issues the community cannot solve. You are rapidly assisting the community in solving this, and the solution will be you are site banned. This isn't a court. You have no rights here. If you are site banned, which is what is on the table and seemingly ruling the day, you will never be allowed to edit here again. So just exactly who do you envision is going to file an arbitration case? John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.... You do realize you're digging a very big hole for yourself ..... Instead of "everyone's vandalizing this" and I'm going to Arbcom" etc etc, What you really need to be saying is something along the lines of "I've learned from my mistakes and they won't be repeated" or "I'll communicate with everyone better", To be absolutely honest I've been pondering on whether or not to oppose the siteban however you're making it extremely difficult for anyone to keep you here and it's clearly obvious you're not going to change your ways which makes the siteban all the more appropriate it, You really need to think about your actions and words from hereon in. –Davey2010Talk15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose ban A ban is not appropriate for good faith editing. Having reviewed the disputes on the page, I am shocked that a ban would be suggested. "The next step" will be whatever it will be, and no one here can yet say what that will be until a consensus is taken, and at this point, consensus is divided. "No rights"? What strange talk this is -- All have rights until it is shown that they abused those rights. Clarawood123 (talk·contribs), please be explicit here about the copyright violations you allege. Grammar's Li'l Helper08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WURT (Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team) has issued a press release to British newspapers about bias and bullying on Wikipedia. It refers to the Clarawood article as an example. WURT is angry about the unjust treatment of Clarawood123 but it has no connection with Clarawood123. Keep an eye on the newspapers. Ispitinyourgravy (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you felt the need to create an account ten minutes ago to tell us that...? Cheers :) 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Not to be confused with WERT (Wikipedia Extraordinary Rodent Ticklers), which despite public pressure, has remained conspicuously silent on the issue. TimothyJosephWood10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose site ban C'mon folks, are we really serious about a site ban for a newbie (account created Feb 4th 2016). Yes they are showing signs of ownership, yes they are argumentative, yes they post irritating "walls of words". But what I am sensing here is that just a couple of editors have got extremely frustrated with this and are lashing out with a subsequent pile on. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appearance of the OP at this noticeboard. It would be totally draconian to impose a site ban, especially under a boomerang. Imagine what message that sends to other newbies here. I suspect Clarawood123 has learned a lot from this experience. ( By the way user:Clarawood123, do NOT go to arbcom - you will almost certainly regret it if you do.) I suggest this is closed with no action taken. Clarawood123 would benefit from some advice, perhaps from a friendly admin, and if they transgressed again, we could easily start to think about imposing sanction then. DrChrissy(talk)21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose. Site bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not for cases such as these. Clarawood123, I recommend you be careful here and not inadvertently dig yourself deeper. Arbcom will not improve the situation, trust me. Maybe a mentorship or some advice from a more experienced editor? GABHello!23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wayyyy too soon for a site ban. With only 96 edits, no block log, and only for ownership issues and promotional edits (nothing that is egregiousorgrossly against Wikipedia policies) - there is much that can be done before we even speakofbanning someone in this situation. We could offer mentorship or assistance to this user first. If things get worse and/or it becomes necessary, blocks can/should be imposed. If, after multiple blocks and repeated consistent issues continue to occur (to where WP:NOTHERE or other guidelines can be reasonably applied), only then should a ban be considered in this situation. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This report is about user User:RaffiKojian vandalizing page 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and using the page's talk for personal attacks against me.
Several times he changed [10] the background section of the article without discussing it on talk page. In two different sections [11][12] on talk page I clarified myself. However he did not respond me in each case instead he accused me of editwarring and calling other users to take action against me. He continuously deletes my other contributions to article without discussing on talk.
My arguments were followings:
The main reason for clashes stem from continuing Armenian occupation and 600.000 Azeris displaced because of the Armenian Agression as it stated in the refernces from UN. I see some users just call all refernced information as propaganda and remove it.
The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan is distantly relevant to Azeris from Karabakh expelled by Armenian forces. And it does not overlap with the pervious sentences in the paragraph. So I suggest mention Azeri refugges only. Otherwise we need to take Azeris from Armenia as well. Thanks.
This may call for a boomerang. Abbatai has displayed a reluctance of taking into consideration the overwhelming disapproval of his edits at the talk page. He has continued to edit-war incessantly and this is a cause for concern. The thread below highlights many of these reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there was a pretty good consensus... everybody was in agreement except you. You determined that your belief that Azeri refugees are more relevant and deserved a more prominent position, and ignored the consensus that this wasn't a good enough reason. --RaffiKojian (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "everybody" you mean pro-Armenian users. However nobody responded me in talk page as I cited. Where did you reach the consensus? Abbatai20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know their positions, and how can you say nobody responded to you?? 2 others wrote concerned with your reversions and POV, one of those two and a third user reverted your edits, a fourth said neither is more important, and a fifth user (TipToe) said he preferred both numbers be removed, not just the Armenians. These comments took place in the two sections in the talk page that I named after you. You've replied to them with nothing more than your belief that Azeri IDP are more important, so you've definitely seen the two consecutive sections about you I'm talking about here and here. You at no point stopped reverting the original wording in order to have any real discussion or reach a consensus. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the first section you cited, you provided no reliable reason for your edits just accused me of edit war. and in the second even I explained it clearly via saying "This is an Armenian source says: 71,000 internally displaced ethnic Armenians live in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. These refugees, along with hundreds of thousands of Armenians, were expelled from their homes in 1988-91, prior to the full-scale war in Karabakh.[19] CIA: Refugees and internally displaced persons: IDPs: 622,892 conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh[20]". However you did not respond it either. Abbatai05:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think all of the edits in question concern the addition or removal of content which is actually off-topic for the subject of the article. The "Background" section is just meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the 2016 clashes themselves, not an abbreviated rehash of the entire history and prehistory of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I have been bold and deleted this off-topic material [21]. I hope my edit remains, that the Background section can then be expanded with legitimate content for the subject of the article, and that everyone will realize that this is an easier solution than arguing about content that really does not need to be in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that in the background section the number of Azerbaijani refugees was listed, but not the Armenian, so I added the number of Armenian refugees which is also a part of the background to what is going on. Abbatai, immediately switched the order so that the number of Azeri refugees came first - without comment. I reverted to the original wording, asking for a reason and for discussion on the talk page, which he eventually provided in the form of explanation you give above, which neither I nor anyone else agreed with. Me and a couple of others reverted his swap, but he kept going, even though I asked for a real Wikipedia reason to swap the numbers, not his own invented rationalization. I brought it up on the talk page for others to see his edit warring behavior as well. At some point he just removed the Armenian refugee figure completely, again without discussion or consensus. There was no other reasoning ever presented, nor was there ever a break in his reversions. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that he would be the one reporting my behavior, when he was clearly going against the consensus and not willing to talk anything out. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what I just wrote - I went to look at the two links he shared here where he supposedly explained his actions in this case. The first referenced someone removing the number of Azeri refugees completely, which was not me and I don't see how that comment of his could be considered an explanation for his bringing the number of Azeri refugees ahead of the number of Armenian. The second link he provided has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait did you just said "At some point he just removed the Armenian refugee figure completely, again without discussion or consensus."? I advise you to read talk page. I invited you several times to discuss the issue in talk page but in none of sections I wrote you replied to me. See [22][23] and here [24] I clarified myself why Armenian refugees should not be includes as such: "This is an Armenian source says: 71,000 internally displaced ethnic Armenians live in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. These refugees, along with hundreds of thousands of Armenians, were expelled from their homes in 1988-91, prior to the full-scale war in Karabakh.[25] CIA: Refugees and internally displaced persons: IDPs: 622,892 conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh[26]" Again I had no response from you. I do not say what I wrote was absolute truth and it was must for article. However I invited you to discuss it on talk several times you just ignored it and kept pushing your POV [27][28]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that. My mistake, you said you suggest the Armenian refugees should be removed, and then you removed them. Even as me and a couple of others were disputing that the Azeri figure should be moved forward in the article. It's your POV opinion that the Azeri IDPs are more relevant than Armenian refugees who had to flee Azerbaijan should be listed before the Armenians, and your even more POV opinion that Armenian refugees who did not settle in Karabakh are completely irrelevant and should be left out of the article. This is what was said in the talk page to you and in the edit summaries. You need a valid Wikipedia reason to make the changes you were making. You can't just say that the Armenian refugees aren't relevant, but the Azeris are, especially when multiple people are disagreeing with you and you just remove it anyway. I did not ignore it, I discussed it both in the Talk page under two sections I created with your username in them, and in my edit summaries in the beginning, before it was clear you did not care one bit what anyone else thought. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already disproved your claim ("I did not have any valid reason") in my previous post just check it. You could not have any valid argument except accusing me of edit war. If you did not agree with the information I provided better you would discuss it on talk page not reverting the page multiple times. Abbatai20:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we had to deal with. Yes Abbatai, you already *told* us that Azeri refugees are more important and relevant and Armenians are not. We get it. We just wanted a real, NPOV reason, but that apparently is asking too much. Let it go. --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it on talk page why? Azerbaijani refugees were from Karabakh where the conflict happened and they left their homes because of Karabakh War. However Armenian refugees were from Azerbijan and they become refugee prior to Karabakh War as a result of Armenian-Azeri tension. That is why they are distantly relevant to what is happening in Karabakh. You failed to respond it and never interested in discussing the topic instead you only started a topic claiming: "Abbatai is edit warring" in which you had only accusations against me. In this section as well I invited you to discuss refugges. Abbatai08:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello in each case I invited the users to discuss it on talk before changing however I had no respond on talk page. See [49][50] it is absurd those users report me now instead of discussing the issue with me at talk in two different sections. Plus some pro-Armenian users remove referenced information the page needs some action by admins. Thanks Abbatai18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Abbatai, listing the Madrid Principles as you have is not supportive of the issue. Your clearly stated Anti-Armenian positions betrays your biased view. My advice is to step back from the argument, as Nationalist Agendas are not supported on WP. I do agree, however, with your concerns of the Armenian newspapers having an agenda that should not be supported on WP either, as the reliability of such source material, Armenian or Azerbaijan, actually being correct is extremely doubtful. All involved need to source reliable independent Journalistic reviews of the conflict. Nuromsg me01:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Madrid principles was misused in the article at the beginning just one side of story "self-governance of Karabkah" was mentioned ignoring other parts. I had include what it clearly says. Do not get what is wrong with this. Abbatai10:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I consider that all of the edits in question concern the addition or the removal of content which is actually off topic for the subject of the article. The "Background" section is just meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the 2016 clashes themselves, not rehash the entire history and prehistory of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I have been bold and deleted this off-topic material [51]. I hope my edit remains, that the Background section can then be expanded with legitimate content for this subject, and that both sides (if there are sides) will realize this is a better solution than arguing about content that really does not need to be there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I partially agree with you. The paragraph can be reduced to a few sentences. However you miss lots of points. The things you mentioned on talk: “Aggressive rhetoric by Azerbaijan, something of the previous clashes, military spending and procurement of advanced weaponry by both sides" they all stem from de facto independence of NKR and occupation of Azerbaijan. The entire world except Armenia and NKR call Armenian persistence in Azerbaijan as occupation and UN called withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan several times. Technically all is happening within Azerbaijani territories. And 600,000 to 1 million Azerbaijani refugees are core point as it changed demographic of NKR drastically. Indeed this clashes stem from ethnic conflicts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. So ignoring that facts makes hard to understand why all this happened. Thanks Abbatai18:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are now raising content issues about what post-1994-ceasefire pre-2016 clashes material should be added to the Background section. If you were to stop arguing about what pre-1984 material from the main articles, material that these core articles can handle better, should be picked out for inclusion in this article, and recognize that none of that material is really needed since a link to the main articles' suffices, them maybe we can start to discuss what the post ceasefire background content should consist of. Because of all the editing disruption concerning pre-ceasefire material, no such discussion has been possible so far. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, you certainly did not invite anyone to discuss anything before you swapped the order to bring the number of Azeri refugees forward. You also never gave a real Wikipedia reason for it, merely stating your opinion that Azerbaijani refugees were more relevant than Armenian refugees. A blatantly POV explanation. I asked you to stop, I asked for discussion, I changed the wording, you did not care. Azeris has to come first. Even though at least 3 people disagreed with you and reverted your POV edit, you just kept reverting it back, and eventually completely removed the Armenian refugees without any discussion. That's just plain vandalism, and I also pointed that out on the talk page. You just don't care. --RaffiKojian (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another groundless accusation by User:RaffiKojian. I did invite you just check this: (See talk background/ background refugees sections)[52] Please do not change before discussing it at talk.)[53] and so on. And Baking Soda just deleted [54] sourced information I added the article and accuses me here. Getting funny. Abbatai15:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article R2-45 links directly to an external web source (tonyortega.org) that (according to the text on that page) carries a unauthorized 3-minute excerpt from a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard, copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. My understanding is that this violates WP:ELNEVER. That article also links to a shorter recording on Wikileaks.
