Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
| Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
|---|
|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
Charles01 / Vauxford
Charles01 further harassment
Previous discussions
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Incident
This should be the last ANI I make about Charles01. You don't have to read through everything above but it would be helpful if you do. I feel like nothing has been done with this user, he is still harassing me whatever I do something. He made a hate page about me which got deleted [50], follow by him recreating it again follow by another delete [51]. He has accused me of edit warring with the same bias argument that everything I do is a "vanity project". He accused me of sockpuppeting twice, one on his now deleted hate page about me and on my talkpage.
All this determination of painting me as a disruptive, tendentious editor which I have no intention of doing. In case that one suggest a IBAN or something I did nothing to this user, this is very much one sided in spite of what I do on Wikipedia, choosing to scold and harass me rather then actually helping me to not be a "toxic", tendentious editor. Even after doing everything right when it comes to content dispute such as trying to solve it on the talkpage and made a RfC I still mess it all up, it looked easy when other users does it.
How is this person haven't get any form of consequences other then a slap on the wrist a couple of times on his talkpage. I thought accuasing someone of sockpuppeting with no valid evidence is taken very seriously and could easily defame someone's credibility as well as creating what you could call a "hate page" about with false facts. --Vauxford (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I deleted two of Charles01's subpages, at two different time intervals, because I felt they needed to be launched formally, rather than sit in userspace where they basically constitute an attack page. Vauxford, however, was advised by me last time not to be the one to add his own work to articles. This advise was not, however, subscribed to, as he, in fact, even reverted his own image back to an article today. An article, which, as a result of the ensuing edit war, I fully protected for a week. As I told Vauxford on my own talk page earlier, I just can't devote my full attention to this dispute at this time, so another admin should feel more than free to step in. Anyway, I thought a brief note was at least due, if only to enable the reader to somewhat navigate this long-standing dispute. El_C 21:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C It might of been a image by me but that was the image that was part of the RfC and I thought a consensus was reached so I did the edit. Just because it was taken by me doesn't mean that I'm adding my own work to the article nor am I ignoring your advice. --Vauxford (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- (puzzled frown) Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C It might of been a image by me but that was the image that was part of the RfC and I thought a consensus was reached so I did the edit. Just because it was taken by me doesn't mean that I'm adding my own work to the article nor am I ignoring your advice. --Vauxford (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- What the point of trying to bring this to light because so bludgeoned to the point nobody is willing to sort this incident. The outcome of it is gonna be fruitless and this ever growing problem is just going to continue on. I just want to edit normally and learn as I go on here and make good relation with other users rather then hounded by scolding editors that live off on their reputation and how long they been on Wikipedia. --Vauxford (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford. Again.
- See AN/I: Charles01 behaviour (June 4, 2019)
- See AN/I: Charleso1 further harassment (today, above)
Introduction
- Vauxford has contributed to Wikpedia since the end of 2016. He has also contributed under other names in the past. I am not aware of any other wiki-identities he is currently using, however.
- I have contributed to a large number of Wikipedia automobile articles over the years and then left most of those articles on my watch list. That means (I suspect) that I am alerted to Vauxford edits more frequently than others who might be tempted to read this. A ringside seat. My problem? Indeed.
- An appreciation of the scale of the "Vauxford Issues" would need many weeks of studying the Vauxford edit history. It is not realistic (and would be seriously unkind) to wish that on anyone. Nevertheless, here is the summary Several things leap to the eye, depending, perhaps, on what you were expecting. One thing that seems to have increased powerfully during 2019 is the weight of Vauxford contributions to talk pages. (But there are several other very unusual features also.) Although he plays a prominent role in so many talk pages, a flavour of Vauxford's attitudes to Wikipedia can by seen simply by consulting his own talk pages and as here.
- In summary, Vauxford contributes according to his own rules: he robustly ignores suggestions, recommendations and pleas to contribute according to anyone else's rules. He does not "do consensus". It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he cheerfully treats Wikipedia with sustained contempt The result is damage to Wikipedia in ways that play out both directly and indirectly, both in plain sight and invisibly.
Issues
| Extended content. ——SerialNumber54129 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Impact
Solutions
BackgroundSome people have seen (a version of) this report before. That’s because Vauxford generously “outed” it from my “sandbox” on 2 July 2019. He did it in the context of a personal attack which he launched on an Administrators' noticeboard on 4 June 2019 (and has now managed to sustain for more than a month). In the end a surprisingly large number of people responded to his … submissions. If you already took part in that discussion, thank you. Although the Vauxford invective, on this occasion, was targeted against me, I found myself in the slightly surreal position of agreeing with virtually all the reactions that people took time out to share on the noticeboard. This (above) report is NOT a direct reply to Vauxford’s Administrators' noticeboard submissions. He has received plenty of replies from others: most of those are far more succinct than I could manage. Even if he does not seem to like them. (And from what I have seen of his behavior in Wikipedia, he likes to be ignored even less, so at least in that sense I am sure that he, too, is grateful to all those who took the trouble both to read and to reply to his Administrators' noticeboard submissions.) So, since you’re reading this, I think you probably looked at the report preceding it. Thank you. I am sorry it is still longer than I’d like. Possibly not all easy reading. As in still unfinished and still too long. But after Vauxford outed it on the Administrators’ noticeboard and then kept snooping on successive versions of it in my sandbox and bleating about the existence of the copy in my sandbox to a hapless Admin on his personal talk page, I have been urged simply to paste it here, finished or not! (And I’m too fed up with the whole Vauxford thing to relish spending yet another month thinking about Vauxford’s wiki-behavior. So thank you for that powerful prod, El C.) |
If you will (and/or already did), thank you for any reactions you are willing and able to share on these matters.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- After finding out Charles01's hefty paragraph about me. I had no choice to defend myself from the amount of exaggeration he is putting about me and facts he trying to make out that are simply not true. For starters. I have not uploaded "31,395 files". I have actually uploaded about 8000 files/photos, it still a lot but not the amount that Charles01 is putting as, what those numbers are is the total amount of "edits" I have done on the Commons, that includes (Uploading images, changing/editing categories, creating new versions of a existing image, talkpage discussions, editing description on my photos) and much more. I have taken people advice such as the ones you quoted and it the reason why I have stopped putting images into other Wikipedia languages and is sticking to contribution my native Wikipedia. I had never rejected them. I admit the stuff I did such as reverting people's edits and replacing a image when the consensus presumed settled, the one he particularly mentioning the Audi Q3 talkpage discussion. I personally oppose this one because of the fact he put a lot of emotions and personal approach towards me rather talking about the picture itself which is why I added a similar image back, regardless it was of wrong of me to do so.
- The reason why most of my contribution recently is on talk pages because I got blocked for a day for edit warring and to prevent in the future I take any concern and dispute onto the talk page which most of time works with both me and the other party solve it without grudges such as here and even thank the person who opposed my picture. Looking back on the talkpage, the ones I got involved or started that went out of control or heated is when Charles01 gets involved with his personal remarks and grudge about me as a person rather then what we are discussing on the talkpage.
- After several talks with admins and uninvolved users I have slowly stopped doing my old habits such as pushing my pictures onto other Wikipedias. Although it doesn't harm for me to replace a picture when I truly think need a improved version and if people oppose I take it to the talkpage, the problem with that Charles01 pretty much follows me about and insert one of his lengthy paragraphs with 20% about what we are discussing and 80% saying how much of a terrible user I am which is why stuff I shown on the ANI about Charles01 looks worst then they look when they shouldn't be.
- The way Charles01 implying it going to take forever for people looking back my edits like I'm hiding something sinister. I'm not hiding anything and I already put out my bad sports onto the ANI about him because I'm happy to admit when I'm in the wrong. The reason why people don't often defend my pictures is just simply how it is but sometimes I think people oppose to anything pictures taken by me or stuff I do simply because it by me (that how I feel about it), quite a few people have added picture taken by me that I didn't get involved in and in fact there a few Wikipedias who favours my picture over the others, they don't need to show that directly but can also be indirectly.
- His part where he thinks I have no consideration or quality control over my pictures is simply not true. I make sure all pictures is overall good not just to me but to others, I wouldn't upload a photo of a car if it has severe case of reflection or rust, missing or aftermarket parts, been damaged in any way, being blurry or noisy and many other factors. His point about me talking onto another user's talkpage (including him) is simply me wanting advice or at least help me what I'm doing wrong. Charles01 rudely take my plead and dump it onto my talkpage like it isn't his responsibility when it about something he brought up in the first place.
- EurovisionNim has been here much longer then I am and a the stuff he did during his time, a small portion of it is automobiles, he tried to take on several fields and subjects such as buildings and buses etc. When I made that ANI speaking against his behaviour I was surprised just to see the amount of unhappy users speaking against him about the edits he did back in 2014-2015. The reason he retired wasn't solely because of the stuff happened in the Automobile Project but his previous edits back in his early days and his sockpuppeting issues.
- "That's why quality and reputation matter" I personally disagree with this and having that mentality is how user pyramid schemes are created. The big lengthy "Impact" section he done is about stuff such as assumptions that I don't get my own way with things, again not true. The reason why I brought up the ANI I created once or twice because literally no responded and the bot on their kept archiving it and I rather not want to retype all the things I said all over again so I thought it be better to put back in, I didn't do that because I wanted reaction that suit my liking, I wanted responds, advice and help over this situation. The fact he is making (or implying) accusation that I been canvassing admins "behind the scene" is beyond unacceptable. The rest he said on it is just overall overthinking nonsense, scenarios and assumption he going through his head that simply doesn't exist. The massive passage he written just shows the sheer determination to run me off the road because he doesn't like what I do, rather then helping or advising me, he just scolds and make me feel "small" compare to him until they lose their sanity and end up doing something scandalous enough to have a good reason for them to be permanently sanctioned. As I mention in one of the earlier talkpage discussion with him, I described his behaviour and how he approach me is mutual to that of a "bully", at first I sorta regret describing him that and thought he still has good morals towards me but as shown recently, that clearly not the case and just supports my summary about him as a person.
- With seeing Charles01 determination to paint me as the bad guy worries me. I already feel alienated and people doesn't seem to like me as it is and I really want to mend that with as many people that I have upset and this paragraph could be the end of me. I can cope with the fact people might disagree with my edits and I'm willing to discuss it on the talkpage in a friendly manner. Being called a "delusional and toxic" person and being accused of "degrading Wikipedia" and "edit warring" wherever I try to be civil for the past 6 months gets you quite down, it makes you feel crap, makes you feel like your enthusiasm towards something you love meaningless, I have absolutely no intention of being disprutive on here, I am not on here to create some sort of "Car pictures empire" or "personal vanity project" rubbish, I just really want to try and improve articles by providing content for both existing and new and upcoming cars in the coming years. --Vauxford (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Another thing, him pointing out that in the past (I don't do this anymore) that I linked pictures taken by me on other Wikipedias. Another user, Alexander93 who is mostly active on the German Wikipedia does the very same thing who got involved in some of these dispute and nobody even bat a eye on this user despite all this
- Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]
- To me this is a example of becoming a scapegoat, if I'm going get sanctioned for what Charles01 is outing then why this user isn't getting the same amount of hassle and harassment I been getting? --Vauxford (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Summary request
- I don't plan on commenting on this, but both of you should try to give a four sentence maximum explanation of what you think is going on, with less than 10 diffs, if you want anyone to read this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, Charles01 doesn't like my pictures which I been adding and editing over the years. I tried to get rid of my bad habits but get harassed by him and making baseless accusation about me such as edit warring and sockpuppting. In the past I have resolved content dispute with other users with some ease other then from no less then 2 users. For the past 6+ months he been trying to oust me out for both my edits and mistakes I done when I haven't done the same thing towards him except when I tried to resolve this on ANI which made me feel the feud is one-sided. I also believe Charles01 has been treating me unfair because another user done the same habit that he condemning me for with no repercussions. --Vauxford (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony, Charles01, the part of your complaint I read was eloquent but every editor's time is limited and with all of the activities they can do, few if no people will devote the time it takes to digest your long complaint. Can you sum it up in a paragraph with a couple of diffs? Then, you can respond to questions people pose with more information. But, as it stands, I doubt that any admin will take action on your case because it would be so time-consuming to read all of the history of the dispute you go into and consider the merits of both sides. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes...have to agree with Liz. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony, Charles01, the part of your complaint I read was eloquent but every editor's time is limited and with all of the activities they can do, few if no people will devote the time it takes to digest your long complaint. Can you sum it up in a paragraph with a couple of diffs? Then, you can respond to questions people pose with more information. But, as it stands, I doubt that any admin will take action on your case because it would be so time-consuming to read all of the history of the dispute you go into and consider the merits of both sides. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
A path forward
I actually read about 80% of the excessively lengthy original post by Charles01 and skimmed the rest of it. Study and emulate Ernest Hemingway's writing style before posting on talk pages again, Charles01. Be succinct. Your report was dramatically verbose. Charles01 is also wrong in asserting that no editor who takes a photo and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons should be allowed to add that photo to a relevant Wikipedia article. I do that all the time. So, I will disclose that I have uploaded about 56 car and motorcycle photos to Commons, and added many of them to articles. I have done the same thing with photos of buildings, art objects, natural features and portraits of notable people. The cars and motorcycles I photograph are rare and unusual, because those are the type of photos we need 18 years into this project. Similarly for my other photos of unusual or rare things. I am trying to improve the encylopedia, not promote my own photos.
But what I have never done is add one of my mediocre photos to an article illustrated by a similar but better photo. If any editor objected to inclusion of any of my photos (which has been rare), I have not pressed the matter. I step aside. Though I am proud to have helped illustrate various articles, especially when the article previously lacked an image, I am not trying to push or promote my own photos.
The evidence presented ad nauseum by Charles01 actually indicates that Vauxford has a different attitude and a very strong motivation to include his own photos in as many articles as possible, even if an article is already well-illustrated. That behavior is disruptive, as shown by the several ANI threads that show that many editors see Vauxford's behavior as controversial and problematic, as well as many other lengthy conversations at other venues. Vauxford is free to upload their photos to Wikimedia Commons, following that project's policies and guidelines. I propose the following narrowly crafted topic ban: Vauxford is topic banned from adding their own photographs to any article which already contains an image. Vauxford may propose adding one of their images on the talk page of any such article, and if clearcut consensus emerges, another editor can add that image to the article. Vauxford's participation in such talk page discussions will be limited to his original statement and responsive answers to direct questions asked by other editors.
