Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Wikipedia policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.
In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.
The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...
“
No you LISTEN, you are the ONLY PERSON in the WHOLE of WIKIPEDIA that has a problem with the GOOD IMAGE being used. I tried solving it amicably but you decide to change the IMAGE again for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you REFUSE to a have ANY DISCUSSION but continuously KEEP changing the image, the post to have a discussion BARELY lasted 48 hours BEFORE you changed the IMAGE yet AGAIN... You are a VANDAL and I will NOW REPORT you....I wrote those in CAPS LOCK cause you seem to be blind or something ...
”
If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.
Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.
Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.
Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcinghisownimagesintoarticles and rightafterusurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Wikipedia for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote
“
Gage Skidmore is a professional photographer currently based in the Phoenix metropolitan area. He began his career covering politics in 2009, covering the U.S. Senate campaign of ophthalmologist Rand Paul. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of organizations and campaigns, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, ASU Center for Political Thought & Leadership, Campaign for Liberty Foundation, Reason Magazine, Western Center for Journalism, and has been published in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Politico, and Forbes.
Media/business inquiries: gtskidmore@hotmail.com
”
If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Wikipedia. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Wikipedia as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Wikipedia. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Wikipedia at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Wikipedia not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.
I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Wikipedia is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--Stemoc15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? Calibrador (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a WP:COI which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--Stemoc14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW [11] so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010Talk14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great but the image thing is still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –Davey2010Talk14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. Calibrador (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to Commons policy regarding image uploads, so this is "attribution" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private category, there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--Stemoc15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calibrador, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)
Back to the issue at hand regarding if Cometstyles Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. (There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...) (t) Josve05a (c)04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "by Gage Skidmore" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--Stemoc14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Wikipedia from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link WP:Selfpromotion, even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours IS self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--Stemoc15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at 3RR for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also warned by an admin for harassment. Calibrador (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--Stemoc15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. Calibrador (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to keep this open until Stemoc and Calibrador return from their 24 hour blocks. I'd like to hear some proposals, as there's potentially an issue with Calibrador's behaviour, and in turn there's definitely an issue with Stemoc's behaviour. It would be good to get it sorted out with the minimum of fuss, rather than just closing this thread and having a repeat with either Stemoc or another user raising similar complaints in the next few days and weeks.
I'd think the sensible suggestion here would be that Calibrador is either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images, and consensus is in favour of the change, or there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes. It's important to say at this time that we do appreciate the time and effort he puts into taking and uploading photographs BUT other photographers, both professional and amateur do exactly the same, and in the interests of fairness, we want to see good images from a wide range of different photographers being used on the project, this in turn encourages image contributions from other photographers. Every photographer who takes good images should have an expectation of their images being used by another project and that their images will be chosen fairly, without bias, and on the merit of the photograph and its content, composition and appropriateness for the article. Calibrador's behaviour isn't really allowing that to happen right now. Nick (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is, he is trying to keep his talk page clean so that paying clients don't ask about his block, anyways thanks for pointing out the previous discussion involving him JustDaFax, maybe I should have pointed this out at the very top of the thread and saved myself a lot of time, the admin in that discussion EdJohnston warned him not to re-offend, and he did....many times actually..I'm tired of this cause I did not come back after retiring just so that I get involved in MORE wikidrama, I have no issue with this, I just do not like POV pushers regardless of who they might be ...I hope an admin comes with a solution soon which will stop this from happening again..--Stemoc00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm Stemoc I mentioned the report right above so I'm not sure how you missed it , That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Say, Davey2010 could you ping those editors mentioned in your report, that had issues with Cali/Gage? They are likely not aware of this ANI complaint that is now in a state of WP:BOOMERANG and may well shed some light on why they had concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, completely, with Nick's suggestion. It seems to be the most sensible and fair solution. I would be more in favour of the 1RR suggestion; it's not prohibitively restrictive (and doesn't discourage further contributions), but it reigns in any excessive promotional behaviour and forces him to seek consensus with other editors if they take issue with his revisions. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block for Calibrador - Quinto, that type of sanction is only effective if Cali/Gage sees the continuing errors of his ways, and acts on them. He's been warned repeatedly to no avail, even reverting the block message on his Talk page when warned not to. Stemoc is likely right, Cali/Gage has deep reasons for his Talk page scrubbage. I say indef the character, at least until we get a serious commitment to reform that he can be held to. He's been gaming the system here for too long and shows no intention of stopping. Jusdafax01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef Calibrador - I'm probably not going to be liked for this but the editor has caused enough problems and I think the 1RR won't solve anything at all, We could go down the 1RR route but he'd end up being reported at ANEW and then it'll be this discussion all over again and he'd end up being blocked - Once unblocked we'll be doing it all over again. Indef seems a better and wiser idea IMHO. –Davey2010Talk01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- In complete agreement with Nick here. The 1RR proposal for Calibrador makes a lot of sense. However if that doesn't work an indef seems like the only other option. -- Shuddetalk05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand 1RR and renaming of the files to remove his name (per DGG's comment), but before this last Bbb23 block for edit warring, he's never been blocked, and he has over 25,000 edits behind him. Indef blocking is excessive at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of that was to get him to respond, which he's now doing, if less than satisfactorily. But Dennis, it's my firm belief that if he gets off with 1RR and renaming, he's getting off easy. I really don't want to go wading through his edits, just to find more examples. We are already at TL,DR. Davey 2010 has it right. Jusdafax20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current and past problems with Calibrador, formerly Gage Skidmore: suggest extending current BOOMERANG with indef block
Good double block, and I share Nick's concerns. By the way, isn't this diff above in this very ANI complaint (!) using "very close to libel" as an implied legal threat in violation of WP:LEGAL, as well the use of the term "paranoia" an attack on the mental condition of the editor Cali/Gage has brought to this board? If so, wouldn't a continued block of C/G be protective in nature?
In any case, I've had some troubling issues with Cali/Gage Skidmore at the L.A. Reid article. In brief, he lies, distorts, ignores and in general does whatever needful to get what he wants. My involvement began in 2012 when I cordially welcomed him to the page while expressing concerns about his captioning. He gave no reply.
In August 2013, he repeatedly inserts his own photography as the infobox photo and refuses to reply on his Talk page or on the article Talk page when I attempted again to discuss. When challenged, he lied in his edit summary saying, as clearly shown in this diff that I had reverted him without explaining, which the diff shows my edit summary had, and that I was in violation of WP:OWN, when in fact I had repeatedly asked for Cali/Gage to discuss the matter.