The local editors accept that copyright is claimed on the material,[55] but they revert my edit when I remove the links. They argue, under various theories, that the Church of Scientology cannot enforce copyright on the materials.[56][57] They also argue that linking is OK if it is for a different purpose.[ibid:"for the purposes of commentary"] The editors involved are Damotclese (talk·contribs), Slashme (talk·contribs), Feoffer (talk·contribs), and Prioryman (talk·contribs). When I removed the link, I was "warned" by an opposing editor that my insistence on following WP:POLICY on this and other issues is "continued tendentious editing".[58]Damotclese (talk·contribs) also copy/pasted a complete Scientology document (purported) into the talk page,[59] in disregard of WP:COPYVIO, to support some point of argument with another editor. These actions suggest some or all of these editors are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to promote a particular view of the subject. NB: I do not represent Scientology, and I have no personal knowledge of the genuineness of those recordings. They may be false (in which case they are fraud or forgery) and they may be true (in which case they violate WP policy on copyright). Whether false or true, the content is inappropriate and against WP policy for external links. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed article now includes a "non-free" scanned image from a copyright Scientology magazine uploaded by Feoffer (talk·contribs)[60]. This should be considered a separate but related issue -- that is, each instance of suspected copyvio should be considered separately. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Church of Scientology is an organization, they have the ability to claim copyrights on documents and restrict their reference or use by others. If the document is copyrighted and the tonyortega.org source is violating that copyright, the source should be removed from the article per WP:ELNEVER. This also applies to the wikileaks source (and honestly, I wouldn't reference anything from Wikileaks if I were writing an article). I wouldn't think that the removal of a reference that potentially violates Wikipedia's external links and copyright policies would constitute as a violation of any discretionary sanctions on an article. However, if articles under the subject of Scientology are under 1RR restrictions, then removing and restoring the sources back-and-fourth is a very bad idea. The question I have is... are these documents actually under a copyright that restricts the use of those sources? My first thought is yes and these sources should be removed.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright isn't a black and white argument. There is WP:NFCC and WP:Fair use to consider. If the material provides the best context for the education of the reader, it can be used. I haven't read the article or the diffs, I'm simply pointing out that "It's copyrighted" it's the end-all to this question.--v/r - TP23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora:WP:NFCC #8 is the most subjective criteria of them all. Needs a discussion regarding it on the talk page. Although, I tend to agree with you. NFCC #8 is met when the article is about the NFC and the context of the NFC cannot be described in a suitable way without the NFC.--v/r - TP23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: Ignoring NFCC #8 it still runs afoul of NFC#UUI #15 (a pretty clear cut unacceptable use). I'm going to put it to FFD as soon as I'm done with one other thing (if someone else doesn't get to it first). --Majora (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up. I started a FFD discussion on the image. As for the external links, unless we can prove for certain that the person has permission to post that video it is pretty much like posting a potentially pirated YouTube video. As such, it is my opinion that the link should be removed citing WP:ELNEVER. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As@Feoffer: says, this is a short excerpt of a much longer speech, and it's very clearly fair-use: it's the historical figure who created the topic of the article mentioning it in a lecture. It gives just enough of the speech for the hearer to understand clearly in what context it is being used there. Without hearing the explanation leading up to him mentioning "R2-45" you get the impression that he's just talking about shooting people, but this way you can understand that, yes, he's saying that "R2-45" means shooting someone, but here he's explaining that in his belief system, killing someone is just a very basic way of making the spirit leave the body. Saying that we can't link to an external site because it contains a 3 minute extract from a lecture that lasted an hour or more is a bit extreme. --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but let's be clear about this: this is just an excuse being made by Sfarney to remove this source from the article. It is being used in the article to discuss US government papers published by Ortega relating to the topic of the article - not as a source for the lecture in question. He has only latched on to this copyright claim after (1) attacking Ortega's personal qualities in various places on Wikipedia; (2) claiming that WP:BLP applies either to L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology as a whole - an organization that claims 6 million members, 2 million more than the entire US federal government; (3) that the lecture shouldn't be used as a source because it's paywalled; (4) that a Church of Scientology publication shouldn't be cited because it is somehow "original research"; and (5) that the recording he's claiming is a copyright violation isn't genuine anyway. (Quite a turnaround, that!) In short, this is part of an ongoing campaign of tendentious obstructionism relating to this particular article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Describing your behavior isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. The ANI bearpit isn't the appropriate place to review your behavior in detail. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) In Wikipedia, all "statements of fact" are supported with links and references; (2) ANI is not universally considered a "bearpit"; (3) This is very much an appropriate place to review my conduct; and (4) When an issue comes before the ANI, the conduct of all involved editors comes under review. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal attack to point out Sfarney has been on an extended campaign to remove material originating from Ortega and has taken to many venues to complain about our usage of Ortega as a source. The claiming that Ortega is a copyright infringer is but one in a long series of allegations cited as reason to scrub his reporting from the project. Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal attack to accuse me of running contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, but fail to provide the diffs to support the accusations. In this most recent case, if a diff were provided, the administrators could fairly judge whether I have accused Ortega of "infringing" on copyright, and they would find I have not. I do not know whether Ortega's recording is the genuine item. But as stated above, if it is not, it is fraud or forgery (or perhaps satire) and we should not link to it. If it is, we violate WP:ELNEVER if we link to it. Wikipedia has different rules from Ortega. We live by our rules, Ortega by his, whatever they might be. The only question before the ANI at this time is whether the R2-45 article violates Wikipedia's policies on copyright, as stated above. If you wish to broaden this question to other issues, follow the rules for discussion on this page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist Tony Ortega included a 3 minute excerpt of a much longer lecture for the purposes of reporting and commentary.[61] Ortega was Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice, his usage of the audio clip is in his reporting is certainly "in a way compliant with fair use". Feoffer (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tell more than half the truth. According to the Observer, Ortega was asked to leave his position at the Voice in 2012: “He was increasingly obsessed with Scientology and had neglected almost all of his editorial duties at the paper,” the ex-staffer said. “Sometimes he wouldn’t even edit features.”[62] We would not want that obsession to spill over into Wikipedia such that we forget our own policies about copyright, neutrality, advocacy, and verifiability. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is Ortega's job performance at the Village Voice relevant to the copyright status of the external link on this article? --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Sfarney has been smearing Ortega in various places around Wikipedia to try to make a case that he shouldn't be used as a source. It's part of a pattern of bad editing that should earn him a topic ban under the arbitration sanctions currently in force in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the first person to bring up Village Voice was in fact Feoffer who appeared to be trying to use it to give credence to Tony Ortega. It seems to be a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either both are relevant or neither are. Which means it's difficult to criticise Sfarney for bringing it up in this particular instance as it was a resonable response to Feoffer's comment. The alternative option would be to suggest Tony Ortega's previous position at the Village Voice is irrelevant point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's irrelevant either way. None of the content we're discussing relates to the Village Voice, so there is no point bringing it up. Prioryman (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no personal attack (as considered by wikipedia) on the authors of sources in this discussion. If the statement is true, it's as I said above, an acceptable comment in the context of this discussion. If it's not true, it's majorly wrong, but still not a personal attack. To be fair, I'm not sure if anything said on contributions is necessarily a personal attack either (although I only really read this subpart of the discussion), but it's significantly closer to one than anything said about authors of sources. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there isn't yet a clear consensus, so let's make sure that we're aligned on a clear question: is it acceptable to link to a site which includes an embedded YouTube video of a three-minute excerpt from a lecture that is over an hour long, or does that violate WP:ELNEVER? --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked them for engaging in intimidation. If they agree to stop using legal intimidation then I am happy to unblock, and I have let them know that. I have also asked them what their specific concerns are so we can take a look. HighInBC15:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please unblock them. They were not making a legal threat. Indeed, they said they "have no grounds to take legal action." What they said, basically, was it's bad to publish a hatchet job and it exposes both the WMF and the responsible editors to possible real and punitive damages. These things are true. Just point them to the bit in WP:NLT that warns them about using words like "defamation" and the reasons why that's a bad idea. What possible good is your block doing? People have a right to describe BLP content as defamatory, and to point out the risks involved in writing and publishing defamation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment[63] was clearly designed to intimidate through a legal threat. And as for your "people have a right to..." comment, no. They do not. Not here. They are free to create their own web page and say what they want there and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we won't care. But if they want to post comments on Wikipedia they must follow Wikipedia's rules, which include "no legal threats". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people do in fact have a right to describe potentially defamatory content as such. That is not in itself a legal threat or improper use of wikipedia talkspace.·maunus · snunɐɯ·16:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of WP:DOLT. Vermicious Knids? was pointing out possible defamation, but, in stating they contacted Wikimedia's legal department and requesting "any editors involved in these actions be stricken from any further editing and access to Wikipedia now an in the future", they created a chilling effect that came across as a legal threat. All that's needed here is an explanation to the user that articles can be cleaned up by bringing up concerns on the talk page or at theBLP noticeboard. clpo13(talk)16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overt legal threat, maybe not, but intimidation, certainly: "I have sent a certified letter to the legal department at Wikipedia notifying them of the intent of those on this page to defame a notable person, which exposes Wikipedia and its principles and any editors involved in potentially dangerous actions that can lead ultimately to damages both real and punitive. I assure you that they will review this and take action so any further actions regarding posting of negative reviews editorials and opinions that have no real purpose except to damage a notable person be noted and removed, and any editors involved in these actions be stricken from any further editing and access to Wikipedia now an in the future." Those are strong implications. GABHello!16:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a legal threat, that's running to mummy. That's, "I'm going to tell the WMF that you're being really shitty editors, and you're going to be in big trouble." And so they should be if the article is a hatchet job. Read. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought. Why not ping WMF legal to this conversation? I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if they received such a letter they would apply an office Block to the OP. Pretty clearly you can either edit here or take legal action not both. Sending certified mail demanding some action be taken is a common first step to legal action. Seems right to me. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It would certainly qualify as a legal threat, EXCEPT it's being directed at Wikipedia itself, not to an external entity. It could just be a bluff, but a few years ago a user named Xanderliptak successfully intimidated the Wikimedia folks into doing his bidding, despite his complaint being bogus. So be careful. Be sure the article's sourcing will pass rigorous examination. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making legal threats merely notifying you of the potential legal ramifications of blatant bias and how it could expose you and Wikipedia to legal action. Please bring it up to the Administrators. This is informational and I cannot threaten anyone as I have no grounds to take legal action.[64] cannot reasonably be considered a legal threat. NE Ent17:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of WP:NLT is to prevent the use of overt intimidation to coerce changes to content or exert a chilling effect on other editors. It is impossible to see these comments as anything other than coercive. We block for that. We have a route for people with genuine legal concerns to contact WMF and the editing community, i.e. OTRS. And if people get blocked then clarify that this is not what they meant, they get unblocked. I really do not see why we should argue over the letter of the meaning of the word "threat" when the clear intent of the policy has been met in this way. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the comments implied attempts to coerce. If the user clarifies this was not the intent then they can be refactored and clarified and the user the unblocked. Protecting the project against coercion has, IMO, a higher priority than enabling a WP:SPA to continue pursuing an agenda. All things considered, this is a user with a couple of years of history of doing fuck all but promoting a quack. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before unblocking, someone should find out if he really did contact Wikimedia attorneys or if it was just a bluff. Xanderliptak was never unblocked after running to those same attorneys, nor should he have been. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Do I seriously need to say this?) It's not a blockable offence to complain to the WMF that editors are defaming people and ask that those editors be sanctioned. My last word on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." — Tim Simonite, Technology Review[65]
does far more damage, long term, than the "intimidation" caused because someone send a letter to WMF legal. Yea, sure this particular editor may not be of great benefit to the project, but a policy of blocking every SPA -- we were all "SPA"s after our first edit -- sends a message "newcomers need not apply." Not good. NE Ent23:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say. I disagree: reliability is important, ans SPAs who are here to promote quacks are a resourse which has a massive excess of supply over demand. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course reliability is important and I didn't say "don't block pov editors (spa or not)" -- what I did say is a policy of blocking every SPA is counterproductive, especially when they're not violating policy. "I am not going to sue" is not a legal threat. "I discussed something the WMF legal team" is not a legal threat. Block persistent vandals and trolls and edit warriors and doxers, don't block a newbie because they don't grok the wiki-bureaucracy in the first day. NE Ent23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing that we're Wikilawyering over the definition of a legal threat :-) This commentary form the user was clearly intended to coerce, and that IMO was the problem. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonyhcole: "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." The intention of the user was not in need of clarification The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect. It described a desired outcome, it spoke of taking action. We don't allow intimidation here, legal or otherwise. To do so would compromise our neutral point of view.