Both editors are strongly advised to be succinct in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- A good start. Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. That was pretty much my earlier advise to Vauxford, to which sadly they did not adhere. I can see making that mandatory as a way forward, also. El_C 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. El_C Cullen328 But I did, all those things that I did do it been done way before these ANI has happened and I had stopped by then. Charles01 always make any sentence extremely lengthy. Please at least look at what I put again. I'm not a disruptive person and I'm not doing it to promote my pictures. Stop trying to think I haven't listened to any of you because I had. A lot of the things he said in that lengthy paragraph isn't true. I haven't uploaded 31k photos nor am I promoting them. --Vauxford (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I mention above, you reverted back to your own image earlier today. And due to the ensuing edit war, I was forced to protect the article. Today. Why are you making me repeat this? El_C 06:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Because that was my mistake, I didn't fully understood how RfC works. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, okay. But mistakes have consequences. You were advised (by me, way back) to not add your own images to articles, but to propose them on talk pages instead. It now looks like you will be forced to adhere to something similar. That's just the way it is. El_C 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C This is absolutely my last time I revert something I promise, just please see where I'm coming from my own defence. --Vauxford (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, okay. But mistakes have consequences. You were advised (by me, way back) to not add your own images to articles, but to propose them on talk pages instead. It now looks like you will be forced to adhere to something similar. That's just the way it is. El_C 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Because that was my mistake, I didn't fully understood how RfC works. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Cullen328 This isn't who I am, Charles01 is describing me far worst then I actually am. I admit, I thought using your own photos on articles was the way to go based off other editors. But I know that isn't the way of things and gets very problematic, and I am willing to listen and change who I am. You don't have to conclude to a topic ban so quickly. This is what I been fearing the most and it can't turn out this way already. --Vauxford (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- These recent comments call Vauxford's competence to edit Wikipedia into question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're objecting so strenuously. If there's no image, you may add your own. If there is already an image, you may use the talk page to propose adding your own instead. Seems perfectly sensible to me. El_C 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Cullen328 This isn't who I am, Charles01 is describing me far worst then I actually am. I admit, I thought using your own photos on articles was the way to go based off other editors. But I know that isn't the way of things and gets very problematic, and I am willing to listen and change who I am. You don't have to conclude to a topic ban so quickly. This is what I been fearing the most and it can't turn out this way already. --Vauxford (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cullen328 So you think I'm just some disruptive mong as Charles01 been painting me as for the rest of time? It shouldn't have to end like this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what a mong is, but you should be thanking Cullen328 for taking the time to parse thorough your dispute and proposing a resolution that, to me, just makes sense. El_C 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- But a topic ban doesn't has to be the way, there better ways of doing this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's kinda coming across as if you're too fixated on this being a topic ban, but the substance of the restriction is what matters. El_C 07:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- But El_C you and Cullen328 is concluding this based off Charles01 testimony which is consist mostly of jargon and exaggeration of who I am. Barely anything related to my defence was mentioned and more of focusing more on what he said. --Vauxford (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are testing my patience, Vauxford, by being mostly non responsive. El_C 07:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- But El_C you and Cullen328 is concluding this based off Charles01 testimony which is consist mostly of jargon and exaggeration of who I am. Barely anything related to my defence was mentioned and more of focusing more on what he said. --Vauxford (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's kinda coming across as if you're too fixated on this being a topic ban, but the substance of the restriction is what matters. El_C 07:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- But a topic ban doesn't has to be the way, there better ways of doing this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what a mong is, but you should be thanking Cullen328 for taking the time to parse thorough your dispute and proposing a resolution that, to me, just makes sense. El_C 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cullen328 So you think I'm just some disruptive mong as Charles01 been painting me as for the rest of time? It shouldn't have to end like this. --Vauxford (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I too have never heard nor read the word "mong" but I am from California which has its own jargon. I have tried to craft a reasonable and narrow topic ban, Vauxford. If that does not succeed, I think the time will come quite soon when an indefinite block for you will be on the table. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Cullen328 What!? No no no you that isn't what I mean. How am I making this worst? I'm just trying to see the best solution for this and not to jump to a conclusion so quickly. "Mong" just means someone who a complete idiot. --Vauxford (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is now time for other editors to comment. I will respond to direct questions but will make no other new comments on this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cullen328But it isn't who I am, that the thing. I feel my defence (which is far shorter and brief then Charles01 lengthy paragraph) hasn't even been read. --Vauxford (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am aware of what the word "mong" means, and if I ever see you use it again you're immediately indefblocked. What the hell is wrong with you? ‑ Iridescent 07:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cullen328But it isn't who I am, that the thing. I feel my defence (which is far shorter and brief then Charles01 lengthy paragraph) hasn't even been read. --Vauxford (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is now time for other editors to comment. I will respond to direct questions but will make no other new comments on this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cullen's solution. Since Vauxford seems to say that is what they will do anyway having it formalised shouldn't be much of a hardship. That it is a point of such contention demonstrates that formalising it will be a good thing, both for the avoidance of doubt and the avoidance of further contention. I also second Cullen's wise advice on brevity, and, like Iri, I come from a place where that other word has, unfortunately, long been in (ab)use, and I also strongly advise you to avoid its use ever again on wikipedia, even when you might believe you are using it self-deprecatingly. -- Begoon 07:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Iridescent Maybe "mong" wasn't the best word of choice. But in the UK, we mostly use that word to describe someone as just stupid. --Vauxford (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- VauxfordOnly the ignorant and stupid use that word in the UK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Begoon I might as well shut up then. Since everything I'm trying to say is just pissing everyone off. Even though that wasn't my intention. --Vauxford (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I get it now. "Mong" is a slur against people with Down syndrome. For 30 years, I have been the father of a young man with developmental delays, and he has been educated and trained with quite a few young people with Down syndrome. What delightful loving people they are! Far better than many "normal" people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Off-topic, but from my own (slightly less close, but very real...) experiences I can confirm that evaluation. That's why I, and others, react as we do to the term. -- Begoon 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, that's what it means?(!) What, are we in the fuckin dark ages? El_C 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Cullen328 I knew mong was a slang used in senior school but I didn't know it was used for someone who has down syndrome. I would never of used it otherwise. I'm terribly sorry about that. --Vauxford (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I get it now. "Mong" is a slur against people with Down syndrome. For 30 years, I have been the father of a young man with developmental delays, and he has been educated and trained with quite a few young people with Down syndrome. What delightful loving people they are! Far better than many "normal" people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Iridescent Maybe "mong" wasn't the best word of choice. But in the UK, we mostly use that word to describe someone as just stupid. --Vauxford (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Cullen328 Roxy the dog Iridescent I have a disability myself related to social skills and communication, which I rather not say, but for christ sake you guys are getting more pissed over what I ignorantly said rather then the entire ANI. I'm sincerely sorry for using that and I used it in my own ignorance which I have learnt the origin of. Please don't let that hinder the proposal and who I am as a person. --Vauxford (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry about your disability, but WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Support. Adding your own photos is not something I think should be forbidden universally, but your limited ability to judge your photos objectively and tenacious defence of some quite poor photos in the past makes me think that this is the best way to avoid further disruption. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Bloody hell Charles01, never post another thread on any noticeboard as long-winded as this. A beefy para and ten well-selected diffs would have done the job. I'll never get that time back. Cullen's idea is a workable response to tendentious image-pushing and should also eliminate the edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment So that's it for me, huh. I always knew this day will come. I did say that I have stopped the image pushing, but being unable to add pictures on ALL articles and need someone to do it for me. I highly doubt people will have a clean positive conesus over my proposal anyway because I'm simply annoying. This is basically a kinder way for me to be unable post images all round, and removing one basic ability and right will make almost anyone give up contributing, losing all motivation lost from these sanctions due to their reckless mistake.
If this sanction going to be put in place. I still find it completely unfair that another user like me has been doing the very same thing for the same amount of time. Despite that, Charles01 and the rest of you has blanetly ignored his behaviour and actions and even at some moment supported him, especially in the Audi Q3 talk page. You might of sanctioned me but there still a user roaming doing the EXACT same thing that is "degrading" Wikipedia. Like I used to, each time he upload a batch of images, he would find every possibilities of using his image over someone else's on every Wikipedia article he could find which I happily provided diffs for near the top of this ANI. Alexander-93 is that very person, so if you gonna remove "problematic editors" that are apparently damaging Wikipedia as Charles01 put it, then you need to do all of us rather then just a single user with a big mouth and call it a day. --Vauxford (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Vauxford - I've edited and uploaded thousands of images to wikipedia and Commons, for people at the Graphics labs, and just in general. Only very rarely would I add an image I've created or improved to an article - I generally leave that to the article's editors, unless they ask me to do it. If the images are suitable, they will be included - if they are not, they won't. That's the way it is. If I got upset every time an image I'd created or improved was removed from, or not added to, an article I'd have given it all up years ago. I don't, because I enjoy the work, and it's not important to me that sometimes it's not used in the way I would have liked, or at all. You'll need a thicker skin than you're demonstrating here, I'm afraid. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Begoon I do have a thick skin and I had in the past and to this day let user decide what image to use and have done with mine anyway, I did got a little impatience and I thought it was right sinceother editors done it before, but as I could see clear as day, it isn't.. But that isn't what am demonstrating here, what I am demonstrating is there going to be justice then it need to be done fairly, leaving no stones unturned. I'm concern that they won't take this user in consideration and let him run scot-free doing the same thing you guys are trying to sanction me for. You got one, get the other. --Vauxford (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you think another editor is editing against policy, or otherwise unacceptably, then you can start a section to discuss them and make your case. It may or may not be successful, it may even just be seen as sour grapes, I don't know because I haven't examined the details, but it has no real influence on discussions of, or remedies imposed because of, your own behaviour, and this is not really the place to raise it, unless you believe it has a direct impact on this discussion of your own behaviour, and trying to blame other people for your own faults rarely goes down well here (I'm not saying that is what you are doing, just why other users' behaviour probably isn't very relevant here). -- Begoon 11:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Begoon I do have a thick skin and I had in the past and to this day let user decide what image to use and have done with mine anyway, I did got a little impatience and I thought it was right sinceother editors done it before, but as I could see clear as day, it isn't.. But that isn't what am demonstrating here, what I am demonstrating is there going to be justice then it need to be done fairly, leaving no stones unturned. I'm concern that they won't take this user in consideration and let him run scot-free doing the same thing you guys are trying to sanction me for. You got one, get the other. --Vauxford (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Begoon It very well relevant to all this because there a large possibility that I have inevitably influenced him to think that is right doing these problematic editing and I'm the cause of normalising it. Does it look like am blaming someone for my own action? No. I owe up these mistake but Alexander should of known earlier that this style edit is leads to problems yet he has continue doing it and doing it without anyone hounding him everywhere he go. --Vauxford (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support If Vauxford were truly committed to voluntarily complying with the terms of the proposed topic ban, then he wouldn't be objecting so strenuously to having it implemented. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose with condition It is possible that Vauxford is just being overly defensive regarding this Tban and feels they aren't being heard. While they aren't being contrite they seem to claim they are willing to comply. I certainly can understand that it would be frustrating to be told you have any type of special restriction if you know in your heart you aren't going to violate that restriction. My feeling is, per WP:ROPE close this with a warning that returning to the old ways will result in a Tban and that any future complaint can point to this discussion and swiftly enact a Tban. Springee (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm quite remorseful for what I did, which is why I'm being overly defencive about this TBAN because I know I can change and not have this old habit again, it kinda hard to show it with text. But I do genuinely feel that my voice isn't being heard, I tried to make them look at it different and read what I been saying but it seem everyone has already concluded that they want me sanctioned. --Vauxford (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support with addition that Charles01 is cautioned to avoid any personal comments to or about Vauxford, directly or indirectly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Schazjmd (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Cullen's proposal. It would not prevent Vauxford from putting (rather letting other editors put) his good photos into articles where they would make a good contribution (may it be that there is no photo yet or that his photo is unarguably better than the existing one). Charles has described the "typical Vauxford picture problems" (may I use this term?), which I reckon Vauxford may not have understood in every aspect. This wouldn't be a big problem if he listened to the advice other editors give and have given; if a TBAN forces Vauxford to choose the pics he proposes carefully, then he might learn how to improve his pics' quality, and how to improve his behaviour. Therefore, I recommend not making this an indefinite TBAN. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cullens solution - This has dragged on for long enough, Admittedly I used to participate in Vauxfords RFCs however the continued squabbling between these 2 made participations boring and I got rather fed up of being dragged in the squabbles, Anyway I support Cullens well thought out solution. –Davey2010Talk 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Having looked at MJLs diffs IMHO Charles should be warned to pack the comments in but I don't believe he deserves warranting a topicban atleast not at this stage in time. –Davey2010Talk 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, if there's a heaven Cullen's going there. EEng 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of his skink. They make great pets. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can I buy Finnan haddie in California, Martinevans123? I would love to try that fish dish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cullen328, if you're in the Bay Area try Mollie Stones who certainly used to sell it in their larger branches—otherwise you should be able to get it delivered on Amazon. Don't expect too much; there's a reason it's been completely eclipsed by kippers. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Very popular in Cincinnati at one time, I think. I'll try and have a quiet word with Audrey. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can I buy Finnan haddie in California, Martinevans123? I would love to try that fish dish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of his skink. They make great pets. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, if there's a heaven Cullen's going there. EEng 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The way I see this is we have two editors: one is immature (Vauxford) while the other is aggressive (Charles01). The problem is not as simple as Vauxford disruptively adding their own images to articles. If Charles01 was not unnecessarily hostile towards Vauxford, I doubt we would be here.[70] It's pretty clear to me that if nothing is said about Charles's battleground behavior,[71][72][73][74] we are only going to be encouraging it. I'd be willing to support this T-Ban if it was paired with a one-way IBAN on Charles. That way, Vauxford can contribute productively without being consistently disparaged day-in-and-day-out (I'm talking about the "Vanity project" remarks here). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ Can we just ban both of them from opening ANIs? This is getting repetitive. Sorry if I'm being abrasive, but I'm sick of this. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support topic ban as outlined by Cullen. In my own case, I take a lot of pictures of buildings, and when it comes to whether to add them to an article or not, I try to be as absolutely objective as possible about whether my image is an improvement over the current image or not. Just guessing, I'd say about between a third of the time I leave in the current image, perhaps adding mine elsewhere in the article, if its length allows for another image. Just from reading Vauxford's commentary here and on their talk page, it appears to me that they do not have the maturity to hold to that sort of standard, which is why I think the topic ban is necessary, especially since it allows Vauxford to propose using his image on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment I know this is a bad idea to make comments while people decide the sanction you will be getting but something I been meaning to point out. I understand that my tendency of bringing stuff to ANI was tiresome, the initial reason why I made those two ANI and this third one was because I felt hounded and harassed by this person and the accusation he has gave me, all those three ANI I believe failed to get proper attention. The moment Charles01 planted his behemoth of a paragraph against me, someone has already come up with a solution and proposal to sanction me and 8 people have already favoured it in a course of no more then 4 hours. I had to wait weeks for someone to respond to any of mine and it doesn't get anywhere after few comments then it just get buried and archived and I had to dig it up again.
Why is that? Minus that I seem to have a reputation of being a tiresome editor to handle but I have many speculation why Charles01's ANI has more vivid respond and outcome then any of mine, despite having the same amount of compelling evidences to go with it. I have one prominent speculation and please do not take this in offence because I genuinely want to know with curiosity. Is it because Charles01 been a long-term editor (12 years) with many friendly pen-pals he picked up along the way and the credibility for that he is generally trusted and the accusation I point out about him are hard to believe? I am however grateful for the people who have been looking through both side of the story rather then pointing out solely my problematic behaviour but also Charles01's. It just something to think about it. --Vauxford (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who's not come down on either side as yet and has no interest in automobiles, I think you're missing the point here. What Charles01 has or hasn't done is irrelevant when it comes to discussing your conduct; if you plow through the initial walls of text, Charles01 is presenting convincing evidence that:
- You're engaged in repeatedly attempting to shoehorn photographs you've taken into articles regardless of whether there's a need to do so;
- People have regularly raised concerns about your conduct in so doing;
- You've continued to do so regardless, and consistently appear either unwilling or unable to follow the consensus that you should stop self-promoting;
- The pair of you are disrespecting the rest of the community by regularly bringing your petty squabbles to administrative noticeboards, posting at great length, and expecting other people to read your comments in full.
- What Charles01 has and hasn't done is irrelevant in this context; if Charles01 has done something problematic then we'll get on to that in due course, but what's being discussed here is the fact that you're being disruptive and give the appearance of being unwilling to stop being disruptive. (Seriously, all we need to put a stop to this is "I undertake never to add a photo I've uploaded to an article without discussing it on the talkpage first, and if people don't feel it will be an improvement I won't go ahead".) Launching attacks on the people who've actually done the pair of you the courtesy of reading your whiny walls of text, as you've just done here, is not the way to convince us that the problem isn't you. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who's not come down on either side as yet and has no interest in automobiles, I think you're missing the point here. What Charles01 has or hasn't done is irrelevant when it comes to discussing your conduct; if you plow through the initial walls of text, Charles01 is presenting convincing evidence that:
- I never said the problem wasn't me, it both of our problems. I admit it entirely my fault that I failed to pick up any concerns that other users were giving me, it my fault that I did shoehorn many of my photographs without any consideration for others. I'm just trying to get people to see both side of it. Like I said, I admit my mistake and I'm sincerely apologise for it and I want to show people I am willing to amend my mistakes for the future. I have vow to not forcefully self-promote photographs I taken myself but I do want people to know I'm not the only one at fault here. --Vauxford (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford, I guess you have upset several editors, and I strongly believe that the strong support for a tban is not down to Charles having more friends than you. Charles' behaviour on the other hand is not deemed "as disruptive as yours", which is possibly why not many editors commented on your ANI discussion. On the German language Wikipedia, you have attempted to replace several images, and the way you have done that was considered disruptive. This is how I found my way to this discussion. I believe that you are doing your "photo thing" in good faith, and that you may struggle realising what exactly makes it disruptive. I understand that you feel like Charles treats you in a way that is not exactly friendly, but I reckon that it will stop as soon as you stop. Charles says that your photos are not particularly good, and even though I see why he says that, they are still better than most car photos out there. You have taken several really good ones, and, literally a step backwards will improve the quality even further. I would actually like to help you, but currently, I believe the only way we can help you is by prohibiting you from putting images into articles. It would not prevent you from taking photos and uploading them to Commons. If you take a photo that is unarguably better than an existing one, it will end up in an article sooner than you think. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support, albeit slightly reluctantly. Restricting someone from adding their own images to articles is not an insignificant sanction in my opinion, and probably unprecedented, at least in this topic area. (Applying that restriction to all editors as Charles suggests would be counterproductive, illogical, hard to enforce, and do a great job of driving new or casual editors away from the project, in my view.) However, this scope of this issue is so broad, and the disruption so considerable, that there needs to be some action taken. Vauxford has shown a consistent reluctance to get the point, so this is the logical next step. It would ultimately require him to consider the quality of the existing image compared to his proposed replacement, and the need for a measurable improvement to justify replacing it may also spur an improvement in his photography.
I would also note that Charles' behavior here has crossed the line - primarily the seemingly-baseless insinuations of sockpuppetry. I understand the frustration, but the edit summaries and "Vanity Project" mentions are unproductive and in my opinion have only exacerbated things. --Sable232 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sable232 I don't mean to make myself sound delusional, but I got every aspect of what a good photo could be and I proven that many times, there nothing when it comes to photographing the "correct" way. The problem with me (in the past) is that I was very forceful with my photos, when I first started I did simply waited for them to be picked by other editors, but I started to grew impatience because I saw that past editors did the same "self-inserting" photos into all articles in all Wikipedia (e.g. OSX). Obviously I found out the fate of these editors I was influenced by because of this disruptive practise.
- With the whole, willing to accept this sanction, me being reluctant and worrying and feeling terrible about yourself (most of the time) is just my way of coping when something distinctive in my head is going to change, doesn't mean I'm actually reluctant or outright refused for this sanction to happen. It doesn't help I'm quite stubborn with changes and it takes me a few go's to accept them in my life. --Vauxford (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposed general sanctions
Like everyone else, I believe enough has been said about this dispute. Just taking a look at this AN/I thread or #IBAN violation by U1Quattro. I drafted out these proposed general community sanctions to maybe finally put this issue to rest for good.
@Cullen328, El C, Davey2010, Begoon, Sable232, Deacon Vorbis, Hijiri88, Reyk, GoldenRing, and Dlohcierekim: Pinging uninvolved users who have previous commented in either thread Could you please read this over and provide feedback? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Vanya Ilcheva
Insertion of original research after final warning. Edits concern promoting the historical role of one ethnic group in the development of calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- And this. What? “Ex-Bulgarian territory”? I don’t get it. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nigos, you are more likely to get a quick reaction here if you include diffs of the edits that gave rise to your warnings, rather than of the warning messages themselves, of which people have no quick way of checking the accuracy without such diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, dif's please. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to ping Jc3s5h in my previous comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The claims seem to be more dramatic as the edits go on. This one, with no more than a link to Bulgar calendar and a vague mention of UNESCO to support the claim, says "Oldest Calendar in the world, recognized by UNESCO in 1976 is the Bulgarian Bulgar calendar" and "It is a solar most accurate calendar ever made, with 365 days and 1 leap day every 4 years." Sounds a lot like the Julian calendar, which had to be replaced with the Gregorian calendar due to inaccuracy. This edit is similar, but to a different article.