I also noticed others had similar issues and Cali/Gage failed to respond to them either. Finally in disgust I walked away from what I felt was an unpleasant and manipulative editing experience. And this editor has a serious set of issues, as noted above, and in his warning at AN just last month, also as noted above. He's a fine photographer, but we can do without his hostile gamesmanship and relentless self-promotion, in my view. Jusdafax12:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The use of "very close to libel" once probably shouldn't be construed as a legal threat per WP:LEGAL. I don't really see enough diffs to support this strong of an action. I started looking through some of his photos and they are quite good. Personally, I think it would be a shame to loose his future contributions. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Not to go all Wikilawyer on you but the pertinent paragraph in that policy: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation. As for photographers, he's good but not good enough to allow his brinksmanship and outright bad faith editing to continue, in my view. Jusdafax06:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you are Wikilawyering at all. I just think his phrase "very close to libel" is not quite the same as saying it was "libelous" nor did he do it repeatedly. I think before an indef block is decided, there should be more discussion about whether adding his name to the end of file names is a serious issue. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it - that's not the only issue, as I demonstrate in this section just above. He's been abusing the place for years. You're right, the word "repeatedly" is in the policy too. But, now that he's unblocked, what does he do? Wipes his Talk page clean, and ignores the issues raised here. He does not apologize, does not comment, just up and vanishes. You OK with that? Why? Because he takes good pictures? Jusdafax06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you that there are serious issues. I just did Google search in images for "Gage Skidmore" and it returns pages of his photos. So, maybe 1RR or 0RR would be a better starting point for now? --I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first thing we all need to agree to is to get him to talk. He has a well-established history of avoiding discussion. That has to stop. Indef him, he's forced to face the music on his pristine talk page. He can answer questions there, express contrition and understanding of our policies, etc. Seriously, he must not be given a slap on the wrist and turned loose again on the project. Enough is enough. Jusdafax07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calibrador response
If you look at my more recent edits, aside from accidentally reverting too many times on one article without knowing (trust me, it was my mistake), I have begun using edit summaries, tried to seek consensus, and mostly tried to avoid conflict. Stemoc reverted several different edits over several different pages within a short span of time simply for the fact that he believes I am somehow a COI violator. What should I really have done differently? I tried to include discussion, and a clear edit summary at every opportunity.
I sincerely apologize for my past indiscretions, I have seen the error of ways in the past about not discussing changes seen as controversial. I don't need to be punished in order to see that, I see it clearly already. Also, I did not disappear, and inviting everyone that has had something bad to say about me with no one on the other side to defend me is a little biased.
The main issue that was at heart here that was underblown because Stemoc enjoys making a lot of noise, and crying COI at every possible chance, is the WP:Wikihounding and uncivil nature of their edits. I have no idea why this has changed into a discussion about me. I've realized my edits in the past were disruptive, and if you look at my edits recently, I made sure to include an edit summary in nearly every contribution, and when necessary, created or participated in discussion. This includes the 3RR that I accidentally got myself into without realizing, I created a discussion on the talk page, and included a reason for making the edit in my edit summary. Unfortunately that was completely ignored by Stemoc in favor of COI accusations, and stating that I'm profiting from Wikipedia, which I have not ever. I suggest concentrating on that rather than my past mistakes which I apologize for, and have tried to amend. Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the thing on my talk page was a mistake, I did not know about that policy, and when it was re-added, I accidentally thought someone re-added it to my talk page just to rub it in or something like that, I didn't look at the history page until after I had made the edit. My mistake once again. As for now, all users have control over their talk page, I think Stemoc is once again assuming bad faith, and made another COI allegation that was unfounded. I don't want to distract from the main issue though that I think has not even been addressed yet, so please discuss Stemoc's offenses. Calibrador (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found Gage creating this article really odd until I did a bit of research and found out that he is somewhat of a "follower" and then i found this..should we now assume Gage is a Paid editor as well cause your edits related to Rand Paul sure looks a lot like public relations work..no? So you use the wiki to push your own agendas, create articles on stuff which again boosts your own career and then you lie about it and then come here and blame me for foiling you? Just claim that you are a political photographer and you are doing all this just to boost your own career and this will all be over...Heck, you even uploaded a new yet poor picture of Donald trump because you didn't like the one I added as it wasn't one of 'yours'...When i first came across you a few years ago, I thought you were a hero for adding HQ pics of celebs and politicians free of charge, boy was I wrong and yet even when multiple users above have claimed that you have been 'gaming' the system, you still deny it and deflect it back to me...Honestly, if all this does not result in a ban or a block for you, I worry that you will do it all over again cause honestly, I do not think you joined wikipedia to help grow the database and you have no intentions whatsoever to follow our policies if they contradict with your ambitions and you have already been on the Edit Warring notice board 3 times over the last 50 days and yet you keep blaming others and refuse to accept that you made mistake after mistake and you even blanked your talk page twice even after 2 admins warned you not to and then you blanked it again the 3rd time just 10 minutes after your block was lifted..Why would anyone not worried about their image do that?...If you somehow walked away from this with just a slap on your hand then this would mean Wikipedia has failed...--Stemoc13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, Stemoc has his own issues. But this is the first I've heard of this Rand Paul article, which opens a new and distressing window on your POV pushing activities, Calibrador. Leaving that aside for the moment, as well as your excuses for blanking the block notices on your talk page repeatedly, which strain credulity since you are saying you didn't read the admin postings at all, we come to the issues I have delineated in detail above. You have posted a lot of words here. Not a single one addresses my specific and documented concerns, and those of others who have further concerns. So is this the best you can do? A "sweat promise" to now, after years, act like most decent Wikipedians, and actually use edit summaries, actually seek consensus? Now that major sanctions are under discussion here, I challenge you to address the charges that have been brought forward. Jusdafax13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I addressed them? I admit I should have participated in discussion in the past instead of acting in a cold manner. I hardly even remember the incident you are talking about in regards to the LA Reid article. FWIW, that was not my photo, I did not take it. I was acting like any other editor looking for a better image that was freely available on Flickr, and thought that better illustrated the subject of the article, and thought it was weird that a photo with someone else in the photo that was years older was preferred. I did not look at the article history you linked, I'm just going by memory. Not sure what else I can say, but I'd very much like a response to Stemoc's behavior, as absolutely no one with any authority has had anything to say about their hounding and uncivil behavior that I documented in my original report. Calibrador (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not to make this any sort of issue, but I just looked at the article, and would note that the photo that I added is now the photo that is universally used to illustrate the article across Wikipedia projects, and not as a result of me. Someone else did that. I really have no memory of that situation though, it was several years ago. I know I was in the wrong on that though, so I apologize. Calibrador (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that GageSkidmore/Calibrador suddenly changed his username is an indication that his intentions here are likely less than good faith. I really don't see a pressing issue at all with Stemoc, but with GageSkidmore/Calibrador we see a user who is all about self-promotion, and in many regards, whose motivations, i.e. Rand