This recent trend towards tolerating legal threats(carefully worded or otherwise) does not serve our project or our editors. I also don't think it enjoys consensus. I think the block is valid and it should stand until the user agrees not to engage in future intimidation. If they agree to this very reasonable standard then I have no objection to the block being reverse with a close eye kept on them.
Good Block even assuming that the user didn't intend to issue a legal threat or to make a chilling statement (which is the substance of WP:NLT) the username they chose is one of a species of villains in a children's book. Based on the pointy username they chose and that they went for specific language and then went retroactively to shade it to be not as bad, but the chilling effect is done. If the Legal Office does see merit in addressing the user's complaints, they'll address it. I'd prefer that the user not be unblocked for the Pointy/Disruptive editing that they've already engaged in. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I attempted to BOLDLY redacted the post for readability by removing a multitude of bullets above and below the text under discussion here. Somehow it seems my edit overlapped with another resulting in the inadvertent removal of a lot of text. I repaired it as soon as I noticed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have unblocked User:Vermicious Knids? based on their agreement not to engage in intimidation legal or otherwise. As far as I am concerned this is more than enough for them to return to editing here. I have advised them on a more appropriate way to make their concerns known. HighInBC14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP revdel on the Gamergate Talk page
Discussion
I am asking for a review for a revdel made on the Gamergate Talk page. The edit was made by MarkBernstein, who has since been topic-banned (not for this edit or anything directly related to this). It is verbatim, a passage from the Washington Post article, so cannot be deemed "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for BLP removals without consensus. Ironically, the passage which was redacted is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations. I am not even allowed to refer to what it was about, since my edit was also revdeled. The link to the Washington Post article is here. The relevant passage starts with: There is, to be clear.
Various rationales have been advanced on the talk page (see discussion here), but none of them stand up to scrutiny. IMO, this is a wild overreaction. The normalization of this kind of overreaction and weaponization of BLP on the talkpage has poisoned discussion and led to lots of strife, both pro- and anti-GG, for more than a year. Anyone who has engaged in discussion on WP knows how aggravating it is to have your comments refactored or redacted, by people who you don't particularly like. It's time this behaviour was rolled back. Kingsindian♝♚11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or anything else unrelated to development of the encyclopedia. Is someone suggesting an article should include mention of the person named in the linked article? What is the purpose of posting the link other than because we can? Editors should stick to discussion of actionable proposals that might plausibly improve the article, not prolong the agony of gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite unclear on what criteria are used to determine when to delete a revision on that talk page. Further, the practice of deleting verifiable information about claims which are relevant to (oralready in) the article from the talk page is infantilizing. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPTALK is quite clear that where potentially problematic BLP info is *being discussed for inclusion in the article* a link to the source that will be used as a reference should be included on the talk page. Pasting an except from the source is not required (or even recommended if it turns out it is an issue) likewise if the material is not actually going to be included in the article at all then there is no need to discuss it on the talk page. From looking (briefly) at the talkpage, it looks like this is a case of the latter rather than the former. Washington Times (a reliable source) excerpt pasted by Mark Bernstein, no actual discussion for anything to be included into the article, so its basically pasting BLP-sensitive material for no purpose. It probably should have been removed and rev-del' unless there actually is going to be a discussion about incorporating it into the article. Then a link to the material should remain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is so clear. Here's what BLPTALK has to say "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." I cannot interpret that as an injunction against talking about it there, considering how much was on the talk page about the subject before. And given that amount of discussion, we shouldn't expect that the content would never appear on the page. If it were to appear, how would editors working on a contentious topic discuss the changes to the page, the author's meaning or the veracity of the claims without running afoul of that interpretation? Protonk (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well its not an injunction not to talk about it. The point is that you talk about it *if you are attempting to work it into the article* - I cant see that anyone was. It was just Bernstein doing his usual soapboxing - which is why I support it being removed on that basis. If it was intended to be a proposal to incorporate it into the article, it should have been linked to and discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about this edit, correct? Sure, it's turned up to 11 and what-not, but the underlying ask seems clear to me. As I say below, they contrast it with an extant source in an ongoing discussion about how/if the subject should be portrayed in the article. How is that not a reasonable interpretation? Protonk (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The revdel was appropriate. The content included highly defamatory material about a living person. Just because some newspaper decides to publish unsubstantiated rubbish doesn't mean we can repeat it when not particularly relevant. Wikipedia era on the side of protecting the reputations of living people. Mark was trying to make a point, but in the process exposed this defamatory material. It would be sufficient to say Gamergqte tactics include opposition research and publication of unsubstantiated claims. It is not acceptable to repeat the unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia. Our standards are higher than many newspapers. JehochmanTalk13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Horseapples. On what planet does that article contain defamatory material? I guess if we jumble the words in the article and re-arrange them to recreate the defamation the article was discussing that could work. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically the linked Washington Post article does repeat allegations about a living person *which if untrue* would be highly defamatory. However it would not be Wikipedia defaming the subject, it would be the people making the allegations. The Washington Post would probably get a free ride too given they are merely reporting said allegations. But I repeat, unless any of this is actually going to be incorporated into the article (which it could theoretically be, given the subject was fired from her job after allegedly a long period of harrassment by Gamergate) it shouldnt be on the talkpage at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I edit conflicted w/ a reply above that might related here. There was and is talk page discussion about the subject, so inclusion of the material is not a remote consideration. And I'm not clear on your meaning about the Post. We make countless claims on this encyclopedia that if false would be defamatory. To justify this, we rely on sources like the post as a matter of course. I'm not saying quoting out the gate is the right route. BLPTALK (as you say) warns against it. But certainly redaction of the quotes is strongly preferable to deleting the material from history. Especially since if you read the comment from beginning to end it's clearly about including the material in the article and makes references to ongoing discussions about a different source they feel is inferior on the same subject. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah clearly I didnt read up far enough on the talkpage as I was stopping at Kingsindian's posts where he states that it wasnt about including it in the article. Since concensus already existed to remove the material from the article, revdel'ing what is clearly a BLP1E issue on the talkpage where no one is actually having a current discussion to include it still isnt that bad. (I get the feeling from the above talkpage discussion that the only person really for inclusion was Bernstein, and given his anti-GG viewpoint, unsurprising). Personally I would have just archived the lot which would be complaint with the BLP policy, but some people are more zealous about it. Re to Kingsindian below: If it isnt being currently discussed to go into the article, then it really shouldnt be on the talkpage. This isnt problematic in 99% of articles. It is potentially problematic with regards to living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To some of the comments above. Nobody said anything about free speech, so that is a red herring. Also, the discussion is about discussion on the talkpage, not the article. I find the standard that "if it shouldn't be in the article, it shouldn't be on the talkpage" rather silly. Nobody uses such a standard: otherwise 99% of the talk page history would consist of revdels. And please don't make me laugh with the claim that Wikipedia's standards of defamation are higher than the Washington Post. Not to mention that there is nothing defamatory in the paragraph: it is literally the opposite of defamatory; it is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations.