- The Bulgar calendar which is wikilinked does not appear to have the either the claim about being the oldest, or the most accurate, before Vanya Ilcheva's edits. Since the claims weren't there before these changes, naturally they couldn't be supported by reliable sources, and Vanya Ilchev didn't add any. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- They said that a calendar belongs to Bulgaria just because they said that "Croatia was an ex-Bulgarian territory" (same diff). They inserted their POV and claim in this diff: [75]. And their message on my talk page said that I "needed editing" and made fun of me. They also insist on using blogs as sources, and removing legitimate talk page comments by other users on my talk page, saying that I needed to "educate" myself. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- First off please so not put links in a threads header Nigos as it makes it impossible to access. Next that is not the way to ping another editor. You have to add the ping for Vanya Ilcheva in a signed post. Without a signature a ping does not work. As you see I have pinged VI for you. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- First off please so not put links in a threads header Nigos as it makes it impossible to access. Next that is not the way to ping another editor. You have to add the ping for Vanya Ilcheva in a signed post. Without a signature a ping does not work. As you see I have pinged VI for you. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- They said that a calendar belongs to Bulgaria just because they said that "Croatia was an ex-Bulgarian territory" (same diff). They inserted their POV and claim in this diff: [75]. And their message on my talk page said that I "needed editing" and made fun of me. They also insist on using blogs as sources, and removing legitimate talk page comments by other users on my talk page, saying that I needed to "educate" myself. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nigos, you are more likely to get a quick reaction here if you include diffs of the edits that gave rise to your warnings, rather than of the warning messages themselves, of which people have no quick way of checking the accuracy without such diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The editor is at it again. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jc3s5h what did you mean by that link? It was a document download for the state of Vermont. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've fixed the link. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Removing propery cited sources and them replacing it with original research is too much already. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 23:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've fixed the link. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Unnamed12
- Unnamed12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Unnamed12 keeps editing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement article with unsourced/uncited and incorrect information and keeps changing the language into possessive form in the American POV.
- I notified them of this discussion. They had not been told that their editing is a problem on their talk page ere now. In quickly glancing at their edits, I feel the urge to stand, click my heels and salute. Their POV is amazingly "red, white, and blue". Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Their POV is NOT helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Cross wiki threats and harassment (again)
Hi
After the last ANI, this a banned user in French wikipedia continued to harrass me. So could you block him again (his IP is static) and if possible, could you made indef block for his account W200, so I could ask Meta Wiki to give him a global lock or a global ban? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- The IP is 176.156.172.83 (talk · contribs) and has made one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: it is the second edit. He have been blocked for one week and the edit deleted. @Acroterion and Bishonen: have seen the first ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- IP blocked for resuming and amplifying harassment after their previous block. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: it is the second edit. He have been blocked for one week and the edit deleted. @Acroterion and Bishonen: have seen the first ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Long-term sockpuppetry at AFD
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination)
- Single-purpose accounts:
- Ssmock (talk · contribs)
- Ibson.writes (talk · contribs)
- Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk · contribs)
- Timeline given by User:Koncorde:
- 2019-03-13T04:19:54: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike
- 2019-03-13T04:20:27: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike
- 2019-03-13T04:22:36: edit to Sri Lanka Army by Ibson.writes
- Edits by Trasel (talk · contribs) confirmed sockpuppet accounts to Michael Z. Williamson:
- Single-purpose accounts in the 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson, whose edits were long-since stale for the 2013 checkuser check of Trasel:
- Thomas Gooch (talk · contribs) — "who I know"
- Logic11 (talk · contribs)
- Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs)
- Single-purpose accounts in 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles, whose edits were again long-since stale by the 2013 check-user check:
- Matt mg (talk · contribs)
- Mojoelvis (talk · contribs)
- Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs)
- one example out of several there of signature faking of an account that wasn't created (Special:Log/Kcs2c) until 7 months later.
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#James Wesley Rawles (closed)
- Article subject: Mzmadmike (talk · contribs)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive points to this as a pattern, where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse dormant accounts woke up to participate in the AFD discussion, as has happened here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It points out a connection between three people, the subject of this biographical article, James Wesley Rawles, and one Jeff Trasel. The Trasel sockpuppet-farm also edited James Wesley Rawles, not shown with diffs because there's quite a lot of it.
All of the new single-purpose accounts are, once again, failing to discuss sources and whether a biographical subject is properly documented by the world, making it likely that this 2nd AFD discussion will be as de-railed by that as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson were.
In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.
Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Proof of not just canvassing but harassment from the author's FB account [76]has been posted to the AfD by an IP. User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång where do you think we should go with this now? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm involved at the AfD, but I think a block for User:Mzmadmike is in order for calling User:Fabrictramp a pha66otte and linking to their Wikipedia user page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Concur with Doug Weller The behavior of User:Mzmadmike and his toxic followers is so far beyond the pale... note that they also tried to doxx @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Concur with Doug Weller but note that I am now involved at the AFD as well.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Recommending blocking the editor-in-question. I'd post more, but these 'edit conflicts' are annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we want this guy around anyway: "You are proof that Pinochet did nothing wrong". All of his edits to Talk:Nazi Party are, frankly, insane.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think I just made the sound my cat makes when he's got a hairball. [77] 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I meant "out of order" and have fixed that. @Fabrictramp: my ping failed. I've had 2nd thoughts about the block, we need to crack down hard on harassment. A community ban seems in order. I'll still vote Keep if the evidence is there. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up on this. The AfD is definitely a train wreck, much like the previous one. Sadly, if someone had added the info about being a Hugo nominee prior to the speedy request, I wouldn't have deleted the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- this bit of slander created by (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Uncle_G). However, if you bother looking at my user page (which, granted, I just got around to updating, not that I'd really given a damn about it otherwise), you'll see that your casual insult is invalid. Unless I've been a sockpuppet since 2006. That your first impulse with "but I don't like what these people are saying!" is to accuse all and sundry of being sockpuppets is insulting. The groupthink that "oh, it MUST be sockpuppeting/canvasing because a group of people disagree with me!" is simply astounding. NB - moved to end of comment stack per request. Do NOT revert my comments again. Edit to add: Folks, your behavior _in these discussion_ is evidence of harassment.
- Speedy deletion for no justifiable reason other than personal preference (note no RfD, and the deletor didn't bother to check to see if there was a prior RfD - just went ahead and deleted the page immediately on their personal choice) - accusations of sockpuppet/meatpuppet against any account that disagrees with this behavior - reversion of comments, de novo - proposed group punishment. From further down this discussion: "and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban". Given that the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up, it's an attempt to silence a group because they say things that you don't like. Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment. This is all personally witnessed in the last 18 hours, and is supported by the change logs. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- "[...] the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up" He quite literally rallied his fanbase on Facebook to vote Keep at the AfD in question. If that's not WP:CANVASSING by definition, then I don't know what is. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- So how, then DO you classify an attempt to label a dissenting an opinion as a sockpuppet (in the discussion) then refer it here for further action, in a <16 hour window? What's the evidence supporting the assertion (and "hasn't edited a lot in the last 4 months" isn't evidence. If, for example, he'd asked for "what's your background" prior to making the assertion, I could have done _what _ wound up doing_, and documented prior wiki presence. But he pulled the trigger on sockpuppet allegation with essentially no supporting evidence. Given that the use of the term is not just technical, but specifically to denigrate statements in disagreement with his position, it meets the definition of the term slander "1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Hell, at least I've got a verifiable user ID tied to this discussion. You're posting anon.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Alas, we must post post haste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rumplestiltskin1992: if you were not canvassed, how did you come by the article to post a "KEEP" as a collective within 30 minutes of each other? Did you have this one article on your "watch-list"? Why this article? If your old user account is your only prior editing account, then that also shows limited editing history and certainly no inkling as to why or how this page would end up on your watchlist? Are there are other accounts than Cprael that you haven't revealed you have edited under? It is not slander to suggest that a whole swathe of individuals all joined one conversation thread in order to make an argument in favour of someone that they support. Sockpuppet also does not require you to be a single individual (i.e. Mike himself). You can sock (or meatpuppet) as individuals, but the intent remains the same - an attempt to unduly influence a process, or give the illusion of weight and support. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have created https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mzmadmike to compile the evidence of the numerous puppets by Mzmadmike, whether they be socks or meats or meatsocks or sockmeats or bacon socks[78]. I ask that @Koncorde: or @Uncle G: or another experienced individual review it and if they feel necessary, set it to request further attention by the investigators. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Koncorde: @Uncle G: Apparently someone has decided that my attempt to follow the process to collect this information is "vandalism" and deleted it. That's sad. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Imadethisstupidaccount: just use your Sandbox. Koncorde (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Koncorde: @Uncle G: Apparently someone has decided that my attempt to follow the process to collect this information is "vandalism" and deleted it. That's sad. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- [[re|Koncorde}} I'm going to quote directly from WP:CANVAS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Note that there is an explicit requirement of intent _written into the guideline_. At the time that I joined the discussion, the ENTIRE post/thread consisted of the following:
- I have created https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mzmadmike to compile the evidence of the numerous puppets by Mzmadmike, whether they be socks or meats or meatsocks or sockmeats or bacon socks[78]. I ask that @Koncorde: or @Uncle G: or another experienced individual review it and if they feel necessary, set it to request further attention by the investigators. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rumplestiltskin1992: if you were not canvassed, how did you come by the article to post a "KEEP" as a collective within 30 minutes of each other? Did you have this one article on your "watch-list"? Why this article? If your old user account is your only prior editing account, then that also shows limited editing history and certainly no inkling as to why or how this page would end up on your watchlist? Are there are other accounts than Cprael that you haven't revealed you have edited under? It is not slander to suggest that a whole swathe of individuals all joined one conversation thread in order to make an argument in favour of someone that they support. Sockpuppet also does not require you to be a single individual (i.e. Mike himself). You can sock (or meatpuppet) as individuals, but the intent remains the same - an attempt to unduly influence a process, or give the illusion of weight and support. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Alas, we must post post haste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- MZW Post: Deleted because it's not a credible page? + link to his personal page
Down to
-- Michael Z Williamson Well, if anyone can find the archive and restore, please do so.
That was it. I happened to be online at the time, on Facebook, and the post popped on a refresh, which is why I saw it, and responded on Wiki. My browsing history supports that, and I'll post _that_ if necessary. Within 12 hours I'd been labelled a sockpuppet (despite the fact that my prior account dates back to 2006, and with no independent contact). So... in that subset, show me the intention? Because intent is _required_ by the Wiki standard, as cited above. If you can't demonstrate intent, you have no argument. Further, there's the attempt above to further push the "sockpuppet" argument. It's insulting, and as demonstrated above, the entire line of argument (sockpuppeting as slanderous allegation, and yes, I DO use that word within it's definition; allegations of canvassing when intent _can not_ be proven) proceeds from false premises and a refusal to actually read and abide by the published standards.
What I'm especially bothered by is that this is turning into an edit war. Someone has now started an AfD for a second Baen author for, apparently, no other reason than they participated here, found out the other author's name, and decided to delete them too. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Wikipha66otes" and more from his asshatted moron squad. http://www.facebook.com/michaelzwilliamson/posts/1021742094188013
He makes a claim about predicting something that was proposed on Wikipedia by JayMaynard. And he calls for his supporters to start vandalizing wikipedia. And he says "they're all -ha66ottes" and "burn it to the ground". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.54 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, he said it _was_ a predictable action. Given the extensive retaliation that came out of the whole "Sad Puppies" mess, he has a legitimate point.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Link is broken. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
So how do we go around dealing with the meatpuppets? Seeing as a couple of users on Michael's Facebook thread (not necessarily just Michael himself this time) are starting to link to pretty much *any* politics-related BLP that is being nominated for deletion. --letcreate123 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Would you mind explaining why every SFF author nominated for AfD has been a midlist Baen author, that every one of them meets the requirement for significance, and that not one other author, from any other publisher or political persuasion, has been so nominated? In this case, I would suggest that (a) correlation _is_ causation, and (b) that the continued assertion of meatpuppetry are an attempt to pre-emptively taint adverse commentary. In the legal community, there's a concept called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This smells like the Wiki version of that. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that I can't understand your first sentence (ie how can someone explain "that every one of them meets the requirement for significance"), are you saying you checked all deletion nominations for science fiction authors to know that they've all been midlist Baen authors? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Seconding @Letcreate123:, what can be done about the WP:CANVASsed issues going on? The article subject has been continually posting some of the most vile things [79] I've ever seen come out of someone's mouth to encourage people not only to come to wikipedia but to engage in vandalism [80]. There is also apparently a private page where further WP:CANVAS may be happening. [81] "Dovid Steele If they are able to read your posts, come over to FREEHOLD" "Dovid Steele Group. Not so much a fan group as just a place for Mad Mike to hide. if you seek admittance please answer all the vetting questions as they are designed to weed out the leftwing freaks." as well as apparently one Larry Correia has put out to a private WP:CANVAS call at [82], as described [83] "Jeff Paquet Larry C has noted it, also and asked if any of his fans can help" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- AfD's just been indef semi'd by an admin, that should hopefully cut out any more canvassing in there. Peeps will still prolly talk in the AfD talk page but hopefully it should bear no disruptive effect on the AfD itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Williamson's still sore because his puffy-shirt glam shot didn't make the cover of Women's Wear Daily. EEng 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Propose community ban on User:Mzmadmike for harassment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See above. I might reconsider if he deletes his post, apologises there and here and halts the thread, but I don't know if he can do the latter.Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm very reluctant to go down the road of blocking people for comments made off-wiki, even when they're about Wikipedia editors, unless they fall into very specific categories like credible death threats. Sure, his fans are being annoying, disruptive and unacceptably rude, but admins get that kind of crap every time they delete an article on anyone with any kind of fan-base. If there's recent evidence of him being problematic on Wikipedia, that's obviously a different matter, but most of his recent edits just seem to be routine and appropriate updates to articles. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: there was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think things have changed and we need to be a lot less tolerant of off-wiki abuse. And in this case he started the thread with the abuse - I don't care about his fans, but it's not surprising that they are being disruptive in a thread where he starts with abuse. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, what category does specifically posting a link to the admin's talk page along with screenshots of the userpage, and calling them a "pha66otte" around a group of people to whom abusive behavior and slurs of all sorts are all over the common discussion, fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because to me that looks like posting a giant sign and saying "sic 'em". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban. I don't think we want this person in our playground, and I'm not particularly fussy about how they're kicked out. As long as the actions/comments are legitimately connected to Wikipedia, as they are here, it's certainly within our purview to act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban - Pointing your Facebook fans at a Wikipedia user and making anti-gay slurs toward that person... you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in being a productive member of our community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban I have a real problem with long term incivility. Should have been dealt with earlier. And if he's aiming fans at Wikipedia or using his reach on social media to cause problems for Wikipedia or its editors, then he is de facto not a member of this community. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- addendum His actions on Wiki are appalling and evident of a battleground, not here attitude. This is in addition to his actions off wiki and would be sufficient if we discount his use of social media to recruit meatpuppets to not only affect a consensus discussion but to harass editors he finds problematic to his his nothere agenda. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban - per p. much everyone else.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban - long term incivility and harassment. --MrClog (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support and pace Iridescent. The main difference here is that the fellow's deliberately relying on us ignoring what goes on in the rest of the web to give the site and our members a digital kicking. That kind of makes us enablers, and even if pour encourager les autres is not policy, it still very much applies philosophically. Or it bloody well should, anyhows. ——SerialNumber54129 18:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I wouldn't mind him venting about it on Facebook, even if he did get his fanbase all stirred up. We can't hold that against him. But linking to the admin and calling them a "faggot" can be seen as nothing other than a blatant attempt to incite harassment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Can't say I've come across this before, but reviewing the above... yeesh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Iridescent.(see below) I don't see the harassment. I see misconduct and canvassing, certainly, that may rise to the level of a block or some other sanction. But complaining about a particular Wikipedia editor off-wiki is not harassment. No matter how upsetting it may be. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)- Also support indef block per WP:NLT following this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question: Where is this "pha66ot" comment everyone's referring to? Has he edited the Facebook post? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also support indef block per WP:NLT following this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_coupe_(2018-07-30)_01.jpg){kind=link}
- The original comment link is [84]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I can now support community ban for disruption. I note that the FB discussion has now been deleted, which is great (I don't know who deleted it, though I'm reasonably sure someone reported it to Facebook). Anyway I still can't support based on harassment because frankly I don't think it rose to the level of harassment, and was rather off-wiki whining for which I'd prefer to deny recognition. That said, the canvassing and disruptive, offensive commentary on-wiki (including the legal threat) rise to the level of sufficiently disruptive to merit a CBAN. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Most likely he got a timeout from Facebook when Facebook deleted it. He has at least three accounts that he uses in alternation on Facebook to avoid bans there already, under the names of "Michael Williamson", "Michael Z Williamson" and "Michael Z. Williamson". The #2 sockpuppet facebook account, which uses a playboy bunny skull-and-crossbones icon, posted this [85] right after leaving a note that "My similarly named friend got a 30 day ban...". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The original comment link is [84]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support, per editors' recent actions at the article-in-question & his recent comments at that article's Afd. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. [86] I think this has taken the cake. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban, clear indications of WP:NOTHERE including recent comments on the Facebook thread he's posted and recent edits to the AfD. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban, and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban - iff the article doesn't already fall under general/discretionary sanctions of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
- He's already been indef'd under NLT. Comments like this one at the AfD are objectionable / offensive. WP does not need editors who view everyone else here as "vile, fat, basement-dwelling wankers who have appointed themselves the keepers of knowledge." Mzmadmike has made ~1800 edits over more than 10 years and yet knows so little of WP culture that he sees notability questions / an AfD discussion as his "readers [having] to abase, degrade, and humiliate themselves to document that [he, as] a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse" (a reference to this article). He asserts that it is his decision alone whether the article on him stays or not, and he has issued an NLT-violating threat (in comparably objectionable terms) in an attempt to impose his will. He's referred to editors as "fucking pathetic", declared that describing the Nazi Party as of the far-right in "delusional crap" and that the Nazis "were left wing, and claiming otherwise requires mental contortions that indicate insanity". These led to a warning on his user talk page, which was not his first warning about civility (after this comment). He has blogged criticism of WP offsite (which is fine) but also named editors he disagrees with and linked to the on-wiki discussion, which is problematic. I support a community ban as I don't believe that Mzmadmike shares WP's goals and values and doubt that will change. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to block for the edit linked by 73.76.220.8 (EEWWW) but found the NLT block there. I'm going to go revdel some of that, so look quick. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Request closure or this is going to turn into another train wreck as the AFD. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. The indef can be lifted by any individual admin, but a community ban can only be overturned by the community. That's what we need here. We keep his article, because he is notable, but we don't keep him in the community.On a personal note, as a science fiction reader, I'm glad that I've never read anything by this (Redacted), and hope to never do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Community ban, obviously. EEng 04:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Community ban This person has behaved in an abominable fashion, both off-Wiki and here on Wikipedia. He has chosen his fate as an editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban He's done his dash on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with users Jorm and Cullen328 above. Rong Qiqi (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- clarification While I am vile and fat, I do not have a basement to dwell in. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- My goodness, I wish I had a basement to dwell in. It'd be like a palace. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- We used to dream of having a basement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- We were evicted from our basement; we had to go and live in a lake. Rong Qiqi (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Luxury! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Currently looking for a basement. Willing to share with three Yorkshiremen. Vile/fat optional, but must have own socks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Luxury! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- We were evicted from our basement; we had to go and live in a lake. Rong Qiqi (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- We used to dream of having a basement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- My goodness, I wish I had a basement to dwell in. It'd be like a palace. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban. Full disclosure: I am one of the fat vile people who voted for "No award" above his book in the 2015 Hugo vote, and I am not going to get involved in the AfD (because of that and also because it makes me feel vaguely unclean.) However, that doesn't disqualify me from evaluating his behaviour as an editor. He is not here to improve Wikipedia, and his attacks are of course completely inappropriate. And like Dlochierekim I have no basement. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban- I as a card-carrying member of the Fat Vile Basement-dwellers' Association agree that this person is not here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. He's a deeply unpleasant and disruptive person. Reyk YO! 11:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban - This Fat Vile Homeowner must show solidarity with his basement dwelling kin by confirming that this sort of comportment is inappropriate in the extreme on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban - Sadly, I have to support this and I'm a pretty avid reader of Williamson and generally support his views. His actions here and on Facebook are not excusable though and especially in the current environment, show willingness to belittle and harass those with differing views. I'm even more disappointed that he apparently deleted the discussion on Facebook without so much as an apology. Take responsibility for your actions, don't try to hide them. I'm also a bit disappointed in some of the comments here that are stooping down to his level. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose ban An established writer understandably gets a little upset when someone anonymous suddenly declares them not notable. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Get over it. I see no legal threat. Almond Plate (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I will pursue whatever legal remedies are available if this page is not removed.