Paul book, etc. are questionable. He likes to ensure his pictures retain precedence over all others; yes, he takes many pictures that are free-use, and that is good. But many of his pictures aren't of article quality and composition, and he many times fights for ones that are the least worth inclusion. There have been problems in the past, and I see them again. He likes making great streams of edits on pages, rather than carefully consolidating his efforts, he continues to put 'by Gage Skidmore' on every single picture uploaded to the commons, obvious self promotion, and his consistent efforts to evade (name change and notification deletes) demonstrate his negative impact here. Spartan7W§14:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that I stole that idea from David Shankbone, should we bring David Shankbone to AN/I? The stream of edits that I think you are referring to were an effort to try to control my own content. Many (not all) of the photos that were uploaded from my photostream were cropped very poorly, or were not the best one to illustrate an article in my opinion. Most (not all) of my recent photo additions were replacing of my own photos with an alternate crop, or slightly different color, sharpness, etc. Some mistook that as simply uploading the same photo with a different title, but that was not the case, people were adding my photos to Wikipedia unknowingly to me, and I wasn't particularly a fan of the way they looked, however minor it was. I don't specifically recall very many instances where a "stream" of edits other than that one instance where it was controversial and someone took notice of it. After I was brought to the noticeboard, I did not continue that behavior. Despite what you may think, I'm capable of learning from my mistakes. As was the case with the recent noticeboard discussion, and is the reason I used an edit summary and created discussions on several recent articles. Unfortunately that was disrupted by Stemoc who reverted several different edits across several different pages, crying COI and that I'm somehow being paid to edit Wikipedia, how exactly should I have responded to that other than the way that I did? In the first few instances on one specific page, I reverted with a descriptive edit summary stating my opposition to the revert of my edit, and also included a talk page post. That post was met with a paragraph of COI accusations. In the end, another user, PrairieKid reverted the page back to my version twice more when Stemoc reverted it to their version. The fact that I overstepped 3RR was an accident on my part, I understand that policy very clearly, I would not have overstepped that if I had known the first edit I made also counted as a revert, I was simply re-adding official portraits that were replaced for some reason unknown to me. In regards to the Paul thing, I would simply consider myself an expert on the topic, the book article was added because I was trying to keep it consistent with the previous two book articles. Not sure what you were trying to imply with that, especially since the article is not written in a biased manner. I don't believe I've ever made any sort of NPOV edits to anything Paul related, if I did that was a mistake, but I do not believe I did. The only thing I can think of are stylistic article choices. Calibrador (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really Shankbone? the guy that took random celebrity pics and never had a COI or ever pushed his POV across wikimedia? only a handful of his celebrity pics were with his name in the image title which i mentioned above, we ALLOW...not 100% of his images..He rarely if at all replaced someone's images with his own unless it was outdated and I doubt he made a single-cent out of doing this..I would be really surprised if he was ever dragged onto any of the WP:AN boards..and again, you are deflecting..Now you are claiming that users like Lady Lotus and I made "bad" crops?. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, this image by Lady Lotus was so "badly cropped" than you just had to replace it with this image of yours? or replacethis with your cropped version or replacethis image with one of yours for the exact same reason.. I don't think you care about the quality of your images cause if you did and you thought your version was BETTER, you would have uploaded your version over the "same image" that you were trying to replace, instead of uploading a same if not similar crop with again, your name in the image title...I have told you on multiple occasion that if any user on enwiki or commons finds an image on flick with a free licence and they find there is a need for that image on ANY of the 700 odd wikis we have (300 of which are wikipedias), they will freely be allowed to upload that image to commons so if you have a problem with it, please, feel free to change the license of your images on flickr to ARR (All Rights Reserved) but at the same time, you won't be allowed to upload those images here either without scrutiny....and regarding the PrairieKid edit, If you actually see the history, he changed an image because another user reverted my edit because he didn't understand why my "revert" of your edit was a "self-promotion" because you had your name changed which is why you did it (you can lie about it many times but we all know why)..infact there was no 3RR by me but I accepted the block because I felt that maybe NOW people might see exactly what I have been saying all along, I don't have to repeat myself again as everything i have said is listed above..You may not see it but even though you have been around since 2009, you still refuse to understand or follow our policies so you have not only violated one, but MANY of our policies over the years and you only got away with it because of your name. I have listed a few of your violations above and on the 3RR thread which you keep going back too, this board is NOT for 3RR....this board is about your attitude on this wiki and how you deal (or lack thereof) with other users and your ability (on inability) to both understand or follow our polices and your insistence of claiming over and over again that you are the victim here when its clear that you are not....So instead of deflecting to me, why don't you tell us why an admin should not block you? and P.S, I'm NOT Hounding you, I'm getting you to talk because over the last 6 years you have been on this wiki, you REFUSE to talk when posed a question and you always ignore hierarchy on this wiki and now when you have this opportune time to save yourself, you deflect, passing the blame onto someone else without realizing that this will only make it worse for you....the only reason I'm replying to your posts is because you keep mentioning my name and pointing fingers at me, i know how to defend myself since I have been in similar situation a few times....Everytime I post, I added more proof regarding your edits, and everytime you posts, its just more accusations hurled at me without an ounce of proof and yet, I'm the one hounding him as you claim....anyways I have wasted too much time on this, I have better things to do across wikimedia--Stemoc00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, first off, you gotta learn to not slap up these giant text walls that make the average editor's eyes glaze over, and tone down your use of caps. That said, it appears to me you have a number of decent points. There is no doubt that Cali/Gage has utterly and repeatedly failed for years now to discuss and come to consensus, except when he is lying, which I document above. I'm hoping by keeping this thread open that others will come forth, so we can establish what kind of sanctions Cali/Gage will be facing. There is growing consensus something has to be done. Cool out, man. Jusdafax02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah can't help it bro, once I have something to talk about, my wall can be higher than the Great Wall of China..I actually cut myself short there cause most of the things that needed to be said has already been said....I have mentioned a few times that i use Bolds or Caps or "quotes" for "emphasis" only, I'm not really "shouting"..I agree, this has dragged far too long and needs to be solved once and for all...I have no interests in making edits to the wikipedia-space as i prefer most if not all my edits to be on the main space..--Stemoc02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified about this discussion on my talk page. I do not favor an indefinite block of Gage Skidmore (the username change was in bad faith, however, and should be reversed imo). Though he has demonstrated a strong POV against notable minor candidates for office as I documented here, my main issue with Skidmore is his lack of communication, specifically his refusal to discuss contentious edits he makes in furtherance of his POV. Nevertheless, based on what he has written above, I believe he has the potential to change. He adds great content to articles and wikipedia should not eliminate his ability to do so through an indefinite block. A 1RR restriction seems like a fair remedy. This may encourage him to discuss his edits (as part of the WP:BRD method) rather than reverting reverts without providing any justification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for interaction ban