The main point is that WP:BLP is not a micromanaging tool to get rid of stuff one doesn't like. The effect of such (arbitrary) redactions is to inflame matters and confuse people. The redaction was a tit-for-tat action against an earlier redaction. This kind of stuff has to end. Follow policy as written and roll back the new normal. Kingsindian♝♚14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Protonk: In fairly adequate experience in the Israel-Palestine area, I have found that in most discussions, most people don't change their mind. This format of "Discussion" and "Survey" is routine in RfCs I have participated in. I have reverted to the format. I meant to do this from the beginning, but forgot. There is no harm in it anyway. The closer would take it all into account. Kingsindian♝♚15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose revdel if for no other reason doing so might cause, at some later point, the same thing to be discussed again. Having a record visible of exactly what was discussed, and, presumably, found not worthy for inclusion makes it less likely that similar discussion on the same topic will be actively initiated in the future. If the source were a more questionable or less reliable one, then, maybe, I could see some point in removing it, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case here. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: The first revdel removed a single word; the second a quote from an external source that was (and still is) linked in the discussion. I don't think those two removals make the discussion unclear—they simply avoid the allegations being repeated onwiki until a consensus is formed about whether it should be included in the article. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what question this is a survey of. Whether or not an edit is violating BLP policy is a judgment call by an administrator and shouldn't be a matter put to a vote. If an admin believes the specific content maligns an individual's reputation and has no place in an article, they remove it. If you have a specific complaint about this particular rev-del, I'd take the issue to admin responsible for the action. If you are interested in a meta or policy discussion about whether the interpretation of BLP these days is too broad, I'd go to the policy talk page or the Village Pump, not ANI. LizRead!Talk!01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view the deleted revision but I looked at the Washington Post article and it seems fine to me. BLP1E is about whether to write an article about a person, not about revdelling a link on a talk page. For one thing, BLP1E deletions are usually done after a week-long community discussion at AfD with the article visible during the discussion, not unilaterally by admins at their whim before anyone sees what happened. It's hard for me to understand how this revdel is justified. I'm open to persuasion but I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation from the defenders. As someone who likes to look at page histories, I get that revdel is sometimes needed, and it doesn't bother me too much if occasional inappropriate revdels get through. But if they're being done too casually and not being restored when challenged, it contributes to a perceived tension between admins and users that sometimes gets remarked on here and that could potentially escalate various ways. It doesn't seem good. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Added: I'll have to look at some of the diffs given later. I won't be able to post again for the next few days. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katietalk17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming here as User:Chickensire refuses to stop his disruptive editing after a number of requests from other editors to use edit summaries, and to cite his sources. He also refuses to stop changing geocoordinates on cities. Update: It appears that this user has issues with communication. Assistance needed. --TJH2018talk23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not involved in the above dispute but I believe Chickensire has a long history of disruptive edits. Chickensire removed the child author category from Gordon Korman twice without an edit description or any other explanation: [67], [68]. I reverted the first edit and posted to his talk page here: [69], but Chickensire reverted again without an edit description. The replies on the talk page seemed nonsensical and disruptive. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that I find most if not all of Chickensire's edits to be unhelpful. This editor is an unfortunate combination of prolific, disruptive, and uncommunicative. Many of (his) edits consist of bizarre campaigns to change wikilinks in an inappropriate way (such as this one), calling for a lot of clean-up in his wake. He leaves no edit summaries, and any communication with him tends to be chaotic and irrational, as in this discussion. Erictalk19:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Long term disruption, with no meaningful response either on their Talk page or here, despite notification, calls for an indef. In the end we are looking at vandalism trying to fly below our radar. Time to pull the plug. Jusdafax11:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Titleblacklist addition request
I'd like to request an addition to the title blacklist. Sockpuppets of JellyfishFilms (see the SPI) have been perpetually recreating the exact same article about Domenick Nati, which was deleted after an AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Domenick Nati). So far, the titles Domenick L. Nati, Domenick Nati II, Domenick Nati Jr., and Domenick Nati have been deleted and salted (well, actually, Domenick L. Nati isn't salted yet, but the rest are), and Domenick Nati I is currently tagged for deletion. It's clear that this is not going to stop (asNati's twitter bio shows, he's very prideful about having a Wikipedia article), so I think the only way to settle this is to blacklist any combination of "Domenick" and "Nati"; that is, a regex like .*domenick.*nati.*. -IagoQnsi (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Titleblacklist entries are case-insensitive by default, so no need for the brackets. I suppose dropping the first .* is okay, though I foresee the article "Mr. Domenick Nati" being created after that. But I guess it can always be tweaked as needed. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been deeply aggrieved by an anonymous editor ViperSnake151 and I want to be completely removed from Wikipedia
I have tried my very best to contain my anger with ViperSnake151 and other anonymous "editors" who know nothing of me or my record and of my work and have chosen to stand in judgement without disclosing themselves. I find this intellectually disingenuous and immediate request that my page be taken down completely and not directed towards anywhere. This is not a collaborative process, this is a hatchet job and judgements made by people with too much time on their hands. I don't need this and won't stand for it. I want Edward Beck (psychologist) and Edward Beck (professor) removed because the editors are completely misrepresenting me, my body of work and my notoriety in my different arenas of achievement. I would rather have nothing listed here than something inaccurate. I hope I have made myself clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredbeck (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal. But unfortunately it is not your article; you are its subject, not its proprietor. As such, it stays (On edit as part of the Middle East Peace article, of course). Cheers, FortunaImperatrix Mundi12:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch: since this accout was 'created on 13 September 2006 at 08:58', the legal threat was made whilst logged out and editing as an IP... which is now blocked. FortunaImperatrix Mundi13:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) support. It's somewhat of a formality—he's already de facto banned anyway (no admin familiar with his behaviour is going to unblock him). In theory de factoorcommunity banned makes no difference, but in practice it's easier to have a formal ban discussion and the notice on the banned editor's userpage to point to, because recognition of a de facto ban hinges somewhat on familiarity with the case. Admittedly, in this case the SPI case page with its dozens-upon-dozens of socks serves much of the same role when it comes to having a place to point to (hence the "weak" part of my support), so the absence of the discussion-and-tag isn't a big deal in this case. Nonetheless, having them wouldn't hurt the 'pedia any. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for the reasons mentioned above. The socks can just be blocked as vandalism-only accounts, since the edits are either harassment or disruption and will be reverted anyhow. For a case like Nsmutte, a ban is more helpful, because their edits are not blatant vandalism. Still, I see no reason not to slap another notice onto the userpage. Note also that the stated master is definitely not the original master. GABHello!02:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to delete up to my edit to your talk page, the sections with the images were still visible when you edit the page, and are now visible when you see the diff where I remove them. -- The VoidwalkerDiscuss00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to request assistance from an uninvolved admin. I've never had to do this before. I just created an article on Douglas Self, an engineer and author regarded as an authority in audio electronics. Two minutes after creation, it was tagged for speedy del under WP:A7byDschslava (talk). I immediately contested this on the talk page. About 40 mins later, the article was deleted by Ronhjones (talk) whilst I was in the process of editing the article to add references confirming the subject's notability. I actually had an edit window open when it was deleted! As I explained on the talk page, the article had just been created and tagging it for speedy del within two mins seemed quick off the mark. In addition, I explained that five books, each 500-700 pages, published by Focal Press, a major publisher, must be a credible indication that the subject is significant and is likely to be notable.
I therefore feel:
The speedy del nomination was inappropriate and against policy. WP:CSD says Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. Given that it had only just been created, it is likely that it could be improved.
The actual deletion was also inappropriate and against policy. WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Given the age of the article (less than an hour) and my comments on the talk page, I can't see how it could be a 'most obvious case'.
I would therefore request that the article is reinstated so I (and others) can continue to edit and improve it. I confirm that I have notified the two users listed above with the ANI-notice template. SmilingFace (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)A one line article is often likely for speedy deletion, especially for a WP:BLP article - you will have plenty of editors watching and tagging. I've no objection to articles being written slowly, but in such cases it's best done in the WP:AfC system, where you won't get tagged. If you think you have enough content to make it safe by the time you log off, then I can restore it, just ask. Or I can move it to the AfC system for you. Ronhjones (Talk)22:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you have literally copied it to the user's sandbox, so from the history it looks as if you wrote it. As a matter of curiosity, why didn't you move the article to the sandbox to maintain the attribution? - David Biddulph (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I just woke up. And I see that he's gone ahead and recreated the article without addressing any of the problems. @SmilingFace:, the reason I copied the article to your sandbox was so that you could fix the problems before putting it back into article space. Do not recreate the article until it cites at least two independent reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, respectfully, the article that I recreated (I still had it in the edit window) and you deleted had FOUR references - it's not the version in my sandbox. It had been fixed! One of the refs was a mention of the subject on Circuit Cellar, a major electronics design website, and another a review of one of his books in Sound on Sound, a notable magazine. I would suggest that these both count as independent reliable sources. Please could you check exactly what you deleted. If you are genuinely unhappy with the refs on WP:RS grounds then please stick the correct version in my sandbox so I don't lose the work I did on it. Thanks. SmilingFace (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on your talk page, I moved the article to another draft space, and sources that are promoting or hosting his works are not independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not delete or speedy delete the article. I moved it to user space so that it could be improved, because in its current state it would not have made it through AfD. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson (talk) and Ronhjones (Talk), my concerns about your behavior remain. The article was tagged for speedy del under WP:A7, which references WP:CCS. Both specifically say that lack of notability is not grounds for deletion.
From WP:A7: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
From WP:CCS: Significance is a much lower standard than notability... 2.A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability. 3.Therefore, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as general notability guideline, music notability, or biography notability guidelines. 6.Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance.
If I'm missing something, please say, because I can't see how your actions were in accordance with policy. WP:CSD is clear and I believe you both violated it.
From WP:RRULE: ... Administrators must be diligent in observing the Reasonability Rule when enforcing policy. Is it reasonable to conclude, by using Wikipedia policies, that a particular article should be deleted? ...
The issue is the "credible claim of significance or importance". The subject has written five substantial non-fiction books released by a major publisher. These were listed in the article. We're not talking vanity press or fringe topics, but electronic engineering - serious mainstream stuff. And there was nothing contentious in the article that presented BLP issues requiring immediate attention.
I would suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that the subject's books are a credible claim of significance. I would also suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that his books are a plausible indication that additional research has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability. So, with respect, I can't see how your behavior was reasonable.
In addition, I can find no policy that says failure to meet WP:GNG is an automatic reason for immediate deletion. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is advice about new articles - WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. By all means AfD the article if you felt it was a lost cause, and then we could have a proper discussion.
As it stands, Cavrdg (talk) has posted some more refs on my talk page. I believe some of these, in addition with some of mine, will be sufficient to establish notability. So I will recreate the article, and we can work together to improve it, which is what Wikipedia is all about. SmilingFace (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not speedy deleted the article. I moved it to your user space because it would not have survived any of the other deletion processes. Please cite some of the references on your talk page in the article, because they do not affect things if they're just sitting on your talk page. It is less work (even for you) to simply add references to an article to establish notability than it is to look for policies, guidelines, and essays to argue that an article should exist without it. Trying to make an article stand on just rules means that (at best), people have to push the article through the AfD process, which not only means unnecessary work for previously uninvolved people, but also leaves citing sources as the only way to save the article (if an article does not meet GNG, no amount of arguing over rules can save it during AfD). The burden to provide evidence is on whoever makes a claim, and it is disruptive to make others go do one's own homework. Not that you have reached that point yet, and you are still clearly operating in good faith, but your post carries a sense that everyone else should be going through the heavy labor and red tape to prove that the article isn't up to snuff instead of you citing a couple more sources (which, you admit, have been dropped in your lap) just to make sure it meets minimum requirements.