was posted by Williamson, and is unquestionably a legal threat.Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user.
Wikipedia sees no distinction between a Wikipedia contributor and the person who operates that account. Community bans like these are directed at the person operating the account, namely Williamson himself, and not merely his account. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The diff Mendaliv is referring to can be found here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_Z._Williamson&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=907294524&oldid=907286075 (scroll down a bit) Rong Qiqi (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CAN pertains to editors, and there is no legal remedy available, so how can that be a threat. It's just words. You know, the tools of a writer. Almond Plate (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of if a legal remedy exists, the mere threat of a lawsuit has a chilling effect, as few people can afford to defend themselves in a civil suit. It doesn't matter if the threat has merit, what matters is the threat to drag you into court to waste your time and money, which exists as a technique to get your way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CAN pertains to editors, and there is no legal remedy available, so how can that be a threat. It's just words. You know, the tools of a writer. Almond Plate (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The diff Mendaliv is referring to can be found here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_Z._Williamson&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=907294524&oldid=907286075 (scroll down a bit) Rong Qiqi (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Words have meaning, and our community matters. "Get over it" is the cry of those who wish to harass with impunity, because "it's just words." Sorry, that's not how it works. We're empowered to determine whether someone's choice use of words makes them a net negative to our community and, if so, whether or not we want to allow them to continue to participate. As usual, xkcd on point: Free Speech. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- We are supposed to look beyond the heat of the moment. A ban over something this small has a chilling effect on everyone. It will all be over when the AfD ends, which will be any moment now, and then I want to allow him to participate again. Almond Plate (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Words have meaning, and our community matters. "Get over it" is the cry of those who wish to harass with impunity, because "it's just words." Sorry, that's not how it works. We're empowered to determine whether someone's choice use of words makes them a net negative to our community and, if so, whether or not we want to allow them to continue to participate. As usual, xkcd on point: Free Speech. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support community ban - His comments here and on Facebook are beyond the pale, It's one thing letting off steam about someone but to link them and then call them <that word> is on another level of stupid, Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- reply to Almond Plate And he is free to pursue whatever legal means he pleases. We simply block from editing anyone who makes a legal threat. But that is just one example of his nothere behavior. The incivility alone is a sufficient reason to block or ban him. And his words, his writer's words, are the vehicle of his incivility. Should we shrug those off as well. What an excuse, "I'm a writer, so I should not be blocked or banned for what I have written, regardless of how hurtful." We are all writers here, of a sort. I cannot understand your need to defend him. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why experienced editors waste their time with someone like Almond Plate. AP created their account on September 18, 2018. They have made 184 edits since then. Their first edits to project space are to this dicussion and the AfD, and their comments are ludicrous and will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think they're assuming good faith of an editor who, so far, has spent 80% of their time in articlespace and so has not proved themselves a net negative. Having said that, I'll bet my shirt—per BEANS—that should anyone dig out that-which-is-not-pixie dust, any issues—apparent or otherwise— would find themselves instantly resolved. Meh. ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- aside on irony If his writings "violence" motiff is an offshoot of the views of violence in RAH's Starship Troopers, in Johnny's Moral Philosophy class,
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
, then I hope he appreciates the irony of the situation. I'm sure Mr. Heinlein would. Now there is a writer that is notable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC) - Pile on Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and is a net negative to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Net negative to the project. Support ban. (it's been 24 hours, I think this is pretty close to closure time). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
NAC?
This got closed by a non-admin. I'm not opposed to the closure and think the call is right, but I'm reasonably certain non-admins aren't allowed to conclude someone is banned, though I can't find an explicit statement of policy to that effect. And the fact that this guy is already blocked means an admin doesn't need to do dirty work. Even so, I think an admin should "confirm" the close real quick. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh hold up, Rockstone35, you !voted and then closed. Even if you were an admin that wouldn't be permissible. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Non-admins are allowed to close community discussions, including bans. I've seen it done before, and I'm fairly certain that I have done it at least once in the past. However, like I said in the summary, if this is too soon or if we want to wait for an admin, I have no problem with it being reversed. !voting and then closing is permissible though, see here. An uninvolved user is someone who has no bias or conflict of interest, not someone who has no opinion about the situation. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: Per WP:CBAN (my emphasis):
If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for.
You are both involved (by supporting the ban) and not an administrator, so you have no business closing this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)- +1 - You cannot vote and then close the dicussion, I would suggest Rockstone35 you repoen this and allow an admin to close it - Whilst consensus is blindly obvious IMHO closures like these should be left to admins. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Tavix: while I don't disagree with the "uninvolved" part, the rule does not prohibit uninvolved administrators from closing ban discussions, at least how I read it, it only requires them to notify the subject. I think we should update the policies to make it clearer. I promise I'm not wikilawyering, I just thought that closing this was okay. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that sentence. It's obvious (to me) that all of those things need to happen at the same time by the same person, but I can see how someone might have read it differently before. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Tavix: You're welcome! Thank you for removing the now-extraneous sentence. The other reason I was confused is because the non-admin closures page only prohibits closures which require an action by an administrator for technical reasons, which in this case, since the user is already indefinitely blocked, it doesn't. I think the page needs to be completely reworked because it really only talks about deletion discussions. But that's another topic.
I edited the page on non-admin closures to clarify, feel free to review and revert if not necessary.Edit: was in wrong section, will reevaluate. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Tavix: You're welcome! Thank you for removing the now-extraneous sentence. The other reason I was confused is because the non-admin closures page only prohibits closures which require an action by an administrator for technical reasons, which in this case, since the user is already indefinitely blocked, it doesn't. I think the page needs to be completely reworked because it really only talks about deletion discussions. But that's another topic.
- Thanks for clarifying that sentence. It's obvious (to me) that all of those things need to happen at the same time by the same person, but I can see how someone might have read it differently before. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: Per WP:CBAN (my emphasis):
- Non-admins are allowed to close community discussions, including bans. I've seen it done before, and I'm fairly certain that I have done it at least once in the past. However, like I said in the summary, if this is too soon or if we want to wait for an admin, I have no problem with it being reversed. !voting and then closing is permissible though, see here. An uninvolved user is someone who has no bias or conflict of interest, not someone who has no opinion about the situation. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I reopened the discussion. Users who voted can not be the closers. This is the original close (with the original timestamp):--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) It's been 24 hours (the time required for consensus to form), and the community's consensus is overwhelming to support the community ban. Thus, Mzmadmike is banned indefinitely by the community for harassment and incivility. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
IBAN violation by U1Quattro
U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User U1Quattro violated IBAN again, twice at least.
This user still cannot keep away from contributions made by me quite recently and keeps rewriting them and adding tags to them. See Ferrari 456: Revision history.
Special:Diff/907256292 and Special:Diff/907256438
Special:Diff/904629142 Clearly shows this section added by me quite recently, this very month.
Special:Diff/907261327
Special:Diff/901265487 Clearly shows this section added by me quite recently, last month.
There was no reason to make those changes. He was just blocked for an IBAN violation that literally ended two days ago: IBAN violations by U1Quattro, and keeps getting back for more.
Section violated: Interaction ban
"Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" YBSOne (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Also user clearly referenced me indirectly stating that my edit was "appaling" and he cannot change it due to an IBAN with an author of that edit.
Special:Diff/907255736
Section violated: Interaction ban
"Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" YBSOne (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an expert on IBANs, but even under an IBAN, it seems that editors can still work on the same page. Ybsone, on the first complaint (the article edits), the diffs you linked were part of a whole series where U1Quattro was doing various cleanup throughout the entire page, not just the short bit of text that was added by you (which did need cleanup for grammar, and for which a citation needed tag was appropriate); it wasn't even a reversion. The second part is less great, but he's criticizing the article organization, and then asking for assistance from others in order to abide by the IBAN. Maybe a more tactful choice of words could have been made, but still, did this really need to be brought here yet again? Can't we all just get along? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is rather clear to me that this user cannot stop to use ANI again and again. Just like Vauxford. Because they don't have an understanding of how an IBAN works and they decide to use the same old clause in their defense when I did not even violate it. There is a difference between reversion and correction. I am confident that this time, I did not do an IBAN violation. I corrected grammar and wording and did not remove anything. I even left a note in the talk page of the article asking another user to do a proposed correction made by me as I was aware that such excerpts were added by this user. I did not even mention or criticise this user, only the content that was present. I have now changed my choice of words on the said tlkpage discussion. On the other hand, this user was involved in edit warring on the same page they are referring to and they even violated the 3RR rule rather than discuss matters on the article talk page in a civil manner. I request the admins to take notice of their edit warring and please give them advice about how ANI works so we are not faced by these time wasting tactics again and again.U1 quattro TALK 03:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- To make my point more clear, I would mention the entire IBAN section here:
"The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.
Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions;
make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption."
The thing which I did is highlighted in bold so that this user understands what I did. I also criticised the content in the talk page, not the person who added it as it would appear to a general reader.U1 quattro TALK 03:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Further this section here from the IBAN rule states to provide edit summaries for such weird which I did provide "As a banned user, if you think your editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules, you should explain why that is so at the time of the edit, for example in the edit summary. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify."U1 quattro TALK 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since this user has demonstrated that they cannot differenciate what is an edit reversion and what is an edit correction, I will now mention the following from WP:REVERTING:
"A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.
A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions.
Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.
| Editor action | Classification |
|---|---|
| You re-phrase the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article. | A normal change, not a reversion. |
| You reverse all of Alice's changes in wording, restoring the article to the previous version. | A complete reversion. |
| You add a new paragraph at the end of the article. | A normal change, not a reversion. |
| You remove most of the new paragraph, but leave one or two sentences. | A partial reversion. |
"
As made clear here, I did the thing that is mentioned on the table at the top.U1 quattro TALK 04:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing was made clear because You are quoting a lot of unrelated policies and yet You do not comprehend any of them. I have clearly added content and now parts of that content are missing, deleted by a user that was supposed to have an interaction ban with an author of that content. You are not allowed to remove any of the content added by me. Ie You are not allowed to interact with the content added by me. Comprehend? YBSOne (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore it seems that user is actively changing disputed content to cover his tracks. Special:Diff/907324311. YBSOne (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Support no action against U1Quattro Sorry, but IBANs should not be enforced in such a manner as to force both editors (or, rather, the less belligerent of the two editors) to constantly look over their shoulder and be thinking about whether this or that piece of text may have been edited by the other. Forcing IBANned editors to think about each other is the opposite of the intended purpose of an IBAN, and sanctioning an editor for having fixed a mistake that another editor inserted into an article because that other editor happened to be "the wrong editor to mess with" is simply unacceptable.