At this point I think it would be very wise to consider implementing an interaction ban between myself and Stemoc, I don't conceive this ever resolving amicably as far as their prerogative goes, so I think this would be the best way to not be disruptive. Calibrador (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such interaction ban since the only one to benefit from it would be the proposer himself, who would get rid of a vocal critic. Criticism that IMO is justified, because like many others here I see Calibrador's activities as using Wikipedia for promotion. Thomas.W talk16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yup Thomas's hit the nail on the head - WP:IBAN states and I quote "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved - There is no conflict - It's simply one (well actually quite alot) of editors unhappy with you and your self promotion here. –Davey2010Talk17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they were civil about it, I wouldn't have made the request. Unfortunately they are one of the most uncivil people I have ever had interaction with. Calibrador (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Thomas W. I'm fed up, obviously. As I comment above, Stemoc's off-putting delivery is annoying, and post-block, he needs to cool that down. But Stemoc's got some valid points, and I for one am glad he's making the push to inform the wider community about Calibrador's promotional and conflicted edit history. This self-serving proposal merely continues that pattern, and coming in the midst of an ongoing discussion of boomerang sanctions against Calibrador, is arguably disruptive. Cali/Gage has clearly learned nothing from the way this thread has gone. If this is the best he can do, indef him, and we can discuss it without his attempts to turn the discussion. Jusdafax02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for a ban on Calibrador/Gage Skidmore to add his name as author/photographer to articles on en-WP
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits we should notcredit the image author or copyright holder in the article, unless relevant to the subject, but just having taken a photo of the subject of an article does not IMO make the photographer "relevant to the subject". So I propose a ban on Calibrador/Skidmore to add his name as creator/author/photographer to articles on the English language Wikipedia, whether it's done in the image caption, as a footnote, as a reference (yes I've seen his name added as <ref>Author: Gage Skidmore</ref> to articles, so that his name appears among the references at the bottom of the page, see Matt Groening) or in any other way. Having his name on the image page, visible when clicking the image, should be more than enough. Several proposals to add image attributions to articles have been made through the years, but all have AFAIK failed, so we should go by what MOS says, that is no image attribution unless relevant to the subject of the article. Thomas.W talk16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any actual mention of my name in an article, whether that includes a reference like you mentioned, or in the caption, was not done by me, and I oppose that as well. Calibrador (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gone through this 3 times so definitely won't go through it the 4th time, An admin should deal with this now..as i said before, I have no time for this type of stupidity and also, this is not ArbCom worthy as its an open and shut case of policy violation..any high ranking and uninvolved admin should post a verdict in the next few days as this has dragged far too long....--Stemoc03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User in question was blocked for 48 hours (the block has already expired in the meantime...) for Disruptive editing by JamesBWatson. As of early July 5 (UTC), the editor in question has not edited since being blocked. It is worth noting that JamesBWatson's block should be considered a "last chance" situation, and if the user who is the subject of this report does not begin to follow policies and guidelines in their editing from now on, a much longer block (e.g. an indef block) is not only "on the table", but is the likely outcome. With that all said, closing this one. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above user has been brought here before by me (see links below). He has a very big WP:OWN problem with Jackson High School (Michigan) and to a lesser extent, Lumen Christi Catholic High School, the two high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence to his constant and unchecked WP:GAME and WP:IDHT have, IMO, risen to the level of WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for an indeff per NOTHERE, or lacking that, broadly construed editing restrictions on topics connected to high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence follows. I leave the rest to the community.
I believe the above, along with a browse of his talk page and contributions, shows amply evidence of a WP:SPA who has no interest in conforming to the community standards for either content or civility. Thanks. Notifying him next edit John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely aggravating how literally every mistake I make on here you bash me. A lot of those things you're complaining about were noob mistakes. I do not how to contact other users and you refuse to help me but instead you refer to me with vulgar language such as "bub". Second, every single edit I make is reverted by John too. I say he gets off my back. JacksonViking (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're not able to read a diff or if it's a deliberate misrepresentation of it, but all John from Idegon did in that edit, and what he referred to, was removing a duplicated section header... Thomas.W talk08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean to misrepresentation. In the prior paragraph, HE referred to me as "bub" (not at all vulgar BTW) in the diff above labeled "further user page vandalism..." and I replied "So it's not bub now?" It's just another example of GAME. John from Idegon (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JacksonViking, has it occurred to you that the reason no one is responding to the first paragraph you left is there is nothing to respond to? There is a welcome template on the top of your talk page that has links that could answer many of your questions. There is an invitation to the Teahouse, another place you can get your questions answered. You are posting here. You have (finally) posted at the article talk page, nearly 2 years after this whole debacle started. You are posting at the AfD another editor started on an article you created. Your claims of not knowing how to communicate are disingenuous. When you do communicate, you attempt to obfuscate the problem. You for example readd a huge block of BLP violating crap that you've refused to discuss numerous times, along with a minor and unneeded change to the notable people list. I revert, and You them charge to my User page, blank the entire thing and insert a whiny complaint about me removing your change to the notable list, totally ignoring the real problem. In the process, you refer to me as "bub" a term you find offensive enough to complain here that I used it. Is it any wonder you are not getting help from other editors? John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JacksonViking continues to make unfounded and unsupported accusations against me here, is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND discussion at Talk:Jackson High School (Michigan), and has refactored my comments here (sorry, can't seem to get the diff to paste from my phone, but it is the strikeout showing in my last entry above. If you look at the history you will see he did it and I cannot imagine a scenario where that could happen accidentally), all the while not even beginning to explain the behavior he was brought here for. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JacksonViking, are we really going to have to block you to prevent you from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia and to help you grasp whatever is you don't understand? That's what happens here at ANI, you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the latest, creating an article now at AfD that was primarily a copyvio (here), I would suggest that might be what needs to happen. An indef, with the requirement of accepting mentorship before an unblock can happen. John from Idegon (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay firstly, someone changed a comment I made on page and ran a mark through it like I did to the typo John made so I didn't know it was so offensive. Secondly I wish someone would give me a clear cut message about what wrongs I am performing. I have Been a huge contributor to the Jackson high school wiki and added a bio box and a picture and curriculum and alumni. JacksonViking (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case you aren't hearing us, vague excuses are not getting it. Who did that? where? when?
An explanation for why you named a reference "Penis" is needed.
An admission that you knew you were doing something wrong by using deceptive edit summaries, along with a promise not to do it again, is needed.
An indication of a desire to learn how to do things right, such as requesting WP:Adoption would be a big positive step.
An indication that you have up to now refused to listen and in most cases even acknowledge that there is no-one showing you malice and people have been trying to help you would be nice.
A promise to quit taking things personally and throwing tantrums (such as naming references Penis).
Showing some understanding that a large amount of what you have been doing has not been encyclopedic. You need to perhaps spend time editing articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jackson, Michigan so possibly you can develop a sense of perspective on why your additions have not been that helpful.