OP warned by Acroterion for edit-warring. Remainder of the thread is a content dispute and some dubious speculation on aspects of Drmies. Neither of these require admin tools to resolve, so nothing more to be done here unless the edit-warring resumes. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've written a piece about MGM. Yes, a highly debatable subject. But I only used peer-reviewed articles and books for it. Still she is undoing everything I write about the subject. The subject has not been covered. There is an article about FGM, but not about MGM. Both are covered in medicine journals. She is also deleting it in the "Genital modification and mutilation". Please, ban her. Honestly, she doesn't like the topic. The subject is definitely important. And since I have only used peer-reviewed articles, I would say that she is definitely a vandal. And redirecting a whole article all the time, instead of starting a discussion about it, is against Wikipedia policy. Please ban her. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Drmies is a male person and not a vandal. Do you think that anyone who disagrees with your very pronounced point of view on circumcision must necessarily be female? Acroterion(talk)03:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Momo Monitor: There is an article on Circumcision, which is what you've given the biased label "male genital mutilation" and appear to be trying to conflate with other forms. Your attempted article is nothing but a WP:POVFORK. The existing circumcision article is based on a broader variety of sources and is closer to a neutral perspective than your soapboxing. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of filling out the paperwork I've placed an edit-warring note: I'll block Momo Monitor if the name-calling or edit-warring continue. Acroterion(talk)03:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The diatribes and edit-warring have stopped for the time being. I'm on the road tomorrow and Friday, so other folks should do what needs doing if this flares up again. Acroterion(talk)03:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly seem to have a bias towards me. I can't help it. Your opinion may be different from mine, that does not probably give you a licence to allege conflict of interest upon me. You started flagging all my articles as conflict of interest and that is unfounded. Yes, I am new on Wikipedia. I may have not been aware of some of the stuff that experienced users like you know. But that doesn't give you the right to do what you did. I have no interest if the articles stay or get deleted, but I don't appreciate an experienced user like you whimsically branding me for conflict of interest. We can work together and contribute, but not this kind of outbursts and targeting that you indulged in. AM (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AM I have been trying to just talk with you nicely at your Talk page to get you oriented. Please believe me, when I tell you that your sprinting from page to writing bad things about HVE is not helping you, nor anyone else, and it will not change the ultimate decision by the community about what to do with the articles you've created. You have probably noticed that no one is really reacting to your doing that, and it is not likely that anyone will. Will you please stop doing that, and just talk with me at your Talk page for a bit? I'll have something to say to HVE after you reply and hopefully agree to stop.... Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jytdog. Sure, delighted to talk and learn some new stuff here. I really don't have anything against HVE, but his logs are testimony of who started the fire. And I am not writing bad things about HVE. I am just reacting to HVE flagging me for conflict of interest. That is all. AM (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleymillermu (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! Ok, User:HappyValleyEditor AM is stopping so the fire is out, which i think was the point of your filing this. Filing this was a bit of meeting drama with drama, but ah well. Will you please agree to let this thread be closed now? Also would you please let the content be for now, while I finish talking to AM? That would be super helpful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jytdog for your intervention. I have stopped - but It is important for me to make one closing remark because of an impression that this talk is creating in the minds of others- This ANI notice against me was posted by the user with a claim that some bad names were slung at that user by me. I DID NOT indulge in any name calling. On the contrary the said user who is made this claim was the one who originally posted on public domain that articles written by me were - quoting from that user words "garbage". It is now for the community to decide if it is appropriate for someone to call someone else's writing as garbage and if it was appropriate for an experienced user to have put up this ANI notice to create an illusion that I had indulged in some name calling. Yes, due to my inexperience of how Wikipedia works, I had approached a few people who were on my talk page for help when my article was defaced and then subsequently it was explained to me what the correct approach was and to make amends I have infact written to all those who i had earlier written about this inadvertent overlook. And while this dialog process was happening, the same user goes ahead and makes further edits to my articles - which right now looks so incomplete and pathetic from what it was. Let the community decide if that is fair practice to indulge in. I wish to thank Jytdog for your patience and for explaining the various features that I am now discovering on Wikipedia AM (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced spoilers to Asia's Next Top Model by MusaGela25
I was not intentionally trying to disrupt the page. Please do not block me, I will just create a new page instead of editing the existing one. Sorry for the inconvenience
@165.230.225.30: If you are MusaGela25, you were warned multiple times to stop adding the spoilers, but you persisted with adding them. It's not plausible that you didn't know what you were doing was disruptive. As far as "creating a new page" is concerned, please make sure that you follow the policies at WP:YFA. Linguist 111talk16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User deliberately disrupting WP as a school assignment
Taylorxfrankel has severely disrupted the article Cornish language five times in the last days [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. By their own admission, Taylorxfrankel "has" to do this as part of a school assignment and intends to continue "I have to edit the wikipage for Cornish for a class I am taking this semester. Our assignment will be over by May 17th, so after that I will revert the changes"[86]. That's as big a WP:NOTHERE as it gets, so I suggest blocking this user who clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is clearly here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but has no idea how - which will not be solved by blocking or banning. The edit warring has to stop, however. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note for the student. I'll email the instructor. Our emphatic guidance for instructors is that they not grade on "what sticks" to avoid this exact scenario, but it's not uncommon for students to get flustered when they see material disappear. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for the Wiki-Ed projects, we need to be more careful how the editors and such are treated because we want to help them learn. Really, this applies to all editors, but there it is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the instructor (me) is well aware of this advice, and the student has registered along with her classmates through the Wiki Education Foundation portal, so the Content Experts there are also on top of the issue. I have written the student to remind her that I can see her past contributions as easily as anyone else can, and that I'm not necessarily grading her on the current iteration of the article but solely on her contributions to it. Not sure what else I can say at this point.Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck, perhaps it might be nice to make a note on the talk page of articles you are using so that the rest of us know what's going on? DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to this discussion from the article talkpage. I have also asked for the page protection template to be added to the article, as it has now been fully protected. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coule I say, with all due respect, that I find Nihonjoe's call to only allow administrator to edit the article to be a very bad call. I see no reason why serious users' should not be able to edit the article just because a new WP:SPA has edit warred on the article. Blocking all users from editing an article just because it's targeted by one single troublesome account is (fortunately) not the way we usually solve things here. Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. I'm not going to unprotect and start a wheel war, but I think blocks are a much better way to get the attention of someone who has to edit to pass a class. Katietalk19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the most prudent solution probably would have been to create a separate draft properly attributed based off the diff just before the class started and to let the student work off that. Even that could be done now with the proper attribution. When the term is over (or while it's going on), we can evaluate the content and merge it in with the proper attribution and redirect it later. It's no different than anyone else proposing a major restructuring of an article and making a temporary draft. Our policies probably differ from what the class requires but as Katie said, there's no need to wheel war on it. On the plus side, some fairly obscure topics are being improved at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to several admins agreeing here, and the fact that the professor has now left the student a message about this, I doubt protection is needed anymore, so I've unprotected. It seemed a reasonable alternative to blocking a new editor to me, but isn't needed anymore (I hope). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to disagree, Jeppiz, but it seemed appropriate due to the way the editor was acting. I'm perfectly fine with it being unprotected, too, now that the instructor and Adam have addressed the issue. I don't think blocking was warranted (though it was definitely close) in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is massive traffic and it is creating errors. Editing is chaotic. There are edit wars where date of death is being added and removed. There are error messages saying the queue is full.
I declined a request for a full lock at RFPP and I stand by my decision. It's a confirmed death, and a high edit rate is to be expected. I just looked again and there's a bit of disruption but for the most part the edits are constructive. Open to other opinions, though. Katietalk17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User Chartgeek9078 claims his edits are helping the article Fifth Harmony. this edit, where I'm trying to keep the lead section simple to readers, to not overkill the redaction with multiple certifications, like accessible for them, avoiding "this was gold, this was platinum, this was also platinum" combined with "this was released this date. Then they released this. This peaked at #", and "they are successful"; all on the lead. The user's response while reverting: "I can do this all day". "The album is GOLD , too bad for you, you dislike it" Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute, which does not belong here. Neither of you has sought to discuss this on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and you are both edit-warring, and in danger of breaching WP:3RR. RolandR (talk)08:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive edits from Cornerstonepicker
This user has a history of making baseless accusations and making disruptive edits all over Wikipedia , assuming new users are unable to defend themselves calling them "newbies" while making condescending remarks at me. He assumed that pointing out an album was Gold was considered WP:FANCRUFT , which obviously isn't. He even claimed that RIAA is not a reliable source for sales because "streams are included" and continuing to make reversions where none were needed. All evidence is on revision history , Fifth Harmony. I've kept the article neutral while adding useful and accurate information in the lead , giving sources and refs while he/she has been continuously reverting for no reason at all. He also made a revertion claiming I didn't reply him on my talkpage when I did. Chartgeek9078 (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute, which does not belong here. Neither of you has sought to discuss this on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and you are both edit-warring, and in danger of breaching WP:3RR. RolandR (talk)08:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User page clearly intended to offend, most notably the section "Weapons of Mass Production" with link to image of human penis, a clear reference to rape. This person states that they are a Pakistani national acting as law enforcement (police-car lights and user name, and user boxes) while carrying on a deletionist campaign on pages to do with Bangladesh. The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight, a campaign of murder carried out in the name of law enforcement by Pakistani military, with the aim of exterminating Bangladesh intellectuals and Bengali culture. This person surely doesn't belong in a project to build an encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice hypothesis drawn by the complainant but let me explain to whoever is looking at his complaint. My user page is nothing more than a fun. I definitely did not mean "rape" by "Weapons of Mass Production", its the imagination drawn out by the complainant. I like to categorize the pages that i work on in different sections in police terminology and i did not find any better and fun terminology than this to describe the article Human penis on my user page. There is no deletionist campaign by me on Bangladesh pages. If any content was removed from Bangladesh pages then there must have been a policy reason to do that, for example "content not properly sourced" etc. Here is an example (Removed 5,555 bytes from "Bahawalnagar" for reason "Revert unsourced additions") where i removed content from Pakistan pages which was not sourced and there can be many more examples given like this. "The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight" is a hypothesis drawn by the complainant which is a BS to put it mildly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown is harassing me continuously from many days. He is supposed to cooperate with newcomers but rather he is involve in WP:BITE. He also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, he reported me at WP:AE in sheer bad faith presenting me there as an nationalist edit warrior (which I am clearly not) by distorting and mispresenting edit diffs. ([87]) He also tried to connect me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page. ([88], not just this, one should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of offensive personal attack he did to those users who are opposing him on talk page-rfc).
The above user is accusing others including me of being nationalist and just because *I don't share his POV*. A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong pro- Pakistan Army bias and battleground mentality (as also noted by other users on talk page). He is repeatedly removing mass contents from Bangladesh related pages (that he doesn't like). [89], [90] large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.
Administrators also please note that he is harassing other users including me by dropping a 3RR template on user's talk pages when they hardly make two reverts [91], [92] but he is edit warring on these pages for what, many months now (just check the revision history of Bangladesh related pages like this) as noted by other users [93][94]. Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from *Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here [95]. Actually he violated 3RR straight up.
administrators please note the time and date these 4 reverts are very well within 24 hours (well much more if we count reverts made by this user on same page within 1½ day).
He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [96], [97] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead [98]. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [99].
Let me also explain RFC case from the starting.
First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and convert an NPOV article into a POV article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (as noted by other users [100], [101], [102]) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding.
Then he will go and start a premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, [User:Kautilya3]] and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him at talk page.