- I would, however, support a trout or perhaps a boomerang being issued to Ybsone.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Concur with Hijiri88. Nail squarely struck on head. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- And what's appalling is the amount of time wasted on this sort of bickering. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Show me this in exceptions to limited bans that now this user can "correct my mistakes". This user wanted an IBAN but instead of adhering to the rules, he has quoted at least four policies he knows nothing about just to "game the system" against me. I am not going to be lenient against an editor with such sketchy past of disruptive and tendentious editing behaviour. YBSOne (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ybsone: I know a lot more about IBANs than you do. WP:BANEX is deliberately written in such a way as to require interpretation in light of circumstances. U1Quattro is allowed edit the same articles as you, and to do so in whatever policy-compliant manner he sees fit -- you are increasingly giving the impression of trying to "lay traps" for him by inserting content that someone is going to need to fix and then reporting U1Quattro when it's him who does it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88:Please refrain from such personal attacks as to alledge that my edits are just traps for others. YBSOne (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "personal attacks"!? You made bad edits to an article you knew U1Quattro had edited and was probably watching, and then when U1Quattro interacted with your edits (inadvertently, while also making a bunch of other edits, several weeks later) you immediately filed an ANI report. Either you deliberately set a trap with the intention of "getting" U1Quattro (not dissimilar to this and these) or what you did and are continuing to do is so similar to doing so as to be functionally identical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- When I added performance content in June 2019, last time he edited this page was in August 2018. There is no indication that he will edit this page further. It is highly degrading to alledge that I'm deliberately making bad edits in light of a thread posted against his n-th violation. Why am I constantly defending myself in those threads? This is not what should be deliberated. YBSOne (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88:Please refrain from such personal attacks as to alledge that my edits are just traps for others. YBSOne (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ybsone: I know a lot more about IBANs than you do. WP:BANEX is deliberately written in such a way as to require interpretation in light of circumstances. U1Quattro is allowed edit the same articles as you, and to do so in whatever policy-compliant manner he sees fit -- you are increasingly giving the impression of trying to "lay traps" for him by inserting content that someone is going to need to fix and then reporting U1Quattro when it's him who does it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Support no action- it does not seem as though there's anything wrong with the edits themselves. As for the "covering his tracks" bit, U1Quattro has settled on a milder choice of words on their own. Now Ybsone wants to interpret that as devious underhandedness. It seems clear that anything U1Quattro says or does is going to be interpreted in the least charitable way possible. Reyk YO! 07:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're just wasting everyone's time in this discussion. Further more because of editors like you and Vauxford, we would lose more active contributors in the automobile project. You are no different than Vauxford in bickering about the rules and bending them for a decision favourable to you rather than making an effort to understand them. I brought the exact relevant standards here which also put a light on what reverting actually is. You're implying to the content you are added when the IBAN rules permit that edits can be made or improved on the same page, just not reverted and I did not revert them. You do not own the content you add and interacting with the content (ie improving it) isn't an interaction with you. Instead of uunderstanding the IBAN rules and what reversion is you decide to bludgeon the discussion. I request the admins that appropriate sanctions should be placed on this user for engaging in an edit war on the Ferrari 456 page about the speed recorded.U1 quattro TALK 07:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are accusing me of edit warring on Ferrari 456 speed record but I have reverted that users edit once. And I have also proved he was a sockpuppet. Stop insinuating against me. How is is a 3RR rule violation when I reverted it once? YBSOne (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are accusing me of not understanding how IBAN works. That in Your opinion an interaction with he content is not an interaction with a user. But for this exact interaction with the content administration blocked You previously. And revertion of the content has nothing to do with it, as I also proved in the previous thread. "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". YBSOne (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing feud with U1Quattro IBAN violations by U1Quattro You clearly understand rules and not waste everyone's time... YBSOne (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Those discussions were closed and decisions were made on them. Yet you still want to bring past discussions which have nothing to do with this discussion which is based on your misinterpretion of the IBAN and WP:REVERTING. As Hijri 88 has pointed out, you're doing all this due to personal envy which is not doing Wikipedia any favours.U1 quattro TALK 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ybsone: Umm... you filed both of those threads. Are you just trolling now? Harassing and trolling U1Quattro in this manner, even in this thread, is most certainly not covered under BANEX, and I'm increasingly inclined to think you need to be blocked for this behaviour. You really should take this close's wording to heart... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I filed both of those threads because I was being harrased by a user and resulting blocks were just a confirmation of my argumentation. YBSOne (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- How am I harassing and trolling? I have filed an IBAN violation. In light of many opinions left by previous participants of this feud I am under the impression that it was a violation. I took it here because this is the place for it. How is this harassement? YBSOne (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Saying "You waste the community's time -- look at these two ANI threads!" when you are the one who filed both of those threads (read: if anyone is wasting the community's time, it's you) does come across as trolling, yes. And even if it's not trolling, it's certainly not the kind of comment you should be directing at someone with whom you are IBANned. (Yes, U1Quattro did kinda sorta do the same thing, but in reference to a frivolous ANI thread you had filed about him, and only after several uninvolved editors had already said the same thing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "these time wasting tactics" "You're just wasting everyone's time" U1Quattro used it twice. Could You in light of being impartial reprimend him also for it? I don't see how my reply is worse. YBSOne (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Previous ANI threads were shown as a context for previous offences and, most importantly, a proof that content interaction is forbidden under IBAN just the same as user interaction. YBSOne (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out that policies on: Reverting, 3RR or Edit war have nothing to do with this thread and are only used to bludgeon it and/or change the subject and/or show me in a bad light. YBSOne (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Content interaction was explicitly, many times and by multiple users and admins explained: Special:Diff/905983766#July_2019. YBSOne (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- "I would Ofcourse check edit history next time I edit an Italian car page so I don't run into this situation again." He explicitly promised to check the edit history before editing. YBSOne (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because last time, I was at fault as I removed the chassis code at the Maserati Shamal page. That is considered an edit revert, my recent actions at Ferrari 456 page are not considered edit revert. I was blocked for my edits at the Maserati Shamal page. This time I am not a fault. You have already been told by an uninvolved editor that you're bending the rules in your favour, yet you continue to squabble about the ANI rules when I didn't violate them. You are a bad editor as you continue to stalk me and follow me over Wikipedia even after an IBAN in place. Admins should seriouly consider your bludgeoning in his discussion and should ban you from posting further ANI discussions like these so you stop wasting everyone's time. Even an admin had pointed out how foolish your point of discussions is. See this. It is a tool which tells whether I interacred with you or not and I didn't. I'm done here.U1 quattro TALK 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You were blocked for removing the website on Maserati Quattroporte IV and "improving it" with trash. If You didn't follow me around You wouldn't edit Ferrari 456 page that You edited last year. Please stop following me. As for bad edits, when are You going to correct the numbers made mistake on Shamal page? It is literally next to correct answer from main text. YBSOne (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ybsone: Umm... you filed both of those threads. Are you just trolling now? Harassing and trolling U1Quattro in this manner, even in this thread, is most certainly not covered under BANEX, and I'm increasingly inclined to think you need to be blocked for this behaviour. You really should take this close's wording to heart... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Those discussions were closed and decisions were made on them. Yet you still want to bring past discussions which have nothing to do with this discussion which is based on your misinterpretion of the IBAN and WP:REVERTING. As Hijri 88 has pointed out, you're doing all this due to personal envy which is not doing Wikipedia any favours.U1 quattro TALK 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I came to the Ferrari 456 page as I searched Ferrari pages. I can edit whatever pages I like. You don't dictate me to edit a page. As for trash, that is what your website is called. Hence I placed a tag for a better source. Adopting "oh poor me" tactics in this thread will not brand you as good. Today, your true intentions come to light it this discussion. Even after over 8 years of being on wiki, you couldn't adopt a professional attitude and develop an understanding of how this site works.U1 quattro TALK 15:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe You should refrain from personal attacks on my website. Editing Wikipedia over those years was a bliss, until Your incompetence showed up.YBSOne (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is amusing how you brand everyone who disagrees with you as if they are personally attacking you. Maybe you should focus on editing here instead of following me around. I was having a good time until I came across a messed up editor like you.U1 quattro TALK 16:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Just stop it, both of you. Sheesh. Reyk YO! 16:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @U1Quattro and Ybsone: Your comments in this thread are way outside of the scope of WP:BANEX. Anything more that either comments on the other party or responds to them will draw a block. GoldenRing (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is from today: Special:Diff/898301206 Special:Diff/907532300 There is no such car as '575 Superamerica'. See. 'Ferrari Superamerica' or 'the Superamerica'. What was the reason to change my edit of correct model name to incorrect one? Another IBAN violation. YBSOne (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- See here, here and here. Happy now? U1 quattro TALK 19:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Could someone block Ybsone? The above comment is another clear IBAN violation. Yeah, U1Quattro shouldn't have responded, but punishing someone for having been repeatedly harassed by someone he's supposed to have an IBAN with, and acting out in frustration that no admin has done anything about it, would be counterproductive. (And since I know based on the above that he's gonna start claiming that being right on the substance makes it okay for him to complain about U1Quattro like this, he's not even right on the substance.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot be impeded from providing fresh evidence that meets the same criteria as the ongoing case. Not only that I should be encouraged to provide them. You are thratening me by blocks from providing evidence. (I am right on the substance). Could You be more bias? YBSOne (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ybsone:
I am right on the substance
is completely off-topic; but ironically that means it's actually not a violation of your IBAN to talk about it (unlike most of the rest of what you've written in this thread) so I'll bite: where in the page you have now linked twice does it say "the car is not called the 575M Superamerica; this name is inaccurate, and should not be used"? I don't see the phrase "575M Superamerica" anywhere on that page. You are, to quote Dale Martin (transcript here),breaking one of the major rules of textual interpretation
, in a manner that is utterly unacceptable for even a new Wikipedia editor, let alone one who's been around as long as you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC) - Fine, quick off-topic to show You two things. First, official name that manufacturer gives: Ferrari Superamerica. Using the very same method apart for official website. Second a common name made up by the journalists because the car was based on 575M Maranello. Ferrari website cannot state the car is not named... because why should they? And the phrase 575M Superamerica is not present on their website because it is not it's name. It is not on the badge on the car it is not on brochures nor owner's manuals. Another example. See this? This a common name made up by journalists not an official one. Do You understand? Why I provided this context next to my evidence? It does not matter wheather my edit is right or wrong, an IBAN extends to the content interaction as well. YBSOne (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This a common name made up by journalists not an official one.
Not only are we allowed use such "common" names, we are encouraged to give them priority. Do you understand? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)- This does not apply to cars other than to use a shorter name like instead of a Ferrari 250 GT Berlinetta 'Tour de France' we do use: Berlinetta or 'Tour de France' or 'TdF'. but to substitute 'Superamerica' for a longer, incorrect name is not a common practise. Nowhere on wikipedia 4200 GT should be used for Maserati Coupé. There are common names and there are incorrect common names and those should be discouraged. YBSOne (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ybsone:
"Should be used", "Should be encourged" blah blah blah. Are you an admin now? This thread has gone to a new level of stupidity on your part. This site doesn't work like the way you want. It works on the established rules and policies.U1 quattro TALK 10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not commenting here anymore. Not wasting more of my time to show what is the correct name of the car. My time is valuable, my edits are also. I have presented all the needed evidence and at least four proofs and await administration to make a decision. YBSOne (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- So is the time of all the editors you have wasted here due to your misinterpretation. If your time and edits are that valuable, invest them in improving the site instead of following around others and abusing them. Hard to break it to you but an admin already commented how valid your "proofs" were.U1 quattro TALK 10:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Not here since 2012
- Nudge squidfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please see recent [87] which included unsourced claims with WP:BLP implications, and the promotion at User talk:Nudge squidfish/twinkleoptions (now tagged with WP:U5). The talk page shows warnings about other deletions, self-promotion and copyright violations. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does anyone else see something odd in an editor whose second edit is to set their Twinkle options? The chances of this being a new editor are... slim (though that's not to say it's necessarily an illegitimate alt account, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's odd, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Going by the confused edit to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, I think this editor was just clicking on stuff randomly, got lost, and went with it. That seems to happen sometimes with new users. The deleted user page is pretty weird, though. It claims the user is a "UFO contactee" and is involved an "ET Breeding Program". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does anyone else see something odd in an editor whose second edit is to set their Twinkle options? The chances of this being a new editor are... slim (though that's not to say it's necessarily an illegitimate alt account, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've indeffed with a detailed rationale. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC).
ANI Report Denniss: Abusive Behavior
Denniss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Denniss has been harassing me lately by threatening to get me blocked over tags that was reviewed by me. Intentionally removed tag that was not placed by me. He intentionally undone a non disruptive edits made by me in the Ryzen article. He blindly undone the article. 12
- He also abused the Twinkle feature on me deliberately after not reviewing edits i made on article. 3
- With obvious doubts, He more likely directed a group or individually used each accounts to try get me blocked for WP:Sock -- It led someone else to start case for sock against me. (maybe directed also) 1
- 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:dc:2709:6068:db9c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:c0d:5307:1ddd:eda3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:C0D:5307:1DDD:EDA3/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There maybe more. Keep saying i am those ip in a false manner - 1 2
Excessive use of undo`s in many articles. 1
I do not care if Denniss been here for 14+ years. He does not have upper say of anything. This no longer a content dispute. This is a attempt by Denniss to get rid of a individual who actively in good faith to do a general fix on a article with major issues since 2017. Enough is enough from this user. Regice2020 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Driveby tagging is a bad idea. There ought to be an accompanying talk page note explaining the reasoning behind the tag/s. El_C 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yup? I'm confused. What are you agreeing with? You added a tag without an accompanying talk page note, which I'm saying was a mistake. El_C 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does removing wrong warnings [supposedly placed by them?] from one's own user talk page really count as "excessive use of undos in many articles"? Edible Melon (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- In June 2019, you added three tags to the article, Regice2020, backdating two of them to May 2017. There was only one tag actually placed on the article in May 2017, and it was not any of those. This is clearly one of the points at issue, given the edit summaries and two talk page sections discussing this, Talk:Ryzen#Too technical? and Talk:Ryzen#Multiple issues, in which you have taken no part. Why did you back-date these tags when you added them to the article, Regice2020? Why have 24 out of the last 28 edits to the article in the past week been you and an IP address edit warring against others over the tags with zero use of the talk page? Given this on this very noticeboard from a month ago, where are your efforts to talk to people? Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- This issue revolves around Fancruft. Oh boy Let me get something cleared up. During my United States Timezone July 8, 2019 and announcements in May 2019~June 2019 - New products recently released. (Ryzen 5 3600 (6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 5 3600X(6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 7 3700X(8Cores/16Threads), Ryzen 7 3800X(8Cores/16Threads), and Ryzen 9 3900X(12 Cores/24 Threads). The AMD fans were excited and decided to spread their overwhelmed comments after looking at outstanding benchmarks (performance results of a product) on news articles, social (reddit/facebook) and even directed to Wikipedia Ryzen article to put their fan comments here and got away. As part of the general fixes, i placed few tag in good will to guide other editors to fix after AFD Discussion since a specific group does not want others fixing their page. Ryzen talk page is inactive as i said unless something happens to that page. These are the same general fixes i do on MMA/UFC articles. I mean if you have someone posting a infected website, what will the good faith editors do? They do a general fix by removing it without use of article talk page. Its simple. Got Denniss saying i hide behind the ip its not acceptable. Regice2020 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- What general fixes are you talking about? As far as I see, these include PROD, two requests for protection, AfD, a move request, drive-by tagging and [seemingly pointlessly] removing half of the page. Edible Melon (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- This issue revolves around Fancruft. Oh boy Let me get something cleared up. During my United States Timezone July 8, 2019 and announcements in May 2019~June 2019 - New products recently released. (Ryzen 5 3600 (6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 5 3600X(6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 7 3700X(8Cores/16Threads), Ryzen 7 3800X(8Cores/16Threads), and Ryzen 9 3900X(12 Cores/24 Threads). The AMD fans were excited and decided to spread their overwhelmed comments after looking at outstanding benchmarks (performance results of a product) on news articles, social (reddit/facebook) and even directed to Wikipedia Ryzen article to put their fan comments here and got away. As part of the general fixes, i placed few tag in good will to guide other editors to fix after AFD Discussion since a specific group does not want others fixing their page. Ryzen talk page is inactive as i said unless something happens to that page. These are the same general fixes i do on MMA/UFC articles. I mean if you have someone posting a infected website, what will the good faith editors do? They do a general fix by removing it without use of article talk page. Its simple. Got Denniss saying i hide behind the ip its not acceptable. Regice2020 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, it very unusual for Denniss not the one to start the Sock puppetry investigation instead it was started by another user. This is very suspicious. Regice2020 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can reassure you I'm not a sockpuppet. I noticed the page being mentioned in the edit filter log for two days in a row and decided to look at it. Edible Melon (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited (Support or Oppose)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020 Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited to ending result because i feel like i need start a ANI against myself for allowing myself to be involved in this AMD Fanboys changing the Ryzen article. Community ban. Regice2020 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
2601:5c0:c000:89d7:9dac:f36:5320:549a
I was not going to start this ANI as (to be honest) I am not sure what can be done. But its getting rather disruptive now. It started with this [[88]], the PA's aside, it contains outing of an (apparently) sick man. This was repeated a number of times (one deleted) and now sits at the AFD as well [[89]]. IN addition they do not seem to be taking this seriously (despite the effort they have put into this), and have now accused me of socking (in all but name)[[90]]. What with possible COI and the fact its a SPA I think it is clear they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Once again, Steven, given the pattern of your obsession and the obvious throwaway title for the AfD, all of which cited only to your complaints, I can't imagine how someone could think it wasn't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C0:C000:89D7:9DAC:F36:5320:549A (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week, since that's how long AFDs last, and comments redacted from AFD. This individual claims to be the subject of the article, so in addition to WP:DUCK, we can evade-block anyone who claims to be the subject of the article. Nyttend (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, someone is socking, I daresay, so this is only about half-done. To be honest, Slatersteven, given your open animus on your userpage against the subject, you ought to recuse yourself from the AfD and let neutral parties decide. Ravenswing 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I mean the blather in the initial diff certainly seems like Kratman's brand of nonsense. But honestly, the guy is the authorial equivalent of a forum troll and my recommendation would be let's delete his article and salt it so that he doesn't have a reason to come back and annoy us in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not really animus so much as a joke reaction to the last time he pulled this stunt. But fair enough, if it raises questions about the integrity of my vote. Who (by the way) do you think is socking, vague accusations just poison the well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Kratman trolled my blog once but I still think I can neutrally assess that he's not of any particular note as an author. I mean he writes for Castalia House FFS. They're virtually a vanity press. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (TFW you find out Castalia House redirects to Vox Day which kind of makes your point for you.) Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- No doubt he has, and As I said he has tolled me here at least once before (hence my comments on my user page) but if users think that this means I am not neutral then maybe I should recuse my self from any "vote" (yes I know). I will however still defended myself from accusations of some vendetta (hell I did not even "vote" delete, he would have still had a mention).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Kratman trolled my blog once but I still think I can neutrally assess that he's not of any particular note as an author. I mean he writes for Castalia House FFS. They're virtually a vanity press. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Perohanych's persistent copyright violations
This morning, I had to nominate User:Perohanych/sandbox for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Looking at Perohanych's talk page, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand the rules about copyright text by now, and yet these violations keep happening. The earliest warning is from June 2009, and a number of G12 speedy deletion notices can be found at User talk:Perohanych, including User talk:Perohanych#Speedy deletion nomination of European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats and User talk:Perohanych#Speedy deletion nomination of John Hewko. Can we try to find a way to stop this behaviour? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Everything is clear for me. I promise not to violate copyrights anymore. --Perohanych (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Would you describe why you are ignoring notifications about WP:COPYVIO? Rzvas (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I take promises with a grain of salt. Inclined to block until they very specifically describe how they will cease to jeopardize this project with their copyvio's. Probably will. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Would you describe why you are ignoring notifications about WP:COPYVIO? Rzvas (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Investigating further, I'm discovering additional instances of Perohanych's addition of copyvio text, such as this, that haven't been picked up previously. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- GAd. More work for WP:CCI. More inclined to block. No rush, this is not a new problem. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm indefinitely blocking now, with any unblock contingent on both demonstrating an understanding of how copyright works; assurances aren't cutting it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- When I looked through this yesterday I also found one instance of removing a G12 template from an article he created (though it was later deleted at AfD). I'm on mobile now so can't look. Sort a block. GoldenRing (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm indefinitely blocking now, with any unblock contingent on both demonstrating an understanding of how copyright works; assurances aren't cutting it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- GAd. More work for WP:CCI. More inclined to block. No rush, this is not a new problem. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Some quick spot checks on the older stuff:
- Henry Hampton Halley Perohanych removes the speedy deletion notice and retains infringing text, article later zapped and begun again.
- World Telecommunication and Information Society Day Initial version of the article is the about blurb from the ITU, copyrighted by the ITU. Unfortunately, thanks to SimonP not spotting this, World Information Society Day is a wholesale copy of About the World Telecommunication and Information Society Day and has been a copyright violation for 10 years.