No one is out to get you. ALl anyone here cares about is the quality of the encyclopedia. If you are interested in contributing to a quality encyclopedia, by all means, stick around. If your only interest is adding what you want without restriction to articles relating to Jackson, then perhaps you should spend a few bucks and start a website. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the reference Penis was because I figured there was no harm since no one can see it and the reference needed a unique name that helped differentiate it from the dozens of other things on the page JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the above is not enough for some kind administrator to use his buttons, perhaps the conversation on my talk page will help. Or maybe this. Or this, where he reinstated s copyvio, removed a BLP citations needed tag an just to put some whip cream on top of it, added a good article template (to a sub stub at AfD) . The conversation on my talk page is making me think we have a CIR scenario here, but either th st or nothere, it needs someone to swing the mop. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not reintroduce copyvio. I paraphrased the entire substance of the article. Willis is also a freshmen not a junior and he says he wants to study to be an attorney in college. JacksonViking (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here you added the Good Article template. Here I removed it. My apologies, Barek removed the reference needed tag, I am guessing on the theory that as a completely unreferenced BLP, it was probably a bit redundant. Here you inserted the uttterly false and impossible piece of info that as a freshman, he was majoring in law. According to the conversation on my talk page, you deduced this from his statements that he enjoyed law and wanted to be a lawyer. Again, I have to apologize, you had properly paraphrased the source on the bit on the recruitment violation. I am not going to restore this to the article however, because it is much more about MSU than Mr. Willis. I am sorry for these errors, Jackson. However, hopefully you can learn something here. I honestly admitted I made them and stated what I was doing to correct them, which in this case is nothing, because they are either already handled or don't need handling. When you make an acceptable edit followed by two bad ones, sometimes the good gets tossed with the bad.
For the adminstrators: My action in reverting the non-copyvio are regrettable and I should not have done them. However, his conversation here and above on the subject of naming a reference "Penis" support the undeniable conclusion that either he is extreamly disruptive (making WP:DICKish edits and lying about them) and hence WP:NOTHERE or he is grossly incompetent and WP:CIR. The two articles he has created recently that are both at AfD also support this conclusion (Khari Willis and Michael Funkhouser. The discussions at the respective AfD's and talk pages for those articles are also informative to this conclusion). In either case, I am asking for some action. A quick scan of his talk shows this is not a personal issue with me about him. I am far from the only editor that has tried to get him to see the errors of his ways. This has gone on long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I discovered this discussion, I had already decided to block JacksonViking for a short time, because of persistently replacing article content which is supported by sources with content which is unsupported by any sources I can find, often directly contradicted by reliable sources, and in some cases adding false "references" which do not support his edits. Reading the above discussion, and realising that the problems are far more extensive than those I knew about, I wondered whether to block for much longer instead. However, for the present I have decided to give him every chance to improve, so I have blocked for just 48 hours, and posted a fairly long block message to his talk page, trying to encourage him to change. However, I regard that as a minimum block, in view of the extensive history of problems, at least some of which look as though they may not be good-faith mistakes. If he does not benefit from the second chance I have given him, I do not think a jump directly from a 48 hour block up to an indefinite one would be unreasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adds unsourced material, eg. [12], despite warnings. Never adds edit summaries, despite requests to. Does not respond to talk page requests from other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw the one revert, but he is actually right. Took me 10 seconds to find the citation for it at [13] The best thing is to just put it back with that reference. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the person's edit analysis. Behold and be awed.Yeah, discussed this person here a while back. The general consensus of the admin corps was leave him alone, he makes occasional minor mistakes and won't talk, but his overall contributions are net positive by far, so let him carry on. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cliff1911 has more than 40,000 edits and it looks like every one of them is mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits, and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, much of it potentially useful, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever. This is the world's worst case of WP:IDHT. How do you deal with an editor who refuses to follow policy and refuses to communicate about not following policy? Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, IPs have gotten blocks around here just because they won't respond to Talk page comments. I've got to think the same would apply to account-holding editors. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment, and not responding to queries, etc. pretty much destroys that. The other editor I can think of in this vein is basically a Wikignome, and about 80% of his edits are constructive, while the other 20% are more unhelpful, but their edits are so gnomish that no one has pursued it further in that case. But I'm of the opinion that not responding to queries at all is unhelpful, no matter the "quality" of the edits, and can and should be the basis for Admin action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors don't edit or create content in a vacuum. Is an editor really adhering to the fourth pillar if they never communicate... well, ever?! Look, I'm not saying to block for not communicating in this instance. But the discussion on their Talk page is entirely correct – the first time this editor commits an infraction, possibly even an inadvertent one, they're likely to end up indef blocked because the Admins will have no other choice if they never communicate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably recommend an attention getting block. I can't remember the name of the editor but I remember a similar case from a year or so back where an editor refused to reply to comments on talk pages. If I remember correctly, it took 1-2 blocks for him to realize that people meant business and he eventually began responding to comments and leaving edit summaries. Honestly... at this point he's been getting so many warnings that at this point the only way to show him that we're serious about talking with other editors is to actually back up our words with actions. While he may have made beneficial edits, he's also made some non-beneficial edits and he's continued to do this despite several very clear warnings about a lack of sourcing. I'm of the mind that his continued actions (despite warnings) shows a refusal to follow the rules. If this were any other editor he'd have been given at least 1-2 warning blocks by now. The only reason he hasn't received them is because he hasn't responded to anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support attention-getting block. If he were just making helpful edits, it would be no issue. But there's some problems with his edits. Looking at his talk page, he doesn't just add info, he removes it without explanation, and does not respond/correct various problems like disambiguation links he adds. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support attention-getting block. If he doesn't want to communicate with people that is absolutely fine, but that does not mean that he can continue editing in a way which, whilst it is not going to break enWiki, has received sufficient attention here and on his talk page from numerous editors that it is now disruptive. I don't really see a material difference between his behaviour and point 5 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. His behviour is taking up more and more of other editor's time. I don't really see why he should not be blocked until he states, however briefly that he will act on the repeated suggestions of the community as I don't see a single post on his talk page that could be deemed to be a positive reaction to his editing. If he then wishes to return to silence that is his choice Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. We've had a few of these lately, which inspired me to write WP:ENGAGE. The key here is asking how much disruption has he caused. One or two recent reverts is not enough. I've put him on notice, pointed him to the information that he can get blocked if he continues to revert without talking about it, the fair thing is to wait and see if he stops reverting. No one is required to talk here, as long as they aren't doing something that requires talking. The last thing we want to do is run someone off when it isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Not yet"? "Leave him/her alone"? Cliff1911 has made 40,000 edits in seven years, refuses to leave edit summaries, refuses to communicate and -- most fundamentally -- refuses to add sources for anything. If either Dennis Brown or Anthonyhcole would follow every one of Cliff1911's edits and add the reliable and verifiable sources required for these edits, I'd have no issue. Until then, we have an editor who refuses to follow bedrock Wikipedia policy and who seems to be operating in their own encyclopedia, not ours. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this is that he's done this for years and he's been receiving warnings about his various edits since 2008. This post from 2011 shows that he'd been warned several times. He's clearly been warned dozens upon dozens of times about his editing and at this point he should be clearly aware that we want him to at least respond when people have issue with him. I mean, he's been brought to ANI TWICE, both in2013. He never responded in either circumstance and he was never blocked. At this point he's extremely unlikely to pay any attention to further warnings. I mean, at this point our lack of action is pretty much giving him the message that not only are his actions OK, but that Wikipedia is condoning his actions because he made a lot of edits. I mean, that's the message I'm getting from all of this, that an editor can be problematic and have the same problems over a period of six years and never actually have to face repercussions for repeatedly going against people's requests and Wikipedia policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it this way: if he'd responded to us and basically told us "no way, I'm going to keep doing this, forget you guys" then we'd have at least blocked him temporarily. Well, that's pretty much what he's telling us with his outright refusal to even respond to anything. I mean, what does he care? If we continue on the way we have, he has nothing to fear - he doesn't have to change since people will argue that his amount of edits gives him immunity. (And yes, that is essentially what is being said here.) The length and amount of edits are nothing to sneeze at, but right now this is pretty much setting a dangerous example, that Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to problematic editors if they exist long enough on Wikipedia and edit enough. I mean, come on guys- this guy isn't going to change unless we make him pay attention and if he's not going to change then he's going to continue to make problematic edits, leave no edit summary, and refuse to talk with other editors. I'm not saying we should hang his head on a spike and never allow him to edit again, but clearly he's not going to change or respond unless he's at least given a 2-3 day (or even a week) block that forces him to stop and respond. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I get time, I'm going to try to count how many of his last 50-100 edits have been unsourced. I'd say that the bulk of them (like 70-80%) appear to unsourced and while these aren't huge BLP concerns (ie, he's not saying that Cher married a fish), they're still BLP concerns because they're unsourced. He's fully aware that we require sources, yet he also refuses to source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to add citations to your edits. If someone challenges what you add without a good citation they may delete your contribution. I'm fairly sure edit summaries aren't mandatory either - at least, they weren't the last time I looked. Perhaps I misunderstood the above, but I thought his/her contributions were good faith efforts and generally good. I thought he/she wasn't vandalising, edit-warring or in any other way harming the encyclopaedia. If I've got that wrong, I apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to talk isn't a violation of policy, and specifically, a person can NOT be compelled to participate at ANI. He's been put on notice: if he edit wars (an actual violation), then he will be blocked. Blocking him solely because we want him to talk isn't supported in policy. Unless someone can point to a specific policy that he is violating, then a block won't stand, as it would blocking to force them to do what we WANT them to do, not what policy requires. We aren't here to do that. There are many, many individuals like this here at Wikipedia, who act in good faith but won't talk. I'm not prepared to get into the psychology of it, but it is common enough. If he edit wars, I will happily block for 24 hours the first time, and otherwise follow normal procedure for behavioral issues. Not talking, by itself, is not a behavioral policy violation. It is a pain, but not a violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've spun through the last couple of hundred edits by this editor, and I cannot see any obvious clear policy violation other than possibly mild violations of WP:BLP through adding unsourced content. Most of the work seems to be insignificant plot summary gnoming. As Dennis says, if he starts to edit-war or violate real policies that can be backed with diffs, we'll look into it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's where I am now too. But I agree with the discussion on his Talk page as well – if it ever comes to a block, it'll probably have to be an indef, as that may be the only way to get this editor to communicate... In the meantime, if this editor continues to add anymore unsourced info to any BLPs, they should simply be reverted as a matter of course. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely do not block this person. The only question for this particular person, since he's so unusual, is: is he a net positive, or not? If he's not, kick him off for good. If he is, leave him alone.
We cannot be at all certain that he is even aware of the existence of his user page, his talk page, or article talk pages, or how to use them. Any block of this person would perforce be permanent in my opinion, since he would presumably continue editing exactly as before when the block expires (which would then require longer and longer blocks, unless we were to back down), and he would presumably be unwilling (or possibly unable) to request reinstatement.
The question we should be asking is whether the disruption caused by this editor outweighs their positive contributions. While Dennis Brown's essay is very good and highlights good reasons why users should strive to communicate, there is no policy that requires any user to respond to talk messages or to use edit summaries, and I think it sets a poor precedent to start sanctioning users just because they don't use their talk pages. From what I see, this is an editor who is occasionally an inconvenience, but the disruption is extremely minor, and a long way off from being blocked under WP:CIR or any other guideline/policy. We all probably have better things to do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The calls for an "attention-getting block" are ridiculous. So this guy/gal operates in this odd way -- big deal. On balance he's way more helping than hurting, so leave him for God's sake alone. EEng (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can, but you've got to figure that he's had dozens of complaints over his edits and thousands of unsourced BLP edits. He's been asked to explain his edits multiple, multiple times. My biggest point with this is that the only thing he has going for him is that he's edited a lot. It's kind of well... this is what people talk about when they say that we play favorites. We could just ignore him now, but I can guarantee that he's going to end up being brought up at ANI again and I can guarantee that he's going to continue to collect complaints on his talk page from multiple different editors. Maybe it seems like this is all minor, but what we have here is essentially someone who is following their own rules and doesn't even have the consideration to at least respond to people's complaints. He's not following Wikipedia's rules, he's following his rules. If the two come together, then that seems to be mostly coincidental than anything else - he's been warned about several policies (using citations, for example)... and his reaction was to continue to ignore those policies. It looks pretty clear that nothing is going to be done to him, but I still have to extend the warning that eventually it's going to become necessary. He's adding BLP material without any sort of citation. The material may seem minor, but what happens when he adds something major? Something that someone might actually want to complain to Wikipedia about? What do we do then? Just say "oh, he edits a lot and refuses to talk to anyone, but he edits a lot, he gets a pass"? He doesn't have to write a book or anything, but to my knowledge he's never spoken to anyone since he's signed up with Wikipedia and there have been multiple complaints about him - and those are just the ones on his talk page and at ANI. I have no doubt that there are probably at least a few dozen more in the edit summaries of the articles he's edited. Long story short, at some point we're going to have to deal with his BLP violations (even though they may seem minor to some) and his constant refusal to talk to anyone or to even follow basic guidelines. If he'd at least started using citations in his edits that'd be some improvement, but I don't see where he's ever really done even that. I really don't think that a long edit history and seemingly beneficial edits should give you immunity to everything on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep pushing this, you need to stop saying he has to use citations. Except in certain circumstances, citations aren't actually required. Is he disruptively restoring unsourced material removed by other editors? I really get the feeling a few people just can't stand this guy's eccentricity. It's weird but leave him alone. EEng (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... sourcing absolutely is a requirement on BLPs, which is what this discussion has been about. Yeah, sure, explicit sourcing isn't needed on all articles. But it pretty much always in on BLPs – adding unsourced material to BLPs is definitely not "OK" in most of the circumstances that count. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is he putting in negative or controversial BLP material? And the graph above showing how all his edits are to articles....we are here to build an encyclopedia, so someone who is dominated by article edits doesn't inspire me to instablock. We keep rehashing the same arguments, but he has been warned, and unless he has new actions that warrant a block, then blocking is improper. And this talk of an indef block is completely out of policy. We use escalating blocks as needed, we don't indef block someone out of the gate for stuff like this. The tone is almost vindictive and I simply don't understand why, and frankly, it doesn't matter: we don't block punitively, we block to prevent disruption, meaning even if he needed a block, it should be proportional to the risk he poses, NOT just to twist his arm. Dennis Brown - 2¢06:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, please see what I said above, as a follow-up to Ritchie – I don't think a block here is appropriate right now. That said, if this editor is adding unsourced material to BLPs, it should essentially be reverted as a matter of course. I'd like to believe that such reversions much get this editor to actually communicate then, but I suspect it's too much to hope for... But my overall point stands – we are building an encyclopedia together, in a collaborate environment, and as such communication is key. Those editors that choose not to communicate (like, at all) will sooner or later likely crop up as a problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the problem is that Cliff's editing is already an issue – not a "blockable" issue – but an issue (e.g. adding content without sources, adding overlong plot summaries as was potentially done at The Postman (film), etc.), nonetheless. Which I think is Tokyogirl79's point. And that's where the lack of a communication becomes a problem – without communication, there's little hope of getting across exactly what others' problems with Cliff's editing is (the details just won't come across in single templated messages, even assuming Cliff is reading those), or prodding Cliff to change and improve as an editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much my point: he's already done things that people have had issues with and he's had people flat out ask him to source material and to communicate. He's done neither of those things despite many, many, many requests. There's something very troublesome about the fact that we have an editor that continually refuses to add sources to articles or talk to anyone. The lack of communication wouldn't be as huge of an issue if he would just do something to show that he's actually listening to anything anyone says to him. That's what is most concerning here - he doesn't even seem to show that he's willing to do even the smallest amount of work to back up a fact with a source. It doesn't matter if it's something seemingly small or not - what bothers me is the implication here that Cliff is essentially editing by his own rules. Not Wikipedia's rules, but Cliff's rules. What if something changes and it's something that's direly serious? He clearly doesn't respond to comments on his talk page or anywhere else, nor does he even show any indication that it has even registered? That leaves Wikipedia liable for pretty much everything that he writes. It may seem small because the edits seem inconsequential to everyone else, but what if he writes something that's blatantly incorrect and someone takes serious offense to it? He's obviously not going to respond at that point in time either, nor will he likely pay any attention to anything anyone writes. Basically, what bothers me most here is his continued refusal to communicate and his displayed indifference to the fact that people have repeatedly asked him to edit within policy. Odds are that this is going to end with nothing done to him, but mark my words - this will be back on ANI in the future and eventually something will have to be done. I just really dislike the fact that the only thing this guy has going for him is a long edit history. We've temp blocked newer users with less edits for stuff like this (small edits that seem inconsequential, no communication) so it just seems massively unfair for us to allow an older user to get away with this. I mean, people accuse us of having a bias all the time and while most of the time it's full of crap, stuff like this does kind of lend credence to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)07:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give an example: He was threatened with a blcok by an editor on his talk page for adding someone to the list of people born in Goldfield, Nevada. It was a final warning. It took me all of 5 seconds to find a source proving this fact: [14] (there are others, I just grabbed this one). It was an uncontroversial fact about someone who died 13 years ago. Magnolia677 threatening him was completely inappropriate. It wasn't a BLP issue. People put in correct but unsourced facts all the time, it is how a Wiki works. WP:V does NOT require we source all facts. It requires than they are able to be sourced, and it assumes that someone else will source them. Obviously contentious facts about living people should be avoided, but this isn't the case here, this was a matter of where a dead guy was born. It isn't against policy to add this to an article, and it isn't proper to warn. Period. Revert as unsourced or simply go find a source like I did, we are here to build an encyclopedia, after all, but you don't warn or block. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the level 4 on that was overkill. So was the level 1 vandalism warning that Cliff just got from User:NeoBatfreak for the additions to The Postman (film) – Cliff's plot summaries there might have been over-long, but they certainly weren't vandalism... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, it's impressive that it too you "all of 5 seconds to find a source". The problem is that Cliff1911 refused to spend those 5 seconds. He's never done it. He won't add sources, he won't leave edit summaries and he won't respond to talk page messages. If you're willing to clean up the crap he leaves behind after each and every edit of his, adding the required sources that he refuses to add, that's great for you, but Cliff1911 isn't doing that. We're here to build an encyclopedia by working collaboratively; he isn't. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That pie chart must be unique for that number of edits on Wikipedia. However, what nobody has noticed or cared to mention is he extroadinary cyclic monthly editing pattern. Now that tells a story, but not one for which I am going to commit an indiscretion by publicly hypothesising. I say we leave well alone. If he does s do something egregious enough to be blockworthy, we block, but certainly not before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought: If this person was editing anonymously on rapidly changing IP addresses, we wouldn't even know they existed, let alone be talking about "attention-getting blocks". We would just wonder why none of these constructive IP's bothered to register. Perhaps this tells us why. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'm curious, can anyone who has already investigated the particulars here tell us if there is any history of even light edit warring or other efforts to force his preferred version of content without discussion? At first blush, I am inclined to agree that refusal to discuss content and procedure is grounds for some kind of action, but if the editor never quibbles over reversion of his content, I'd need to see more information that details instances where his decision not to engage led to unambigous disruption. Even if that disruption were very minor, I'd probably support a short block to try to make it clear that collaboration through detailed communication is the rule of thumb here. If, on the other hand, the user never pushes for an edit once it is rejected by one of his fellow editors, and the vast balance of his edits are thought to be beneficial, I'd say there's not much harm in his peculiar manner of involvement in the project -- though clearly it is a less than ideal approach. Afterall, it'd be pretty difficult to reach 40k edits without having some of them challenged, and technically he's not obligated to engage in discussion on any particular content matter -- though he does himself no favours by staying quiet if he in some way breaks policy with his mainspace edits.
And that's the distinguishing point -- I agree with others here who have said that his refusal to engage in discussion is not necesarily in itself a breach of policy or inexcusable, but this does not preclude him from justifiably receiving a block for any of his other behaviour. For example, if upon review his edits are found to too often make unsubstantiated claims lacking appropriate sources, the he certainly should be blocked for that. And for those who have leaped to defend him in a more blanket fashion (some I think from an unworkably abstract position), we wouldn't be blocking him for not talking, but rather for the behaviour that was less ambiguously problematic -- it's just that in this instance he disadvantages himself in not discussing the issues; most admins (and other editors broadly) would be inclined to give him a pass on a few instances, provided his other contributions are overwhelmingly positive and that there is at least some minimal recognition that the concerns raised have been acknowledged and that the editor will work within policy and consensus.