Then he will do personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page ([103])
He has no fear of admins. He is strongly here to push a specific pro-Pakistan Army POV on Bangladesh-India-Pakistan related articles. This user has a clear battleground mentality. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrators Spartaz.... to quote;[104] SheriffIsInTown I have removed your section entirely. Making a nationality based slur on an AE page? Really? Perhaps you could leave a short note on my talk page explaining how your participation in this area adds any value whatsoever as I'm strongly minded to impose a TBan for that edit. Please don't post to this discussion again].ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply to his WP:WALLOFTEXT later but right now I am just pointing out his broken links drama, he posted this comment before he posted his statements with broken links at AE and ANI. @ArghyaIndian What do you think all other editors are stupid here? Only you are the smartest! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may suggest, both of you should edit articles away from Bangladesh Genocide or any individuals or groups associated with it and allow this dispute to cool down. If not both of you may wind up with some sort of restrictions or blocks, neither of you have particularity clean hands in this issue. KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/201615:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@KoshVorlon:, your comment is much appreciated but i did not understand the piece "his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here". Can you please explain who were you referring to? If you were referring to me, can you please further explain what do you mean by that. As i can understand i followed the proper procedures on 1971 Bangladesh genocide , i participated in talk sessions when the matter could not be resolved otherwise, when talk could not bring a consensus, i started an RfC. I do not think there was anything bad about it. Yes, it might be a poor RfC as it had multiple disputed pieces of content in it, not to mention it was my first RfC. I have yet to see if i violated any policies. Otherwise this is just a frivolous ANI request based on imagination and hypothesis of one editor about my userpage and the other is just joining with him because of recent conflicts which i had with him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @KoshVorlon:. Some topic ban(s) and/or blocks would be a big help here, and the offensive user page also needs to be cleaned up or deleted entirely. The bickering and flaming using petty interpretations of wikipedia policies and "the matter could not be resolved otherwise" as weapons, has been tiresomely proceeding on several talk pages, and, as has been so well demonstrated above, seems unlikely to become subdued any time soon. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh needs a chance to repair the pages that have been damaged by this warfare, and the project risks losing those level-headed participants who have managed to stomach this mayhem so far. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing anything offensive or mean spirited on their talk page. The implication of "rape" is simply not made, this is something you are seeing that is not there. I have not looked enough to comment on the other allegations, but I have to question your interpretation of the user page. HighInBC17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too have just looked at the user page and can see nothing at all offensive about it. The link to human penis is to our WP page Human penis, not just any random image of a penis. If the OP is arguing this is offensive, then it is our article that is offensive. The reference to "Weapons of mass production" is clearly a bit of fun and totally unrelated to rape. DrChrissy(talk)17:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the suggestion on the user page is that the human penis and its use for "mass reproduction" is a tool available "law enforcement". Surely that is offensive to law enforcement officers everywhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lol, no it's not what you mean, i suggest, you put your mind to something useful. There is plenty to do on Wikipedia. Remember, you were looking for some sources for Mukti Bahini. Did you add them yet or not? This was really a very bad way to take out that frustration! You went out on witch-hunting and look what you found out and you reported whatever you thought you found bad about me and then made up a fine story. I mean, i commend you for that. That is why WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia because people's minds can make up stories and add them to Wikipedia articles, then it's not encyclopedia. That's why i ask people to back their content with sources and people get upset like you did! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Broken links and all that..... Ugh that should not be your concern. Your attempt of harassing and WP:BITE is pretty clear now. You should rather explain that why you mispresented edit diffs and reported me at AE when I have less then 10 edits in combined talk page and page of 1971 Bangladesh Genocide. You do not wanted to reply, that's ok but I will reply to all of your accusations. (administrators note that he is directly attacking me personally right here by using words like "drama", stupid"... so on). I only participated in talk page discussion, voted in RFC, and raised objections at talk. Many uninvolved and experienced users also agreed with my objections. Unfortunately I initially made mistakes while restoring the old stable NPOV lead (in accordance with talk page discussion [105] but I did asked for the help on talk page (you can ask other users like User:My very best wishes to confirm) and user SheriffIsInTown distorted/mis presented those edit diffs and dragged my name there at WP:AE in sheer bad faith (in his attempt of wp:bite.
[107][108] Mass removal of content (even after being warned by many users [109], [110], [111]), large scale POV pushing on all Bangladesh related articles (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, promoting fringe and preposterous theories on these articles from long time now (as noted by other users on talk pages). Irony here is that he was distribution 3RR templates on other users pages when they hardly make 2 reverts and he violated 3RR yesterday just to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini page that he doesn't like. Here are diffs.
17:50 21 April 2016 I have already explained in depth all this on AE noticeboard. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided in my statement at AE).ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Said user above is showing absolutely no respect or regard for Wikipedia, it's rules, policies and guidelines, or other editors. MaranoFan nominated Like I'm Gonna Lose You for Good Article review today. She has never, ever edited the article. Not once. The edit summary provided for the nominated on the article talk page is: i know this is gonna take some work. But I am willing to take the risk. It is not the responsibility or job of a GAN reviewer to tell the nominator how to improve the entire article on this depth. That is what Peer Review and GOCE is for. GAN is supposed to be a checking that it has met the requirements after being improved by the nominator, not before. Of course, I left a message on MF's user talk saying this just now, but she dismissed it and removed it. Improvement should have been done by the nominator already, which is clearly stated on the Instructions over at GAN here. I removed the nomination for this reason and said this in my edit summary on Talk:Like I'm Gonna Lose You. MF reverted me, and thus reinstated in the nomination, with the edit summary People don't change. What a great example of it. Shut up and fuck off. That is FA criteria. I'm being sworn at, and this article is not up to GA, yet alone FA. Frustrated, I reverted and reiterated why I removed it once more in my edit summary. MF then proceeded to revert me again, with the edit summary of "No".
No doubt, MF and her allies will say I am creating drama, hassle, and any other label they frequently choose to throw at me, or my personal favourite by MF that I'm "getting in the way," but enough is enough. MF has no understanding of how Wikipedia works. You can't just nominate articles which one has never, ever edited for GAN willy-nilly on impulse. That is not how the process works. No other editor is allowed to do this, and I see many editors doing what I have tried to do. Many of my friends on here have removed nominations by others when they have never edited the article before. It is an absolute joke and me and many other edits, both silent and vocal on Wikipedia on this issue of MF, have had enough. It is creating so much tension that special treatment and double standard are being employed. I'm pissed off of editors not having the balls to clamp down on editors who ignore the rules all the time, and instead telling off and threatening those who do respect the rules. There really is no defence that anyone can provide in favour of MF this time. This kind of reckless, impulsive editing and nominated is wrong and it should not be tolerated. Her refusal to listen to any advice, which even today I tried giving on her user talk, is testament. She is showing that she will never change. It's a shame, because if she would just listen and actually read the rules of Wikipedia, it could be so different and positive. As it is, she thinks she can just do what she wants. — Calvin99917:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extra: And to top it off, User:Jaguar, MF's new found ally because they both hate me, has no less than 61 minutes after nomination taken on the under-prepared article for review. Now, that would be a very interesting review to watch. We all know Jaguar won't fail it in any circumstance. — Calvin99917:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the middle of reviewing the GAN, and I think it's in a pretty good shape. I just need to point out that she's edited it fifteen times between October and December 2015.[112]JAGUAR17:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How wonderfully convenient, Jaguar. Of course, you are bias and not impartial in this issue, so I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise. I stand corrected: she has never edited the article in 2016. So greatly prepared for GAN. — Calvin99917:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you four (not including Jaguar) agreed to stop with all this childish whining, because it was becoming apparent that if you kept it up, blocks were going to start being doled out, and/or an Arbcom would be filed? What is this, the 3rd ANI discussion started up in the last few weeks? Isn't there enough pop music in the world for you to all work independently from one another? This is ridiculous. I hope an uninvolved Admin starts coming down hard on you lot. You're wasting the community's time with your high school-like drama wars. Sergecross73msg me17:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Calvin999 and MaranoFan for 1 month each, since they seem completely incapable of stopping their incessant battleground behavior. If some other editor in their respective cliques acted inappropriately in this latest drama, someone uninvolved in the feuding point them out to me and I'll block them for a month too. If someone involved in the feuding points it out, I'll block them. if this results in 5-10 people getting blocked, I don't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just put in a request here that, in closing comments, statements like "Involved editors blocked" be replaced by clear statements such as "X, Y, and Z blocked". ANI junkies shouldn't have to go checking talkpages and such to tell what really happened. EEng19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User harassment causes people to react emotionally; this is a key reason why it's not acceptable behavior. Arguing over that is not constructive. Steel1943, this must not happen again. You seem to understand you did bad. I'm going to issue you a harassment warning. This should be the end of necessary admin action unless the behavior is repeated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps not serious enough at all for this page, and perhaps this user normally is an angel, but I feel a bit freaked out. I asked the user not to make personal attacks. The user did not respond constructively; added 2 words to the attack, supposedly to soften it. Then removed this. Then pinged me 12 times by tracking me through my contribution list and liking 10 of my latest edits. Since the problems began when I asked the user not to ping me unnecessarily, I feel quite uncomfortable about this treatment/harrassment, which shows a lot of power, I think, but not much consideration. If I'm all wrong to complain here, I sincerely apologize for doing so. Hard to know where to turn, though, with a freak-out like mine right now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment on this, and then I'm done on Wikipedia indefinitely. As shown in most of the discussion between myself and this individual, I got a little hotheaded, and I got carried away. At this point, I can assure SergeWoodzing and the Wikipedia community that this behavior (as well as the discussion between myself and this editor) is over. Even though I still carry opinions about how SergeWoodzing has approached this situation themselves, I'm not going to voice them anymore since this is getting ridiculous in general and this is no longer serving any purpose for either party. That, and I have to take a break now: I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I cannot allow what happens here on Wikipedia to affect how I feel and act in real life, and this incident has. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing - I think you might have taken this response out of context and may have over-reacted a bit with this edit as a result. Unless I'm crazy or I'm missing something, I don't see Steel1943's edit as an intentional personal attack. Steel1943 then responded with this, which I agree isn't the best way to handle it (in fact, responses like this usually escalate the dispute and make it worse). But instead of leaving it at that, you left a message on Steel1943's talk page asking him to redact the previous response on the article talk page. After Steel1943 makes a response (which, again, could have been a little nicer), you then left a civility warning on his talk page an hour later. Why do you keep messaging Steel1943 about this? It's clear that he wants to drop the stick, but you won't let him. What do you want him to do? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been pinged 12 times in a matter of a few seconds before, right after having asked not to be pinged. Maybe I over-reacted to that too? Maybe it's 100% normal that another editor does that to you? I don't know. It's never happened to me before. I'd like him to stop that (nothing lately - phew!) and, when he returns to do a lot more good work with us, to stop directing his comments on talk pages to other editors, which often leads to hard feelings and conduct disputes. WP:s guideline says (in bold type) "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Perhaps I've taken that too seriously also? Thank you - in any case - for asking! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing - I'm not certain what the reason might have been behind Steel1943 "pinging you" (I think you mean thanking you for edits you made?) - maybe he'll be willing to explain here (although I wouldn't blame him one bit for not doing so, in favor of moving on from this). But your statement regarding Steel1943 needing to "stop directing his comments on talk pages to other editors", leaves me both dumbfounded and confused. All he said in this edit was that he believed that your concerns were due to a "preemptive full protection of the article..." (an event or behavior that occurred in the past? I'm confused about this statement and what he meant). It doesn't strike me as uncivil in any way. If anything, he just made a wrong assumption - something you could have simply resolved by responding with something like, "No, actually [this] is why I'm concerned" and left it at that. Or you could have just asked him to explain what he meant. My original question still stands: Why [did] you keep messaging Steel1943 about this? It's clear that he [wanted] to drop the stick, but you [didn't] let him. What do you want him to do?