How can someone who founded a Wikimedia chapter have got the free content mission so fundamentally wrong? Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190722 is now open. MER-C 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, MER-C. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I already have a backlog, including what I just researched for Figgy pudding (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Block of User:EEng
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In his !vote to community ban User:Mzmadmike (Mike Williamson), User:EEng added a photograph of Mike mocking him for his clothing and insinuating that he is a "pha66otte".[91]
This is in response to use of this slur and other inappropriate behavior by User:Mzmadmike for which he has been (correctly, in my view) indefinitely blocked. The fact that User:Mzmadmike has behaved badly does not, however, excuse others doing so. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. I removed what I saw as a tasteless bit of gravedancing as well as a WP:BLPTALK violation.[92] EEng restored it.[93] I removed it again with a warning.[94] EEng restored it again.[95] He then left a message on my talk page where the gist seems to be that he is WP:UNBLOCKABLE.[96]
I have assigned EEng a block of 24 hours which I will gladly lift as soon as he commits to not restoring the objectionable material. EEng is, however, quite right that I have only recently become active again as an admin and that I may have learning to do to make sure my actions are aligned with community standards. I thus submit this block here for review. Haukur (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's really nice that you didn't bother telling EEng about the block before coming here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I meant to post both at the same time. I apologize for the 3 minute delay in the talk page comment. Haukur (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- One thing at a time. One. Thing. At. A. Time. I would apologise to EEng personally, like on their talkpage, not just generally here for a general delay. Poor behaviour I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Usually we bring it to AN(I) before unilaterally blocking someone. And notify them of the an(i) thread before blocking them. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- One thing at a time. One. Thing. At. A. Time. I would apologise to EEng personally, like on their talkpage, not just generally here for a general delay. Poor behaviour I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I meant to post both at the same time. I apologize for the 3 minute delay in the talk page comment. Haukur (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad block. Excessive. Non discurssive, and it looks like someone was edit warring with Eeng-- and abused their tools in a content dispute.. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Further. EEng is always tasteless. But the "grave dancing" is bullshit. EEng always adds tastelss humor to break the tension. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is really funny in the context of me having been castigated "for refactoring" Eeng's post when I moved the image to a better spot. At least I did not remove it entirely. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad block- I thought EEng was being a bit tasteless, but ultimately linking to a photo on the author's own article and to a clip from Seinfeld are not blockable offenses. Reyk YO! 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Next oldschool administrator to lose their tools? 2001:4898:80E8:9:9283:A6A:C43E:A9EF (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Bad block. Should’ve been left to someone else if you genuinely thought it was inappropriate. Incidentally EEng has you dead to rights on your activity. You only started editing nonsporadically again in June, after 99 consecutive months (2011-03 to 2019-05) of fewer than 20 edits per month (only 3 of those with more than 10). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I had two kids and got tenure. I now have time for this again. I don't think there's anything shameful in this. But it is true that I am both rusty and catching up with new things as I noted in my initial comment here. Haukur (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, no insult to your real-life achievements intended! My point was more to refer to changing community norms and the difficulty with which these are learned. Anyway you've got my respect for your response to this thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I had two kids and got tenure. I now have time for this again. I don't think there's anything shameful in this. But it is true that I am both rusty and catching up with new things as I noted in my initial comment here. Haukur (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad Block - my thoughts echo Reyk's.--Jorm (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm happy to learn from this. Since the action has received no support so far I will lift the block now. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Haukur (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not just block yourself and be done with it?Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- No need for that snark. Reyk YO! 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think by edit-warring to insert a pointless link that EEng covered himself in glory either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Striking comment as Haukur has now reversed that block. But I thought the idea was that all Admins should operate to the same consistent standard? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all night. See the link below for some golden oldies. Haukur (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) A block enacted in good faith isn't something to get worked up over. If Haukurth had a tantrum and been stubborn about it I'd agree with you. Reyk YO! 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bad Block Haukur you would benefit from reading (or re-reading) WP:PUNITIVE - WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:INVOLVED to avoid things like this in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 19:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, at least one of our Arbs is full on "PUNITIVE" so this is just run of the mill stuff. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Aside EEng's humor can be like drinking gin. The first time, you may say, "Ugh! Horrid! Disgusting! After a few more times, you may say, "Ugh! Revolting! Disgusting! Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- And then you say "hand me the fucking tonic". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Or one can always just take the pledge, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- And then you say "hand me the fucking tonic". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- This really brings back memories. I present for your amusement my last train-wreck of an ANI-reported block action, this time of User:Betacommandbot: [97] Haukur (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Haukurth you're one of the good ones. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I usually enjoy both gin and EEng's humour; I thought this one crossed a line. Mocking someone's personal appearance is pretty low. GoldenRing (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Haukurth - I commend you for challenging your own admin actions - it speaks volumes - and for having the courage to bring the discussion to AN/I - WP's high-risk dramah board - and for your attempt to get caught-up, despite the setback...oh, the irony. Anyway...EEng is...well, he's our shining light of levity in what can often be the dark tunnel of WP editing. Yes, there are times when levity can be blinding, and when humor crosses a line some editors draw for themselves. I'm of the mind that calling the sheriff after the shooting isn't always the best way forward. Discuss before slamming down the hammer. Atsme Talk 📧 19:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it can get a bit wild round here, sometimes. Poor old EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
EEng added a photograph of Mike mocking him for his clothing and insinuating that he is a "pha66otte"
– I was not insinuating that. I was pointing out that if one applied Mr. Mike Williamson's bigoted thinking to Mr. Mike Williamson then that's the conclusion to which one would be led. (I was, however, definitely mocking the 007-in-silk-nightie pose.)- I commend Haukurth for not digging in his heels, and I do appreciate the apology on my talk page.
- One and all are invited to The Museums as my special guests. (I think I should be entitled to a free plug for my trouble.)
EEng 03:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. In all seriousness, you did not insinuate that the user was a "faggot", you simply employed a lighthearted invocation of "judge not lest ye be judged", and posted an incredibly cringey picture of the person. It was genuinely hilarious, and so was your merciless destruction of the users who applauded the blocking admin on his talk page. Hats off EEng, most of us are replaceable, but you aren't. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Quiet, Swarm! If you keep this up people will realize we're lovers. EEng 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I had a pha66otte once, but it never got past the MoS spelling Nazis. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Quiet, Swarm! If you keep this up people will realize we're lovers. EEng 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- A funny touch is the poor composition of the photo. The top of his head's cut off. It adds a veneer of incompetence to a picture that was already absurd. Reyk YO! 07:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- A look at the copyright info says a friend of his not only took the photo, but donated it to wikimedia commons so it could be used on that page. Wow. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Male pattern baldness. EEng 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. In all seriousness, you did not insinuate that the user was a "faggot", you simply employed a lighthearted invocation of "judge not lest ye be judged", and posted an incredibly cringey picture of the person. It was genuinely hilarious, and so was your merciless destruction of the users who applauded the blocking admin on his talk page. Hats off EEng, most of us are replaceable, but you aren't. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Puffy Shirt — classic! El_C 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's probably the field uniform of military air conditioner repair men, which is what he, according to the article, was in the US Air Force, Army and National Guard. Pity it's a black-and-white photo, I'd like to know if the shirt is pink, purple or red. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hey! No making fun of military air conditioning repair persons!! These people are willing to crawl through minefields just to undo the brutal efforts of our enemies to discomfort our troops by knocking out their A/C's. They are a hearty lot, willing to face death in the name of lower temperatures and less humidity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Some of our finest politicians have been air conditioning repair persons. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's probably the field uniform of military air conditioner repair men, which is what he, according to the article, was in the US Air Force, Army and National Guard. Pity it's a black-and-white photo, I'd like to know if the shirt is pink, purple or red. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Puffy Shirt — classic! El_C 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikistalking and incivility by Bbb23
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really didn't want to bring this here, but Bbb23 has been wikistalking me, likely because he disagreed with my non-admin closure. I know he is a checkuser, administrator, and respected by the community, but I'd like additional eyes to look at his behavior. He reverted my edit to Non-admin closure and also reverted the past several edits I made marking users banned under WP:3X as banned, under the idea that I am somehow not competent to edit Wikipedia. While I understand why he reverted my edits marking users as banned under WP:3X (although I disagree with him), he has been nothing but hostile and uncivil to me. In addition, he reverted an edit I made to the userpage of User:Mzmadmike, saying that I am not allowed to mark this user as banned (even though the template can be applied by anyone and there is no rule saying I can't). Maybe I'm just being melodramatic or perhaps there's a legitimate gripe that this user has which I don't understand, but either way, I'd like other members of the community including other admins the opportunity to review his behavior so I can get more eyeballs on it. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to say that I am correct and that he is wrong, I just would like additional review.
I'd like the opportunity to propose an interaction ban between us if we can't have this resolved.
All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I saw what you were doing. You were wrong. Bbb23 was right to tell you to stop, and when you continued to tag banned users, he was right to warn you. That you didn't comprehend this after being told by several editors that you were misreading the relevant policies, is a very good reason to refer to WP:CIR.
Regular users aren't supposed to be going around tagging accounts as banned, and people not approved to work in the checkuser process are definitely not supposed to be going around messing with CU-blocked accounts. This is a longstanding practice that I am certain is memorialized in an essay someplace, if not in the guidance to the templates you are trying to use. The application of the "banned" tag is itself controversial in a lot of cases because it can be viewed as a badge of shame. Bbb23 is not wikistalking you: He is (correctly) reviewing your recent behavior given your misapplication and misunderstanding of policy.
As to the policies you seem to be misunderstanding, let's look at a relevant portion of WP:3X:Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page with {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes|banned}}.
You have disagreed with the statement that people who are neither administrators nor SPI clerks should not be performing these tasks, I believe because of the word "normally". The problem is the function of "normally" here: It is not to say that normally these particular people will perform these tasks, but sometimes others will. Instead it means that normally these particular people will perform these tasks, but sometimes they will not be performed. It's as simple as that. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)- I understand how WP:SPI works now, and yes, that is a misunderstanding of what operates on the word "normally" and I am wrong here. Thank you for elaborating and being polite about it, I appreciate it. @Bbb23: I apologize if you felt that I was being disruptive, but I wish you would remember to be civil with people as well. We all want what's best for this encyclopedia, or we all would have been blocked long ago. I would like to extend an olive branch. I will be more careful with my edits in the future.
- I still disagree with my reversing of the banned tag on User:Mzmadmike, because the user is banned and there is nothing indicating that I shouldn't be allowed to mark the user as such (and I have marked users as banned when they weren't banned in the past, or removed banned user templates that aren't accurate because they never were banned. This is the first time I've seen anyone complain about it). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I attempted to explain this to Rockstone here, but they chose to open this thread in the midst of our discussion, despite really not wanting to bring it here.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I should also note, since it's requested: Oppose interaction ban as unsupported by the allegations. One swallow doesn't make a summer: This is a single incident. Even if you were right and Bbb23 were wrong, it would not be wikistalking or merit an interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Propose a swift WP:BOOMERANG for the OP. Absolutely refusing to listen to experienced admins and CUs (both Bbb23 and Ponyo; see User talk:Bbb23#Reverting my changes to userpages unilaterally and down) when being told not to add/modify CU tags etc, or make certain non-admin closes, shows an appaling lack of competence. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I really want to clarify that I'm not ignoring experienced admins, and I'm sorry if it appears that I am. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: I haven't examined all the claims above (partly because you didn't provide diffs) but just as a start: you voted to community ban Mzmadmike, and then in quick succession closed the discussion, and tagged the userpage. Even setting aside that the particular discussion would best be closed by an admin (or, more-experienced user) who is better prepared to defend the action and face the likely real-life blowback, your closing a discussion after participating in it itself suggests that you should desist from making any further WP:NAC/admin-y actions in the near future. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) with close. Rockstone, I have criticized Bbb's conduct on more than one occasion, but even I can see where he's coming from here. First, it's a longstanding norm that we simply don't touch CU stuff. Not even us admins. If it's within the CU's jurisdiction, just leave it alone. Even if it's something really mundane like tweaking a CU template. CU is largely independent and self-sufficient. They train and employ their own team of specialized clerks for the tasks they do need help with. In the future, bring something like this to a CU's attention for them to review. You can offer to handle it, but it's probably not likely that they'll delegate even something minor like this to a non-CU, much less a non-admin. Secondly, no, there's nothing wrong with adding the CBAN tag. Anyone can add it. However, that's not what you did, you closed the CBAN discussion. Formalizing a CBAN is an admin action because it involves blocking the banned user. Per baseline NAC standards, non-admins shouldn't close discussions where an admin action is required. Also, as has been pointed out, even if you were an admin, you would be involved, so you shouldn't be closing it anyway. Bbb wasn't reverting you to be mean or to harass you, it was just improper for you to be actioning that discussion to begin with. By itself, I doubt Bbb would revert you for adding the tag, but in context, he was correctly reverting your inappropriate intervention. Nitpicking that point that you're technically allowed to add the tag is not constructive, you should be focusing on understanding where you went wrong and why you were reverted. Not complaining, not writing the incident into NAC. You should have simply understood these concepts, at least upon being corrected. It's okay to screw up like this and learn from your mistakes, but anytime someone's overstepping their bounds in multiple areas because it appears they're too gung-ho about getting involved behind the scenes, they tend to seriously ruffle feathers. You're clearly just a good faith user who was trying to help, and you're probably not actually a CIR case who needs a final warning, but there's little tolerance for disrupting the smooth running of the project behind the scenes, even if motivated by a good faith eagerness to help. What you see above is a strong indicator that that is where you're at. You have to gradually work your way up to this level of involvement, you can't just jump into assisting in admin areas, and you're clearly out of your depth here. Let me know if you have any questions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Private life speculation
- Mm.srb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate if Mm.srb were warned against engaging in wild speculations about my private life. I have hardened enough in my years on Wikipedia to take insults such as being called "arrogant and self-important", narcissist, or a vandal. Being compared to a 16th-century Jesuit was even amusing and, I must confess, elicited a snigger. When you approach a Western Balkans-related topic, you can safely expect to have sticks and stones thrown your way. I draw the line at the invasion of my privacy, however. I do not think my origins, life history, and current whereabouts are relevant to any discussion I lead on Wikipedia, and I would not like any of that to be casually theorized about[98][99] by random strangers on the Internet. I have asked Mm.srb to stop commenting on me at least twice before this,[100][101] but this is only escalating. It has not yet reached outing level, and I do not want it to. Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Notified Mm.srb of the Eastern European and Balkans discretionary sanctions regime. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, this referenced above certanly is commenting about the editor instead of content. @Mm.srb: You need to, as my dad would put it, not get into personalities-- you are making personal attacks instead of defending the merits of your edit. Surtsicna has a point-- any sentence that contains the word "you" would be better left unwritten. @Surtsicna:, this goes for you as well. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not mind being addressed directly. I mind having my private life speculated about by random who haws on Wikipedia article talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Now, see-- "who haws" is exactly what I'm talking about. It only makes it worse. It personalizes a matter that should be impersonal. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon, but the matter of a stranger speculating whether I am a war refugee, originating from this country or another, and living there or abroad is something that cannot be impersonal at all. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- and, Mm.srb, "speculating" about someone's real life sounds like trolling for opportunities to troll to me-- it's wholly inappropriate. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Now, see-- "who haws" is exactly what I'm talking about. It only makes it worse. It personalizes a matter that should be impersonal. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not mind being addressed directly. I mind having my private life speculated about by random who haws on Wikipedia article talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- 1) This whole report is mostly a misintepretion of my statements. I think that the idea behind it is to "scare me" so that the other editor could continue to push his POV. After a lot of debate on the article, we reached a sort of a consensus. Soon after, the other editor just decided to revert to the version he finds appropriate, while I did the hard work of searching for academic sources and references for the topic. That version is the current one, mind you... 2) POV pushing and arrogant behaviour, for which I have zero tolerance both on Wiki and in RL, is the foremost reason why I made any speculation in the first place. That sort of bully like behaviour is not just pointed at me but another user who tried to make some edits on the article in question. That behaviour is evident and this is not the first instance (as he was banned and reported on multiple occasions). You can analyze the very tone and see the edits on Ignjat Job in which he easily reverted other editor's work while the discussion was ongoing. That is a POV pushing if I ever saw one. 3) just I tried to understand what is the drive behind other editor's resentless and unconstructive POV pushing. And I am not saying that this can be an excuse for me going over the appropriate level in the discussion in that one instance. 4) In fact I appreciate other user's and people's privacy. This might sound ironic to you, but that is the case. 5) I did not write that he is a narcissist but that something written by him is a nice example of mild narcissm. There is a big difference, because I did not attack the person, which means that the interpretation in the intro of this report is an attempt at manipulation. I did not call anyone a vandal. It is all in the TP. 5.1) "16th century Jesuit" was meant to ease the previous heated discussion with a bit of comedic effect and not to insult anybody. It's old news. 6) I would very much appreciateif User:Surtsicna was warned to not push his POV, behave politely and appreciate other user's different views.
- Please take a look at Talk:Ignjat Job for these speculations about my views, life and activity on Wiki... That was just a defence mechanism to the sort of aggression.
- 1) WP:NOTHERE accusation is a bit rich coming from someone whose sole purpose (literally sole purpose!) on Wikipedia is establishing the Serbdom of everyone and their momma. 2) That is nonsense. A person from Yugoslavia is absolutely correctly and commonly defined as a Yugoslav person. If you disagree, take it to a broader discussion. I have no idea how someone having cousins who live in different countries is relevant to Ignjat Job. 3) I do not know what you are talking about. 4) Yes, and it is also nothing new that Serbian sources claim Job and pretty much every Slav, regardless of religion, as Serbs. So how is that different from the Croatian nationalist historiography? Ah, yes - the Serbian one must be correct. 4.1) Yes, that does excuse my removal of a blatantly biased claim. Shall we have another sentence next to it saying that he is a notable Croatian painter? You have acknowledged that as many sources can be found for that. How ridiculous do you want this article to sound? 6.1) ...Again, if you wish to push this mental gymnastics, please do it in a larger forum. 6) That is despicable. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. 7) Irrelevant and likewise despicable.