~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)19:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm amazed by how thoroughly out of proportion SergeWoodzing has blown this. This whole thing originated when Steel1943 pinged SW in an active discussion over a hatnote. Steel's observation that SW's reply was irrationally defensive is absolutely 100% warranted and accurate. Maybe Steel's subsequent behaviour was less than ideal, but it was Serge who followed to Steel's talk page after Steel agreed to stop and continued whining about this flimsy personal attack. There is a point where templating a user over personal attacks becomes itself a personal attack, and Serge has long since crossed that line. Drop the stick already. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me: I was tracked through my conrtibution list and pinged twevle (12) times in a matter of seconds by a user who minutes earlier had not been friendly and whom I had just asked not to ping me. To me, the behavior is extraordinary in the extreme. I can't see how my finding it that way could be unfathomable. It's why I freaked out and started this ANI. If none of you are going to acknowledge that and address it, but continue to ignore it, I see no reason for us to continue this, only so as to subject me to a lot of criticism about other details. I am glad to apologize sincerely for anything I have done in this matter which is unacceptable to you people. Now, please address the reason for my complaint - the 12 pings - please! Or why bother? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here, inlcuding Steel1943, have acknowledged that they behaved poorly in sending you those notifications, and has appealed to now move on. You're the one coming here basically saying "HEY EVERYBODY! STEEL1943 WAS BAD! LOOK AT THE TOTALLY AWFUL BAD STUFF THAT THEY DID! IT'S SO AWFUL AND BAD AND MEAN AND DISGUSTING! EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION TO THE CRAZY AWFUL BAD STUFF THEY DID! SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AWFUL USER! SOMEBODY'S GOT TO STOP THEM FROM BEING SO RIDICULOUSLY AWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE AWFUL AND THEY WERE MEAN TO ME AND I CAN PROVE IT AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS!!!!11" It's only you that needs to address this. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except perhaps discourage shenanigans on this page? I'd be interested in any administrator's comments on some of the shenanigans here (including my own, if any). Is this actually a forum where we can get administrative assistance and/or should try to express ourselves with some semblance of decorum? Sincerely yours (administrators - we need you). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a final closing observation - As I noted in the close, people who are harassed often respond emotionally to that. That's why it's so important that we not tolerate the incidents. This page is critically important not just to get admins attention on key issues, but to 'calm down' situations rather than escalate them. It is important that participants here not make situations worse or provoke one another. We have limits to how far that can go with the parties to a particular dispute, but PLEASE do not attack or provoke from outside a dispute, particularly where one or more users were already attacked or harassed elsewhere. It does not help admins or senior users defuse the situation, it does not make you look good or mature, and makes everyone's days longer and more painful. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crosswiki self-promotional only (and write-only) account with 2 indef-blocked sockpuppets: Chillax96 (April 10), Mohamed Rayazan (April 20). 2 weeks ago was blocked for the creation of Rayazan, a curriculum article about himself, created again half an hour later. Same content was in the articles User:Rayazan, User:Chillax96 and User:Chillax96/sandbox. Now I found that the 2nd sock created Mohamed Rayazan (twice) and User:Rayazan (again). On April 10, when he seemed to stop after the first notices, I assumed good faith but, noob or not, user continued to create articles about himself despite any warning, explainations and blocks. Now, after the 2nd evasion, he was blocked again (2 weeks). User is IMHO clearly NOTHERE, and his scope appears to be the self-promo: he created his curriculum 8 times (also using different NS), used 2 sp and, btw, was indef blocked on Commons too. For this reasons, I request the indef block. For further details: my 1st and 2nd report. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg20:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rayazan is blocked for two weeks, having previously blocked for one week, the others are blocked indefinitely. Two admins have already looked at this issue and handed out blocks, their actions are within the purview of administrator's discretion so I see nothing more to do here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rayazan has been pretty disruptive in his attempts to promote himself. I've deleted many of his pages (which are essentially all one page, about himself), have blocked him for a week (Randykitty later went to two weeks), and have tried to talk to him on his page, which went nowhere. Still, he's young as well as new (yes, I know all his essential details, as I have read his autobio so many times) and I can't shake the feeling that he might become a real editor, provided we don't indef him. Also (sigh) he can just create socks in any case. What, philosophically, is actually the point of blocks? If people want to edit, they'll edit. Now I'm depressed. Bishonen | talk21:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: When used properly and appropriately, a block can compel an editor to communicate with an administrator -- and you lament that Rayazan has so far avoided that. When and if Rayazan agrees to communicate, the block will be serving a second purpose. Until then, the block may serve the primary purpose of reducing the burden of cleaning up after him. Grammar's Li'l HelperDiscourse21:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar's Li'l Helper: there's something with your signature, I'm not able to click through to your user page or user talk page. Can you fix that please? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: uhm, this solution is ok for me. Anyway, I'll watch user. I would just suggest to protect the title Mohamed rayazan too (never created). Thanks to all users above for participation. --Dэя-Бøяg04:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BenLrove
Probably someone seeking attention. They didn't get it, and stopped 30 minutes ago. Rather than keep this open and notify him (Tim, you accidentally posted your notice in mainspace, I've deleted), let's just close this and ignore him. Feel free to reopen if it resumes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BenLrove seems to be a new SPA with the single purpose of spamming on talk pages. I assume it's a sock targeting users that aggravated them at some point. Can't say I don't recognize a few names on the list. I'm not sure at what point of NOTHERE it becomes unnecessary to give a warning, but if there is one, this is certainly it. Plz fix. TimothyJosephWood22:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already did, as soon as I posted here. For the record, I appreciate love when it's for a reason, not when it's from a 15 minutes old account spamming for shits and giggles. TimothyJosephWood22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please remove the lock from the talk page of Prince (musician). I am not talking about the article page but merely the talk page so discussion can be done.
The administrator who locked it has left work for the weekend and authorizes another administrator to do it. Please do it.
Proof:
The talk page is currently semiprotected because of vandalism and BLP violations. I'm off now, but if someone wants to remove the protection in the meantime, I have no objections. Widr (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Another admin might feel differently but Prince just passed away yesterday and it is common with celebrity deaths for there to be speculation about cause of death and other forum-like discussions which are not appropriate for article talk pages. I think the article and talk page should be protected for a week to discourage this behavior. There is no deadline for improving articles and your contributions will be just as welcome a week from now. LizRead!Talk!23:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying but that just takes away the steam to helping Wikipedia. If people vandalize, hurt them, not the innocent. Thank you. After all, the blocking administrator, Widr, authorizes unblock of the page but just cannot do it because he is leaving work. Purple Showers (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Liz. Per WP:BDP, WP:BLP can apply in recent deaths. Given the notability of this person, I think that the article and its talk page is best left semi-protected for now in order to keep vandalism, BLP violations, unreferenced speculation, and inappropriate/improper talk page discussions from occurring. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot argue with the reasoning from Liz and Oshwah above. IMO unprotecting the page would end up being more trouble than it's worth.Leave as is for now. Purple Showers contributions have been less than stellar. See here Regards, Aloha27 talk 13:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Bernie Sanders article seems to have been under active sanctions. Milligram article does not seem to be. He needs to tone down his rhetoric certainly but I'm not really seeing anything wrong. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how "wrong" his behavior is, but it certainly is very poor approach to discussion. He refuses to get the point and drop the stick long after an issue has been settled, even after two editors have asked him to do so. Then there are his suggestions (very close to accusations) that editors are anti-Jewish ("The fact that you are taking away someone's Jewishness is troubling and disgusting") and other inappropriate personal comments directed at editors (referring to an editor as "owner", among others). If you look at this in the context of several previous blocks and his long history of the "battleground" attitude on articles related to Jews and Judaism, it adds up to an editor who will not listen to reason (or learn from blocks) on certain topics. It makes discussion on these topics very difficult for other editors. I don't know what should be done, but I think at the very least he needs to be monitored. Thanks for listening to my frustration in this situation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why behavior that is not okay at one article would be okay at another just because the two articles are about people in different arbitrary (pardon the pun) categories. ansh66602:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ansh666—I would say that the categories pertaining to Jews at the Bernie Sanders and Stanley Milgram articles are anything but "arbitrary". Can you please tell me what you find "arbitrary" about them? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: - I wasn't talking about WP:categories but more broadly (and note also not the unintentional pun, arbitrary vs ArbCom); above it's noted that Sir Joseph was topic banned because Bernie Sanders falls under WP:ARBAP2 as (obviously) an American politician, whereas Stanley Milgram does not seem to be under the umbrella of any ARBCOM case. My point is that just because this is true does not excuse the behavior. ansh66601:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bernie Sanders article, of course, got a lot more heat from a lot more editors due to the connection to the current US presidential campaign, but the behavior is exactly the same and the same Great Wrongs are being Righted by the same editor. On the Bernie Sanders page I myself erred in that, when faced with an editor who keeps repeating the same false claim, I fell into repeatedly responding, That was dumb on my part. On the Stanley Milgram page, having learned my lesson, I simply quoted the exact policies that govern whether or not we allow "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox and asked for citations showing that those criteria have been met. Sir Joseph's WP:IDHT behavioral problem lies in ignoring that request, referring to my call for citations as "taking away someone's Jewishness", and referring to my quoting the exact wording of WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R as "making up a new policy [that only applies to] Jewish people". This is the exact same behavior that resulted in a topic ban last time. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Sundayclose's description of the discussion ("long after the issue has been settled... ) is not accurate. In fact, there was and is no consensus on the talk page of whether Milgram is Jewish or not. There were four active participants in the discussion - an anonymous IP who raised the issue, User:Sir Joseph, Sundayclose and Guy Macon. Two other participants - User:Debresser and myself - did not really express an opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness, but agreed for other reasons that the "Religion" parameter should not be included in the infobox. So there was no consensus and the issue could not be considered settled.
I don't want to get into the specific content dispute of the talk page, but I do want to point out that the distinction that Guy and Sunday make between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism is by no means cut and dry; many Jews (like many people of other religions) have no religious feeling but participate in religious ceremonies, while others might be deeply religious but in fact participate in no outward practices. These are also matters which most people don't discuss, and, therefore, there are no published quotes which could prove the religious identification of the subject. It is therefore not at all surprising that Sir Joseph is offended by this distinction, and argues with great vigor - and some level of justification - against it.
All of which is to say that it is important that the decision (here) to remove the religion parameter from the infobox altogether be implemented as soon as possible. That would obviate these rancorous and superfluous discussions.
Just to be clear, I also have expressed no opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness. All I care about is whether the requirements of the policies i quoted are met. If you believe that there is "some level of justification" for violating those policies, you are free to go to the talk pages of the policies in question and attempt to gain a consensus to change them. But until that happens we are all required to follow Wikipedia's policies.
Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules) Wikipedia's rules are:
From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".
From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."
Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.
Show me a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy, and the issue is settled: religion stays in the infobox. Fail to show me that citation and the issue is also settled: religion stays out of the infobox. Nothing else matters. Either there is a citation or there isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your argument is this: there is a distinction between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism, a distinction that is clear to you, and that when a person says "I am a Jew", without qualifying whether he means "ethnic" or "religious", that statement cannot be considered verification of his religious belief.
What I am saying is that the distinction between "ethnic" and "religious" is not clear at all; that people who say "I am a Jew" are not making this distinction, and that your rejection of such a statement as verification of a person's religious identification is unjustified and, to some, offensive; nor is there anything in the policies you cite to support making this distinction in the case of Jews.