- This report is definetly not a one-way street. Mm.srb (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss content disputes. This is about your gross invasion of my privacy. If it takes "scaring you" to make you stop poking your nose into my private life and debating it on article talk pages, so be it. Asking nicely has not worked and obviously will not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I've now seen enough incivility and petty bickering from both of you to block both of you. I guess as long as you're slugging it out here it's pretty harmless. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think it is reasonable to equate my saying that I do not want any random who haws (funnily enough, a word I picked up from an administrator on this very page) poking their noses into my private life with what is nearly an attempt at outing, or to call the latter "pretty harmless". I do apologize for causing any offense and consuming your time, though. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not everyone who writes here is an administrator. It is actually ″hee-haws″. And it is an insult. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think it is reasonable to equate my saying that I do not want any random who haws (funnily enough, a word I picked up from an administrator on this very page) poking their noses into my private life with what is nearly an attempt at outing, or to call the latter "pretty harmless". I do apologize for causing any offense and consuming your time, though. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Money emoji deletions for copyvio
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Money emoji: is making a lot of deletions for copyvio today. I caught it when he deleted J. Marvin Hunter as a notable person on Mason, Texas. The editor did respond to my talk page inquiry about this, but his response makes no sense to me. I asked him to link the text he believes is copyvio, and he linked a list he's working from. But that list does not say what the copyvio is on any of it. It looks like he's making a lot of deletions based on that list, but I don't see the specifics on that list that refer to what he's deleting. J. Marvin Hunter is not on that list he linked. I've never seen that list before, and don't know what people do with it. I need other eyes to look at what this editor is doing. Please look at his contributions. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Seems to be part of an ongoing WP:CCI. Have you clicked on the CCI link in the edit summaries? Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maile66, Sorry for my shitty talk page explanation; I could have explained it better. The page I am working off of is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727, aka User:Billy Hathorn's CCI. The problem with Billy's CCI is that it's Huge and he often copied from offline sources. I removed the reference to Marvin Hunter on Mason, Texas not because Marvin's article was a copyvio, but because Billy is the one who put the text about Marvin into the article. Presumptively removing content in cases of offline plagiarizing is common at CCI, which is why I removed the content to be on the safe side. I also accidentally told you the wrong section it's in, I meant to say "Articles 3521 through 3540". Thank you for reading this and I hope it clears some stuff up, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Money emoji: Sigh ... I know about Billy Hathorn. I'm going to go back through what you're doing, if it's articles I've worked on and had some interest in. Mason, Texas is one of those. I'm re-inserting J. Marvin Hunter. He's a rather famous author in Texas, and it seems a shame to leave him off Mason, Texas just because Hathorn's fingerprints were on it. And while at least I now understand what you are doing, I can't help but think there must be a better way than reverting text because a decade ago Hathorn left it there. Between 2011-2012 I was cleaning up various articles in Texas, and that was one of them. I think when it comes to a list of notable people, it's stretching it a bit to call it a copyvio just because Hathorn put it there. That would be like saying, "Oh, my god, Hathorn touched this ... cooties!" I know what you're doing, but there must be a better way. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Maile66:, Yeah, in hindsight, the "notable people" sections he was obsessed with are less likely to be vios; Feel free to re add it if you want to. I'll try better to avoid collateral damage in the future, and try to reword important info rather than removing important info. Thanks for understanding, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Money emoji: And thanks to you, also. — Maile (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Maile66:, Yeah, in hindsight, the "notable people" sections he was obsessed with are less likely to be vios; Feel free to re add it if you want to. I'll try better to avoid collateral damage in the future, and try to reword important info rather than removing important info. Thanks for understanding, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Money emoji: Sigh ... I know about Billy Hathorn. I'm going to go back through what you're doing, if it's articles I've worked on and had some interest in. Mason, Texas is one of those. I'm re-inserting J. Marvin Hunter. He's a rather famous author in Texas, and it seems a shame to leave him off Mason, Texas just because Hathorn's fingerprints were on it. And while at least I now understand what you are doing, I can't help but think there must be a better way than reverting text because a decade ago Hathorn left it there. Between 2011-2012 I was cleaning up various articles in Texas, and that was one of them. I think when it comes to a list of notable people, it's stretching it a bit to call it a copyvio just because Hathorn put it there. That would be like saying, "Oh, my god, Hathorn touched this ... cooties!" I know what you're doing, but there must be a better way. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
POV pushing at Top Gun: Maverick
Hi, someone continues to add a "controversy" section to the article Top Gun: Maverick, whose notability is dubious at best. The image used is non-free and taken from someone's Twitter account, and used politically fringe publications like Washington Examiner and New Tang Dynasty TV, and provided undue weight to Donald Trump Jr. , whose opinions are irrelevant to the article.220.101.15.161 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is a content dispute best dealt with through discussion on the talk page. Having said that, I agree that the controversy section is just a platform for soapboxing and should go entirely. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Repeated archiving of ongoing discussions on Talk:Fascism
I would like to ask for assistance in dealing with the behavior of User:Beyond My Ken on Talk:Fascism in the last week. The user has decided at some point to just archive discussions that were active on the talk page without giving a valid explanation, in my opinion. I reverted the deletion of content from the main talk page, but the user insisted. Here are the relevant diffs: the user's first big archiving ([102], [103], [104], [105]), my first revert ([106]), more archiving ([107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]), more revert ([115]), more archiving ([116], [117]). I abandoned the edit warring (also probably those discussions were actually a repetition of themselves, so not a big loss). In the last of his reverts ([118]) the user started a new discussion topic with an interesting title. That was also not good after a while: the user decided that part of that discussion topic had to be archived and only one or two comments were allowed to stay (archiving again: [119], restarting it: [120], archiving it again multiple times: [121], [122], [123], and finally copy-pasting only some comments back into the discussion: [124]). There have been attempts to discuss, even though the user seems aggressive: see the user's talk page and mine. The user justifies all of this by saying that there is consensus among "the users" regarding a certain subject not to be discussed again. The discussions are about the presence of "right-wing" in the definition of fascism. Now there are many IPs and users that continuously ask for it to be changed to "left-wing" without citing RS, and of course there has to be a way to deal with the constant ridiculous non-arguments that clog the talk page of Fascism. So I am not here to discuss the merits of the specific edits. Nonetheless the user fails to recognize that a discussion about whether "right-wing" can be moved down in the lead and not be kept in the first sentence (for whatever reason) does not belong to the same set of pointless and unjustified discussions about removing "right-wing" altogether or even changing it to "left-wing". However my point is not of substance, but of method (but maybe I'm naive, as the user made me notice on his talk page by citing my edit count): Is the user violating the Talk page guidelines and/or being disruptive by archiving "legitimate" ongoing discussions? Or was I being disruptive by restoring archived discussions? Does consensus apply even to what can and cannot be kept on the talk pages? Thank you. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would rather this had not been bright to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Me too, but the other options do not work. Attempts to discuss it in Talk:Fascism were shut down by archiving them again. Also, the user is being aggressive and inconclusive on the user talk pages. Edit warring is out of question, so I'm not trying to restore discussions again on the talk page before I am sure that what I'm doing is not wrong. If I'm wrong I'll shut up. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Is partial archiving (or partial restoring, depending on your POV) of a discussion permissable? It seems extremely dubious to me, as it artifically weights the discussion? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was clearly an issue with SPAs and IP editors bringing up the same exact argument over and over again in new sections on the talk page, but even considering that, Beyond My Ken's archiving has been excessive. Just look at the history [125], even after the initial archive of basically the entire talk page (which may or may not have been justified), he archived another 18k bytes of new text from a recent ongoing discussion and then edit-warred over it repeatedly over the past three days. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is there is a genuine issue here over our choice or words (well in fact wikilinks), which a few users (who are not SPA's and IP's) agree may be a problem. But despite this the thread keeps getting archived with out an real resolution. Even if it was just SPAs and IP editors I would rather we did not just shut down debates, but this is not the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was clearly an issue with SPAs and IP editors bringing up the same exact argument over and over again in new sections on the talk page, but even considering that, Beyond My Ken's archiving has been excessive. Just look at the history [125], even after the initial archive of basically the entire talk page (which may or may not have been justified), he archived another 18k bytes of new text from a recent ongoing discussion and then edit-warred over it repeatedly over the past three days. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The page has not been archived in over 24 hours while legitimate discussion has been taking place, yet Ritchie92 is pursuing the issue as if it were ongoing, which it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- We might have a different definition of the word "ongoing"... First of all, your last big deletion of content was at 12:45, 22 July and this thread was started by myself at 08:18, 23 July. So less than 24 hours difference. And anyway, 24 hours is not a time-span in which a discussion can be considered stale, resolved, or generally in the past. We all have different time-zones here, and other stuff to do. Second point, and most importantly, I did not act immediately also because I hoped for an easier resolution by discussing on our User Talk pages, which was rather unfruitful. Finally, the fact that you did not archive anything in the last 24 hours does not reduce the relevance of the questions that I asked in my first post, which are rather general questions about the management of a difficult Talk page like the one we're talking about. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I semi-protected the talkpage a couple of days ago, in part to remove the incentive to aggressively archive contentious drive-by edit requests. I don't see a present reason for archiving things right away now that there isn't a daily parade of new editors and IPs landing on the talkpage to demand that the article be altered to fit their POV or to explain that academic sources should be ignored in favor of partisan commentary. The semi-protection of the talkpage is something of a last resort - as evidenced by the above, the repetitive partisan talkpage activity was eroding the patience of experienced editors. The protection is for a month, and I welcome suggestions for a longer-term solution that doesn't involve lots of archiving or daily patient explanations to agenda-driven new editors.. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't see taking any action against BMK for attempting to curb the disruption caused by what sounds like trolling. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The OP appears to have forgotten that he edit-warred against at least three editors (Simonm223, BMK and myself) to restore the "large" archive of which the vast majority was simple trolling. Not only that, but his revert of mine contained the edit-summary "your judgement is biased" [126]. Perhaps the OP might more usefully go and read WP:BRD, WP:EW and gain a better understanding of what consensus is. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm in good faith here, and I'm sure BMK and you also are, and I am sorry that User:Dlohcierekim is being so fast in his/her judgement, denoting me as a troll. But edit-warring rules do not apply if one reverts vandalism, and archiving entire ongoing discussion threads (containing more and less legitimate comments) sounds more like vandalism to me than restoring it. Anyway for the large archiving I admit I might have been wrong (but I still did not like the aggressive archiving), so I indeed gave up because it was actually full of trolls. However the last one, namely this discussion had no reason to be archived, repeatedly. BMK archived, I reverted, then BMK should have started discussion, instead BMK archived again. Read WP:BRD. I also started a discussion on BMK's talk page, and I received a warning on my talk page by BMK. It's anyway unclear (and a bit funny) to me if we should have a [[Talk:Talk:Fascism]] page to seek consensus about what goes and what doesn't go on the Talk:Fascism page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well it's becoming clear that someone in this thread is biased. Black kite has offered good advice. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie92: I did not say you were a troll. I pointed out that BMK (and others) had archived the talk page to stop the SPA and IP trolling. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh then sorry for misinterpreting your words! I am sure about the good intentions of BMK and other users, but I am questioning the method. First, archiving discussion threads does not solve the problem of the SPA and IPs (as also stressed by other users on this thread, and especially by User:Acroterion who temporarily solved the issue before BMK did the last chunk of big archiving). Second, to reply to your other comment, I don't think I am being biased on the "fringe" arguments that are brought by IPs etc., I totally disagree with them and I support the deletion of trolls on the talk page! What I did not like was the generalized archiving of very big, recent or still ongoing discussions, that did not only host trolls and might have been useful for the improvement of the page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Though I'm not the principal subject of this complaint, considering how it previously spilled over onto my user talk, I'm somewhat wounded I wasn't notified of this discussion at all. Fortunately Black Kite said precisely what I would have. That Ritchie92 editwarred against three other editors,
breached WP:3RRin the process and asserted that consensus doesn't count on article talk. I was very satisfied to let this issue just die. It's unfortunate to see it here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)- I'm sorry but when exactly did I break the WP:3RR? About consensus, I still have not found where it is stated consensus must be achieved before editing a talk page. The consensus was to remove the IPs and the trolls, not to remove entire lawful discussion threads. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- You totally misunderstand. The consensus on the talk page (and, no, I'm not going to waste my time providing diffs, the discussion is there in the talk page archives) was that it was disruptive to have IPs and new accounts constantly asking for "right wing" to be changed to "left wing" (or the equivalent), which was inevitably turned down with a request for reliable sources, which no one every provided, because such sources do not exist. So the discussion decided that steps should be taken to reduce the disruption. These included not responding to such requests (which unfortunately still happens too often), frequent archiving of those requests, and a banner on the talk page similar to the one on Antisemitism (which says that we know that Arabs are Semities), and other pages. I created the banner, which remains on the page (despite some efforts to remove it as "inaccurate", which it is not) and myself and others, have archived such discussions quickly.So, no, one does need a consensus on the talk page to discuss suggested changes to Fascism, but the prevailing consensus is that right/left replacement requests without reliable sources will not be tolerated and will be archived quickly. Your denial (on my talk page) that consensus plays no part in talk page discussions ("There's no such a thing as consensus about editing a talk page" [127]) is a ridiculous statement that shows neither awareness of the general role of consensus on Wikipedia, nor specific awareness of the history of Talk:Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have struck through my incorrect assertion. I misread the edit log. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, User:Simonm223. @Beyond My Ken: I perfectly agree with everything that you said here (Except that my statement about consensus on talk pages is being misinterpreted: what I meant is that obviously talk pages are when one builds consensus, so one has no way of achieving consensus before even editing a talk page, if one ever wants to make an edit "challenging consensus"; but even then, here there's no need for consensus to establish that vandalism and trolls must be removed from talk pages: it's already in the talk page guidelines! Therefore your anti-troll actions are actually more than justified). The point is that you archived indiscriminately entire discussions, including also the last discussion started by yourself in which there were no trolls nor IPs. And even if there were, one should only remove those posts and not the others! --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I recall the issue was not changing right wing to left wing, but just removing right wing (which is not the same thing) [[128]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The current discussion is about that, and some other things, which is why it is still on the page. The discussion which generated the banner and the archiving consensus was about right->left. The same problem occurs (with somewhat less frequency) on Nazism, Nazi Party, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- And likewise we are almost constantly fielding identical requests to have Wikipedia call people who uphold taking direct action against fascism terrorists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yup. Right-wing talking points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- And you think that in order to solve these problems one must archive and archive? I think this is not a good strategy and it does not reach the objective here. Also, as a counter-effect, it removes legitimate (and sometimes even valuable) comments. And it sets precedent for a similar dangerous behavior (archiving discussions indiscriminately) on other articles. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yup. Right-wing talking points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- And likewise we are almost constantly fielding identical requests to have Wikipedia call people who uphold taking direct action against fascism terrorists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The current discussion is about that, and some other things, which is why it is still on the page. The discussion which generated the banner and the archiving consensus was about right->left. The same problem occurs (with somewhat less frequency) on Nazism, Nazi Party, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have struck through my incorrect assertion. I misread the edit log. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- You totally misunderstand. The consensus on the talk page (and, no, I'm not going to waste my time providing diffs, the discussion is there in the talk page archives) was that it was disruptive to have IPs and new accounts constantly asking for "right wing" to be changed to "left wing" (or the equivalent), which was inevitably turned down with a request for reliable sources, which no one every provided, because such sources do not exist. So the discussion decided that steps should be taken to reduce the disruption. These included not responding to such requests (which unfortunately still happens too often), frequent archiving of those requests, and a banner on the talk page similar to the one on Antisemitism (which says that we know that Arabs are Semities), and other pages. I created the banner, which remains on the page (despite some efforts to remove it as "inaccurate", which it is not) and myself and others, have archived such discussions quickly.So, no, one does need a consensus on the talk page to discuss suggested changes to Fascism, but the prevailing consensus is that right/left replacement requests without reliable sources will not be tolerated and will be archived quickly. Your denial (on my talk page) that consensus plays no part in talk page discussions ("There's no such a thing as consensus about editing a talk page" [127]) is a ridiculous statement that shows neither awareness of the general role of consensus on Wikipedia, nor specific awareness of the history of Talk:Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but when exactly did I break the WP:3RR? About consensus, I still have not found where it is stated consensus must be achieved before editing a talk page. The consensus was to remove the IPs and the trolls, not to remove entire lawful discussion threads. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Though I'm not the principal subject of this complaint, considering how it previously spilled over onto my user talk, I'm somewhat wounded I wasn't notified of this discussion at all. Fortunately Black Kite said precisely what I would have. That Ritchie92 editwarred against three other editors,
My preferred solution would be to permanently restrict article talk in this set of articles to autoconfirmed accounts only with more stringent edit protection on the articles themselves. Since that's impractical, yeah, keeping these WP:TEND arguments off the front page and denying these annoying, repetitious, unsourced requests the time of day is likely the best course of action. Of course, I half-expect an arbcom discussion of articles about far-right politics and the movements that oppose them (internationally) to pop up any day now so, who knows. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of anything else, I think these [129], [130], [131], [132] were bad edits. Here Beyond My Ken archived a discussion that took place entirely after the talk page had been protected. It was a discussion among long-term editors, not SPAs. The semi-protection and the initial archiving are justified, but this repeated archiving afterwards was unnecessary, unhelpful, and overly aggressive. This is just removing currently active, on-topic discussions, and it definitely violates standard policy for talk pages. Beyond My Ken says there was a consensus for the archiving, but how could he know that? He archived every discussion about the archiving after just a few hours. This was just plain disruptive. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know that, because I took part in the discussion in which that consensus was reached. You apparently don't know that, because you have not read the talk page archives, something I suggest you do before you comment again on whether a consensus existed or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've been following the page since before that RFC on whether to include "right wing" in the lead, and reading the talk page discussions while they were still on the talk page. Where did you find a consensus to do those specific removals? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- How about you read the archives, and then read the above discussion in full before you start asking questions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I've read every discussion on that talk page for the past several months, and participated in many of them. Could you just link to the discussion that contains this consensus you claimed in edit-warring against multiple editors to remove the discussion of the past two days? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to make accusations directed at other editors, you'd better have all your ducks lined up in a row. Please do your own research, and AGF that what I'm saying is true: other editors certainly remember the discussion, which, as far as I can recall, took place in February-March 2018, maybe a bit later. Certainly not within the "several months" of your involvement. As I've said, read the archives: not only will they enlighten you, but they will give you a better sense of the past problems on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm currently looking into Talk:Fascism/Archive 47 and Talk:Fascism/Archive 48 which contain the historical threads from the first months of 2018 that finally lead to the famous RfC started in March 2018. Unfortunately I cannot find any sign of consensus building or even discussion about whether users have free way to archive legitimate ongoing discussions about any topic referring to the "right-wing" wording. I only see discussions about the wording, and the usual IPs with their nonsensical theories. But even if there was a discussion, there is no way one can reach consensus regarding the generalized deletion/archiving of any new discussion. This is so against the talk page policies, and its purpose. Editors could agree to have a systematic approach in dealing with the trolls, SAP and IP users, but they can't make such a rule that applies even to long-term editors comments in the talk page. I agree with RRC on this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- My last contribution to this rather absurd discussion: I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know exactly what is written in WP:CONSENSUS, and sorry but it does not look like there is consensus on generally archiving any ongoing legitimate discussion in the talk page: this would be in fact absurd! How could a new or a different editor (who might have additional expertise or additional sources) then challenge an existing consensus? --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your understanding of the role of consensus on Wikipedia is faulty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know exactly what is written in WP:CONSENSUS, and sorry but it does not look like there is consensus on generally archiving any ongoing legitimate discussion in the talk page: this would be in fact absurd! How could a new or a different editor (who might have additional expertise or additional sources) then challenge an existing consensus? --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- My last contribution to this rather absurd discussion: I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm currently looking into Talk:Fascism/Archive 47 and Talk:Fascism/Archive 48 which contain the historical threads from the first months of 2018 that finally lead to the famous RfC started in March 2018. Unfortunately I cannot find any sign of consensus building or even discussion about whether users have free way to archive legitimate ongoing discussions about any topic referring to the "right-wing" wording. I only see discussions about the wording, and the usual IPs with their nonsensical theories. But even if there was a discussion, there is no way one can reach consensus regarding the generalized deletion/archiving of any new discussion. This is so against the talk page policies, and its purpose. Editors could agree to have a systematic approach in dealing with the trolls, SAP and IP users, but they can't make such a rule that applies even to long-term editors comments in the talk page. I agree with RRC on this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, rightists are spamming the talk page with demands that we whitewash the common knowledge statement of fact that Fascism is a right-wing movement. BMK is archiving these threads, and you want him punished for it? Sigh. I think we're done here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's about the size of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am sighing, because you obviously have not read what I have written or you refuse to understand what happened in the edits: [133], [134], [135], [136]. On the side, I do not want the user punished, I don't care. I want to clarify when and where a user can indiscriminately archive ongoing and legitimate discussions. Again, I am not questioning the archiving of the spammers (even though we have seen that the archiving is no solution to the problem)! --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's a discussion that's been open on Talk:Fascism for two days ([137]), and now an RfC as well ([138]) (which I pinged you to) yet you have yet to participate in either. Instead, during that period, you've posted multiple times on my talk page ([139], [140], [141], [142]), started this AN/I report, and posted to it numerous times. Why is this sidebar -- essentially complaining that I'm suppressing legitimate discussion -- so much more important to you than actually participating in an ongoing discussion? That seems a bit odd to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Funny, I sure replied in the talk you initiated, but you archived part of it, including my replies and restarted the same topic without them! I also just commented on your RfC. But anyway, this AN/I report – and my questions in general – are about your methods, I do not have any obligation to intervene in the discussion about the topic itself. And yes, making sure that people cannot generically delete legitimate and ongoing discussion threads from talk pages is more important to me than the whole right-wing nonsense, regarding which my main worry is that after this month an army of the usual suspects with swarm the talk page again, and we will probably be back again to the same crazy daily indiscriminate archiving. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you're more comfortable tilting at windmills rather than in participating in collegial talk page discussion designed to improve the article by coming to a consensus (there's that word again). It appears that you'd rather complain than improve, and that you feel that if a discussion does not take place on your terms, it's not a discussion you want to be a part of. My suggestion to you is, bluntly, to put up or shut up. Either participate in the discussion that's taking place right now, even as we chat, or don't -- that's your choice, no one can compel you to participate -- but please don't put up a front of self-righteousness when you aren't taking advantage of what's available right in front of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- "On my terms"? The discussion was archived, the question is if a discussion can happen at all, according to you. We are not here to discuss about my personal scale of priorities. You shouldn't be bothered by it and you shouldn't comment on it nor make your conclusions about my POV. Now, we are here to discuss about what can and cannot be done on Wikipedia: it's the purpose of this page. My complaint about your methods are fundamental to the way things get improved on WP, and it's nothing personal against you (I am sure you were just overzealous in the last archiving of your own discussion thread). Anyway I thank you for your invitation to discuss, and I inform you that I have discussed and probably will keep discussing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that you have now made a small contribution on Talk:Fascism, that's good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Some inspiration for the WP rules experts here: I quote from the talk page guidelines, section about "Editing others' comments". First rule:
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page
, then:Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection
, and objection there was. Among the exceptions to the rule, the ones that are relevant to this discussion are:Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived
which means that archiving of trolls and vandals could be a rightful thing to do, andRemoving duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Note: this does not mean people who repeat a point deliberately
, meaning that editors can repeat a point and not undergo deletion or archiving. These are the rules. Can "previous consensus" change these rules? (and we don't even know where and when that specific consensus to overthrow TP guidelines was achieved) That is my question. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Talkpage protection
- Continuing my comment from above, I've semi-protected the talkpage for a month, which appears to have dealt with the proximate cause of the dispute in this thread. As WP:PROTECT notes, semi-protection of article talkpages is to be used sparingly. However, that policy was formulated primarily to deal with occasional individual vandals and POV-pushers. What's appearing on Talk:Fascism and similar pages is a steady stream of new editors and IPs who are convinced that fascism, for instance, is a handy universal label to apply to people they oppose, and expect the article to reflect that POV rather than reflecting academic and historical analysis. These editors are clogging the talkpages. I see no reason to believe that this will change when protection expires, and some longer-term solution will be needed.
- Right now, WP:PROTECT suggests that semi-protected talkpages redirect edit requests to WP:RFED, which isn't really set up to deal with that sort of traffic. I think we're going to need a project space page linked on long-term semi-protected talkpages that can handle this traffic, where editors with the patience and inclination to do so can winnow serious requests from the forum speech and trolling, allowing the article talkpages to be used as intended, and allowing editors on those topics some rest. That project page can link to WP policy, offer suggestions on reading archived discussions, and perhaps help to educate newcomers on how to approach perennially contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question: Is all this nonsense somehow related to our current problems with fashion icon Michael Z. Williamson (see #Long-term sockpuppetry at AFD), who apparently shares this fascism-is-left-wing delusion? EEng 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt it given the limited cross over between the two pages.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well maybe he's transitioning. EEng 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt it given the limited cross over between the two pages.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Erroneous mass page moving without reasons or sources
I aplogise in advance if this is the wrong place to raise it, but could admins take an urgent look at the activities of User:Renzo_espiritu ?--BushelCandle (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even ignoring whether there are good reasons for the moves, the editor seems to have moved a lot of article pages to talk pages or to file pages - these errors need to be fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's a lot of moves but only 3 involved articles: Zamboanga Peninsula, Metro Manila, Soccksargen. I think I got it all fixed. Working on double redirects now — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Diannaa and I have both asked them to stop. Hopefully that will be enough. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's a lot of moves but only 3 involved articles: Zamboanga Peninsula, Metro Manila, Soccksargen. I think I got it all fixed. Working on double redirects now — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both!
I hope your advice is heeded (I see there's no response yet by this user...) --BushelCandle (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
asia countries page
AuH2ORepublican and several editors are in dispute over whether palestine should or should not be grouped with generally recognized states or non un, non recognized states. Lo meiin (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Lo meiin You must notify any other users you report to this page. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
331 dot I already did that Lo meiin (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Boomerang. It seem fishy that, Lo meiin, you did not edited those page nor their talk pages, and then as a new user, knew the way to ANI. Your first edit (that on not deleted page), was sending ANI-notice to AuH2ORepublican. Matthew hk (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to get a check-user sweep of Lo meiin against Arabistan (the other primary party in the dispute), given that Lo meiin's handful of edits all focuses (from the start) on AuH20. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that Arabistan has been suspended or anything (I certainly haven't reported to third parties his abusive behavior against me or his POV edits), so I assume that he created this sock account in order to make it appear that there is a larger group of editors protesting against the compromise reached by consensus around a year ago on how Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara are categorized in Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states. I further suspect that the use of this IP starting on July 15 is another sock account of his: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.42.250.60 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I left a similar comment in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arabistan already. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Arabistan has made similar edits, but unlike him, I have not engaged in inflammatory jibes against any user. And also unlike him, I am committed to working with Au20 and all other editors to reach a compromise on this perennial dispute. And yes, I have made similar edits because it was just a way to bring attention to this dire issue. I regret all the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of all sockpuppets directed toward Au20 and all other editors (and also the despicable remarks Arabistan made towards pro-Israel Pacific Island nations) affected and I vow not to engage or associate with any of their activities (and tbh my name Lo meiin is indicative that I do not have a personal bias for either the Arab/Islamic states or Israel in this conflict, thank you.) My position stands as that both the states of Israel and Palestine should not receive differential treatment from all other generally recognized states on wikipedia, a major source of reference for many worldwide, and that is the consensus of wikipedia in general ( see list of sovereign states). I would also like to mention that Au20 has changed several articles to categorize palestine as not generally recognized unilaterally where it was already mentioned as generally recognized, such as countries by capitals in their native language and countries by land area, so he's in no position of accusing me of being an NPOV. Thank you Lo meiin (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
nationality vandal by a Malaysian ip is back yet again
- 123.136.106.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Wan Kuzain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sporting Kansas City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It seem the last range block was not enough (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (the third ANI filing for the same range within a year). Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- New batch of vandalized articles, all changing nationality and/or DOB without citation , same pattern as the last reported vandalism :
- --Matthew hk (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- For now I have blocked the single IP. If there are other IPs that are currently being used (or recently used), please let us know so we can consider a range block. For the record, the existing range block appears to be 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- He used the ip4 range 123.136.XXX.YYY in the first ANI filing in October 2018. I lost count this is the fourth or fifth filing. Matthew hk (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Persistent IP editor adding wrong info
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an IP editor persistently adding duplicate, redundant, and wrong info to municipality articles in Luzon, Philippines. (S)he continues to add distances to San Fernando, Pampanga, to a variety of places, many of which are not even in the same region (hence not their regional center) and many of which are utterly wrong. The IP addresses used so far (that I know of) are:
- 2600:1700:8BE0:69C0:E845:9155:D1F3:64E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2600:1700:8BE0:69C0:E5CA:2E5A:EEC1:2309 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2600:1700:8BE0:69C0:AD11:1E38:8735:F199 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2600:1700:8BE0:69C0:C026:8A5D:B5B9:4282 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2600:1700:8BE0:69C0:B0FF:54E2:52ED:E9BF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2600:1700:8BE0:69C0:AC8D:9017:BE4E:2EEA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Since their edits are to many articles, I am requesting a IP range block. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8BE0:69C0::/64, for ease of searching and reverting. ST47 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- They've earned a 1 year block once before, and there's zero communication since that block expired in June. Blocked for 3 years. ST47 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Problem IP editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:146.199.1.98, previously blocked for vandalism, now adding unsourced content and leaving abusive messages. Popcornduff (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week, edit summary revdeled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Talk page abuse
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here. He's lucky that word has a different meaning where I come from. Adam9007 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The IP’s last few talk page messages justify a civility block. – Levivich 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Talk page access revoked. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- In view of the user's colorful word choice, I've taken the liberty of extending the block to 1 week. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Uncle G: Cool. Have you suggested this choice at the relevant RfD? Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- In view of the user's colorful word choice, I've taken the liberty of extending the block to 1 week. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well thanks to Uncle G I've now discovered a very cool painter I didn't know about previously.Excellent selection of classic American scenes,but the artist really needs to choose a maximum of one title per painting :) Lemon martini (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Date range vandal working from Newtownabbey
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:7F97:8100:0:0:0:0/64? The person has been changing to wrong dates since 1 May on this range. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Bite-y behavior from three admins
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Huon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Angelarking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Marc D. Angel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New user Angelarking did some editing on Marc D. King, a page for which she apparently knows the subject. After their one round of editing there got reverted by CambridgeBayWeather], they went to BLPN, inappropriately (in newby ignorance) tried to post their version of the BLP there, but when it was reverted by Bbb23, posted to raise their concerns about the BLP there.... and for some reason, Bbb23 chose to revert that as well, and block them, while CBW opened up a sock puppet investigation against them and posted on BLP complaining that editors were removing "sourced" material. All of this despite the fact that on the whole, the edits that Angelarking, while possibly COI, were good edits and of net benefit to the project. The bulk of the material that was deleted was either unsourced or negative factual claims soured to opinion pieces ([143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151]) which is generally discouraged by WP:NEWSORG and usually treated as a no-no on BLPs. Additionally, multiple of these were used to synthesize claims ("As with many of his legally liberal colleagues his conversions and rabbinic decisions are often challenged and rejected by Orthodox groups.") I ended up having to re-delete much of what she had deleted. But when Huon went to review the unblock request, the bulk of the edits were ignored and the one sentence of positive spin added was used as a reason by Huon to keep this editor off of the project.
As far as I can tell, at no point did any of these administrators look to see if any of the editor's concerns were valid, look to see if the "sourced material" were at all good, try to explain any problems with their efforts to the editor, or raise any matter on the article's talk page. It was all just pile on and block the editor. I suggest that Angelarking receive an unblock, an apology, and an introduction to our conflict-of-interest guidelines; for the three administrators, I recommend that they each receive a gift certificate for a free trout facial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason for this to be reviewed here, and Huon especially should not even be mentioned since he was the admin who was doing an unblock review. If Angelarking wishes to appeal their block again, they may do so and an uninvolved administrator will review. This thread should be closed as we don't generally accept third-party unblock appeals, and there is nothing so egregious here as to deviate from that norm. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- So we're free to bite the hell out of newcomers so long as they don't already know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia practice to defend themselves? Got it. If I ask for something more than a trout against these admins, would that be excuse to keep this open? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Um, Huon did a third party review. That's not admin abuse, that's following policy. He declined to unblock, which in most cases means that he felt the block was valid. If Angelarking still thinks the block isn't valid or isn't needed, they can appeal again, but you shouldn't be bringing an appeal here when there is not currently an open appeal. They've shown they know how to use the unblock template. Let them explain their position for themselves so that another administrator can review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- So we're free to bite the hell out of newcomers so long as they don't already know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia practice to defend themselves? Got it. If I ask for something more than a trout against these admins, would that be excuse to keep this open? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This looks like a textbook BITE situation and I'd be inclined to unblock per NatGertler's assessment. The article's protected, the user was making good faith improvements to a BLP and they were never warned or coached, even though they took it to a community noticeboard as they were supposed to and reported false and slanderous information in a BLP. We don't typically review third party unblock requests, but we don't typically railroad well-meaning newbies like that either. I don't really see this block as being necessary at this point, are there really any issues with unblocking that aren't procedural? ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- My thing is that the whole point of an unblock request is that the user in question has a discussion with the admin who is reviewing. We can't really have that discussion if they aren't involved. I also just really dislike the third party appeals, because discussing one usually leads to a bunch more in the coming weeks, but I do get the bureaucratic and procedural point you are making on that. Would it be worth taking this discussion to the talk page of Angelarking, Swarm and talking about it with the three admins mentioned above? I think that would address your concerns with the block while also keeping it more in line with the normal process? Sorry if this sounds a bit policy-wonky. I'm just trying to think of a way to get to the core of something while still keeping this relatively "normal" TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I get it, you're not wrong, it shouldn't be a community review but I will take it up discretionarily. I'll take this to the talk page and ping Bbb (feel free to extend the archive box if you don't need to reply further). ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you block Paulol183892?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He vandalised my talkpage and other articles. They already got a warning from someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverState472 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to sign. Thanks @SineBot! SilverState472 (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just want to point out here both users involved so far each made their first Wikipedia post at the same time, exactly 29 minutes ago. SportingFlyer T·C 07:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- ...I am NOT a sockpuppet. Check out their contribs. SilverState472 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- SilverState472, how did you find out what sockpuppets are within 35 minutes of creating an account? --MrClog (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question: how severe was the vandalism? Gun23man (☎️) 08:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- ...I am NOT a sockpuppet. Check out their contribs. SilverState472 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SilverState472. MrClog (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Unnamed12
Unnamed12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
In a trade war at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement article, keeps trying to edit back in what other users are reverting. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I assume you mean edit war, and those can be reported at WP:AN/EW. --MrClog (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
America's Got Talent (season 14) description
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies if this is the wrong place!
If you search in Wikipedia for America's Got Talent (season 14), the current season. The short description says “worst season ever”.
I’m not sure how to fix it or where to ask. Any help? Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed, Gleeanon409. The short description was taken from Wikidata, which was vandalised. I fixed the vandalism at Wikidata and imported the new short description to the article to prevent any Wikidata vandalism from affecting the article. You can always set a short description yourself: place
{{short description|<description here>}}at the top of the article. Thank you for reporting the issue. --MrClog (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
POV-pushing at Serbs
Obsuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at a fast pace adding unsourced POV about Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) not being a nation and unsourced OR about the the terms "Serb" and "Serbian". Characteristically, their last edit-summary is "truth". I think this heavy-handed POV needs to stop and this user needs a block. Dr. K. 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think you and Mm.srb or how is he called are pushing POV and not letting others add true content to the page because you don't like it personally. Please learn what is a POV. Content on Wikipedia does not need to be sourced; add {{fact}} if you think it's arguable or controversial but do not edit war and revert with no reason, removing all my additions. You need a block, and everyone who makes edit war with no reason. --Obsuser (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Obsuser has just broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. Dr. K. 12:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)