But here we are arguing about content. The real point is that your posts in this matter are no less passionate, and no less aggressive, than those of Sir Joseph. The issue raises intense feelings on both sides, and that is why removal of the parameter from the infobox altogether is so important. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond to the above content dispiute argument here, but I will post some citations to your talk page in case you wish to study this further. Do you have the citation showing self-identification through direct speech I have been asking for? If so, post it., If not, this issue is settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAbove, ansh666, suggests what happens with one page should happen with another page where administrative action takes place. However this again is not the case Sanders Article is under discretionary sanctions while Milligram's is not. You Can read about them and their purpose at WP:ACDS. While the rhetoric Sir Joseph employs, I find distasteful, as Ravpapa points out, there's two sides to this dance, and both sides are shimmying at each other. I'm not really seeing that this has risen to the level of Admin intervention. This seems very much a content dispute that both passionate sides could escalate to require admin intervention. I'd recommend using dispute resolution to settle this which can read about at WP:DISPUTE. I'm looking and I notice that the conversation in question is rather long and clear consensus may have been established, not sure if WP:DISPUTE mentions this, but you can go over to WP:ANRFC and request a closure by an uninvolved Admin or an uninvolved experienced editor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue regards what label should or should not be included in an infobox. If needed (and due) an article can spend ten paragraphs discussing what has been said about a person's ethnic or religious background. Guy Macon has described consensus regarding the simple one-word label in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed it in the article's talk page, but I'm only seeing that here. Sir Joseph, should either drop the stick or open an RFC at the appropriate location. Sir Joseph take not of WP:CONLIMITED.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iistal
User is not heeding warnings and continues their disruptive editing. User is also blanking their talk page which leads me to believe, Iistal may be thinking, if I cannot see the warnings they no longer exist. Mlpearc (open channel)03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the user does edit in good faith but may get angry when his edit is reverted (with SundaySmiles). However, Iistal removes warnings from talk page with no intent of changing in the near future, as far as I can see. I occasionally get this way when my edits are reverted though, somewhat angry too. Perhaps we can give Iistal a clean slate first. 3primetime3 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iistal refuses to communicate; instead he/she removes others' efforts to discuss on talk pages; one example [119], followed by edit warring with the explanation that "it's not debatable". Admin C.Fred has repeatedly attempted to reason with this editor, apparently with no success. Iistal has two previous blocks for disruptive editing but apparently hasn't learned to stop the behaviors that lead to the blocks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there have been several clean slates and many, many legitimate warnings that could have resulted in blocks but didn't because several editors (myself included) hoped that Iistal would change his behavior. Iistal has made productive edits, but the disruptive editing and failure to learn from mistakes has gotten out of control. Sundayclose (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose causes annoyance and frustration. He has followed me almost from the beginning, which is Wikihounding. I blank the talk page because this user does not seem genuine. Besides, it's my own talk page. I find the fact that C.Fred uses "this edit" as an example of "disruption" is ludicrous, and such unreason is really stressful. I only came here because someone wrote on my talk page that there is a discussion about me. So now you have my side. Also, it's been very frustrating when I have been in the process of leaving replies to someone on my own talk page, then the whole thing gets ruined when another editor (usually SundayClose) posts something meanwhile, then I have to write the whole thing all over again. Iistal (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the problematic edits are focused around BLPs and reverts, I'm starting to wonder if a sanction such as a one-revert restriction on biographies of living people, broadly construed, is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem continues despite numerous warnings. Another addition (after two previous reverts by two editors) of unsourced information on a BLP [120]. Warnings have no effect on Iistal. If he had been blocked every time he edit warred or repeatedly added unsourced information he wouldn't be editing for the next three months. Pinging C.Fred and Mlpearc. Sundayclose (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP edits to Frenchie (rapper) and lack of resolution
There has been a recent influx of edits from multiple IPs on the article "Frenchie (rapper)". Up until January it was a redirect page to a separate article, before i opted to dedicate an article for itself coupled with sources & citations. The issue that's arisen recently: while the influx of edits have been largely cosmetic, at this point I've come in dispute with some of the choices of edits. Since there has been a back & forth in edits/reverts, i dont want to engage in an edit war. Most of the discussion has taken place on the 'View History' page in addition to my PMs to these IPs 'Talk pages', where i elaborate on my reasoning. but i can't come to a resolution.
The IP(s) have routinely re-edited "New York rappers" as mentioned in the intro to "East Coast rappers", despite me telling him/her that choice of phrase is not suitable, since East Coast is overly generalized and could refer to any of the states (CT, NJ, PA) when the rappers in question are specifically NY based and can be left at that.
There was no reply to my PM, and another edit was made reverting my revert, and this time around the subject's name (Greg Hogan) was changed to his stage name (Frenchie) in the section titled "Early Life". I reverted the edit, pointing out its appropriate to start off referring to him by his real name when it specifically involves his Early Life & birth.
Once again no response or resolution, and my revert was reverted. This time around an edit was made adding "Born" tag to the bio/infobox, which is identical to the "Origin" tag. Format precedence requires that we have one or the other, and only both if the two differ. Such as an artist being 'born' in Kenya and moving to Chicago (which becomes his 'origin'/hometown). So now the biobox has redundant lines. Since i cannot get any responses on the IPs' talk pages, i certainly cannot incite a discussion on the article Talk page. I'm hoping an administrator can help out on the matter. DA1 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, now I'm noticing someone has changed the intro to 1017 Records (the article to which "Frenchie (rapper)" originally redirected to) as "Eric money records" and have deleted the infobox altogether. I'm unsure whether this IP is related or not, but this seems to be a clear act of vandalism. No source was provided for the name change, and there's no reason why the infobox is deleted. DA1 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should move this discussion to Talk:Frenchie (rapper) so it can draw in more editors. I've found that often editors who use IPs don't even realize they have a talk page, much less check it for messages. Discussion about editing the article should begin on the article talk page so it becomes less about you vs. them and brings in more editors who might be familiar with the subject. LizRead!Talk!19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recommend I revert his/her edit, and point towards discussion at the Talk page? How do I go about getting their attention, since leaving a message on their IP talk pages isn't doing anything. I'm somewhat skeptical whether we'll be getting input from third parties. The article subject is somewhat underground, and as stated I 'recently' made the article. I'm unsure whose editing but its largely non-constructive & cosmetic, replacing one synonym with another, now he/she is duplicating the citation links when I already put a <ref name="EME"/> tag in the relevant lines, so forth. DA1 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recruiting matter needing admin attention; no crisis
This arises from a case posted at COIN here that is a big mess and related to the topic of "transhumanism" which has been difficult across the encyclopedia lately, with all kinds of advocacy editing going on, but that is a bigger ball of wax that again I don't want to get into. Just providing context.
In the course of the AfD playing out, that user posted this on a transhumanist facebook page (changed from the original, which I can no longer link); another user who commented on that thread then posted this more strident call to yet another transhumanist facebook page.
This to me shows disdain for the integrity of the process here. Not sure what is the appropriate action, but this to me calls for admin attention. There is no crisis as the AfD has finished and closed "delete" but the ongoing roil over transhumanist topics continues. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion continues on the FB thread, since they're apparently unaware that it's being seen. You'll be seeing more of these people in the future, unfortunately. "We ought to crowd-write an H+Pedia article about the issues, processes, and advice for defending the presence of pro-transhumanist material on Wikipedia" "That crowd, in the longer run, could have potential as a transhumanist media presence with expertise in Wikipedia entries." David Pearce: "Perhaps in future the abolitionist bioethics entry can be restored" Lrieber (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (aka User:Pawg14)[reply]
People are free to talk about Wikipedia offwiki. I focused this ANI on the behavior of a Wikipedia editor who has clearly recruited off-wiki which is a violation of WP:MEAT. Please do not broaden this in an unfocused manner. Please also be careful of WP:OUTING; my OP doesn't violate OUTING as davidcpearce is transparent about his RW identity. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is 108.46.38.116 (talk·contribs), and I think the difs pretty much speak for themselves. The first two are general complaints about WP which the IP posted in other discussions:
User:63009kb (possibly associated with User:166.172.62.216) decided to change the subject of the article Bill Kramer from a Wisconsin state legislator to a fundraising and PR expert with the Rhode Island School of Design. User:RFD reverted the article back (and THANK YOU!!), but I've notice that 63009kb has also gone on a delinking spree. Is there a way to quickly revert a set of changes to multiple articles from a user's contribution list, or is it a one-by-one matter? If one-by-one, I'll get started on doing it. Anyways, thanks. (I will notify 63009kb immediately after posting this.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed the delinking spree and have manually changed the mainspace articles affected. I think I got them all. There are still a bunch of obscure talk pages etc that were also delinked that I have not bothered to address. Trackinfo (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've already left a message about usurping articles and why it is not generally considered a good thing. Awaiting any sort of a response. Most of the delinking has already been undone. This might be genuine ignorance about an area where, I must admit I'm surprised, there isn't a policy or even essay more than WP:USURPTITLE so for now I'd say AGF and let's see what happens. Nthep (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They have continued to remove links, and as such, I have given them a final warning. I also asked them to explain what they expect to accomplish so that we can help them. I do hope they respond. -- The VoidwalkerDiscuss19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This IP account has a long history of Holocaust denial and more general trolling, and I'll block it for a much longer duration if this continues (some examples: [121], [122], [123]. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not as patient as you Nick-D. Given their history of disruptive edits and this baseless report I have blocked the IP. Best case scenario this person is a troll. Given that the IP has had the same owner for months now I have made the block a month long, if it was an account it would be indef. As always I welcome review of my actions. HighInBC02:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look I know this really isn't the right place for this, but I'm not sure what is. This is a very visible place, so I'm here asking for eyes on the above train wreck of an article. Its POV top to bottom and getting worse daily. My inclination would be to just nuke it and start over. As it stands now it has little to do with any Forbes list. Thanks. Not asking for any action against specific editors altho it appears some may be appropriate, so I've made no notifications. John from Idegon (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am experiencing trouble with User:Lithopsian who refuses to engage in seeking consensus on Page:WR 31a(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), even in light to resolve this on article talk page: [124] Under this recent edit [125], saying in the comments "My last word." I have tried to engage Lithopsian in discussion on the edits of this page [126], which was made on 11th March 2016. Lithopsian has not tried to resolve these issues at all. So I reverted the Lithopsian whole edit here [127], which Lithopsian now has reverted twice, then continues editing. His only reply has been "I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." [128] and this [129].
Evidence on this page suggests there is no abuse been made by me at all, and this is deliberate avoidance of consensus. I am left without being able to edit this page without violating procedures, and the problem issues still [130] still exist. I have advised Lithopsian of further issues with his unjustifiable claims of "abuse" here.[131]
Further evidence of this kind of behaviour of not being willing to reach consensus appears here Talk:Supernova[132], especially the edits on Supernova[133] and [134]
Note: I thought this deemed as edit warring, Ymblanter states this is not the case[135], and referred me to "Please follow the dispute resulotion avenues..". This is why I've come here.
, –Davey2010Talk 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]![[60]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:L_Ron_Hubbard_R2-45_Racket_Exposed_ads.png&action=history){kind=link}
Done. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as the same user as Linguist1111--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