But I find the filing of the ANI to be inadequate in fleshing out the details of this user's contributions to suggest whether such problems already exist or if we are putting the cart before the horse. Personally I have a hard time imagining 40,000 edits without having made at least a few mistakes that require discussion to iron out, but I'm not willing to presume mistakes on only statistical suggestion, and if another editor wants to seek community sanction for problematic behaviour, that behaviour should be detailed more significantly than was done in this case so the rest of us need not search through 40,000 edits nor pass judgement on principle without specific instances of problem editing provided. Snowlet's rap02:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of quick points, and hopefully someone will just close the thread: If he does have some edit warring in his past, no one is going to block him now that it is stale. That would be punitive, and we don't do that. Second, putting in facts that aren't sourced isn't blockworthy. Putting back BLP claims might be, but that isn't the issue here. We don't block someone "to make a point"...that is the definition of a punitive block, and is considered abuse of the admin tools. Rich sums it up best above: if this was an IP we wouldn't have even noticed, so we are actually dissuading people from registering with this exercise. Dennis Brown - 2¢10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to each point: A) Any block or sanction would hardly be punitive if it were meant to address recurrent and ongoing issues, which is the context I was referencing. I just don't know if there are any such issues, and I don't get a definitive sense from anyone who has posted here that we know if such exist. B) I wasn't inquiring about whether the editor in question added information without sourcing it -- I was asking specifically if they have edit warred to keep any such claims in, which is a different matter altogether and most assuredly a blockable offense (and a block would be the only option open to admins/the community in such cases, since Cliff1911 does not seem to want to communicate on the matter to assuage concerns). C) I'm not sure where in my post I gave the impression that we should act "to make a point"; indeed, the very aim of my comments was to inquire if there were any specific and unambiguous violations of policy that this editor's detractors could point to that would require action in order to address (for purely practical reasons, as opposed to vague objections to the refusal to engage generally). Snowlet's rap11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the long post, but I feel it is necessary for the reader to get a full sense of the entire picture. A TL;DR summary is at the end for convenience.
AnulBanul (talk·contribs) is an account that demonstrably belongs to user Wüstenfuchs (talk·contribs) a fact that runs counter to his blatant lie that he has "no connection to the said user whatsoever". [15] The user, in spite of his "Armenian who lived in Serbia" persona [16], has never once edited the Armenian Wikipedia (hy.wikipedia.org) or Serbian Wikipedia (sr.wikipedia.org). [17] Note that Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [18] and that later AnulBanul joined WikiProject Armenia as editing from Georgia [19] then Russia [20]. He then began building his persona changing his intitial name from Anulmanul to Anna Sahakyan [21], then Anushka [22], then Yerevani Axjik [23], and then to his current name AnulBanul. He then uploaded a selfie image [24] to presumably impersonate a person named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan that he took off a Facebook profile or VK (Russian social networking website). He proceeded to use that image on his userpage and refer to himself as "Anna" [25] and created a backstory for the said individual. Numerous FB and VK profiles exist under that name, but I won't link any for their privacy.
Note that AnulBanul instead edits the Croatian Wikipedia which when he does concerns right-wing and far-right Croatian politicians and parties. [26] which is quite odd when the user labels himself a liberal from the University of Belgrade. [27] Indeed it's hard to believe it's anyone other than him when he does such obscure and specific edits such as [28][29] (among the litany of other identical ones shown below). Note that the Wüstenfuchs account became inactive on 20 September 2014, [30] two days later the AnulBanul account became active on 22 September 2014. [31] The last edit of Wüstenfuchs (Bilal Bosnić, ISIL recruiter) and first edit of AnulBanul (Military intervention against ISIL) are both related to Islamic extremism. Further note that Wüstenfuchs' Mostar IP was blocked for block evading in order to edit war. [32] That same IP (93.180.104.124 (talk·contribs)) edited three articles, all of which were created by Wüstenfuchs and all of which were later edited by AnulBanul/Wüstenfuchs with the same POV: Avdo Humo (IP: [33], AnulBanul: [34]), Hasan Brkić (IP: [35], Wüstenfuchs [36]), and Osman Karabegović (IP: [37], Wüstenfuchs: [38])
On 26 May AnulBanul was topic banned from anything related to Bosnia and Herzegovina for 3 months [39] Immediately the day after he proceeded to vandalize a Bosnia and Herzegovina related userbox in order to troll. [40] A week later he violated his topic ban via IPs 185.38.146.201 (talk·contribs) and 93.180.126.249 (talk·contribs) both Mostar IPs. Both have the same exact lines and POV on obscure articles with one of them being pushed against Dragodol, his edit warring buddy that was also topic banned, in the Nijaz Duraković article [41][42] and in the Jovan Divjak article the same exact line of unsourced nonsense that he was a "show general". [43][44] Note that the 93.180.126.249 Mostar IP's contributions on the Croatian Wikipedia. He picks up where Wustenfuchs and AnulBanul left off on the Croatian Party of Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina article [45] and on the Croatian Democratic Union 1990 article [46] where his Herr Ziffer (blocked) and Wustenfuchs accounts formerly edited and on the Croatian Party of Rights (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [47] article where Wustenfuchs formerly edited. Another IP (blocked) that edited all those same articles in the same manner also created the Nijaz Duraković article on the Croatian Wikipedia. [48] He later admitted that those were indeed his IPs [49] however those were not the only topic ban evading IPs. Other discovered evading IPs that AnulBanul did not disclose include 85.94.128.192 (talk·contribs), 46.35.153.151 (talk·contribs), and 46.35.131.167 (talk·contribs) and there are more than likely many others out there. The story does not stop with using IPs to just topic ban evade as he has also used them to vandalize, commit BLP violations, edit war and circumvent 3RR, etc and the AnulBanul account is not the only sockpuppet he has and has used the K. Solin (talk·contribs) and RossaLuxx (talk·contribs) accounts to split his edits, evade scrutiny, and have sleeper accounts. There may be many more such accounts out there.
Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [54], later AnulBanul joined the WP as editing from Georgia [55] then Russia [56]
Dragan Čović, AnulBanul uploaded an image of the Bosnian Croat politician and credited it to Herr Ziffer [57] Herr Ziffer was Wustenfuchs' sockpuppet handle at commons [58][59]
addition of "illegitimate representative" content and reference stuffed by Wüstenfuchs [105][106][107][108], sources replaced (note sfn template) by K. Solin [109]
removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by K. Solin [110], removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by Mostar IP [111], removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by AnulBanul [112]
Commons: Both at the University of Mostar specifically the Faculty of Philosophy/Humanities. Use identical name format using (1), (2), (3), etc. Use identical licensing and summary.
AnulBanul uploaded images of a speaker at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [126][127][128][129][130][131]
AnulBanul uploaded images of the exterior of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [132][133][134][135][136]
K. Solin uploaded images of a speaker at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [137][138][139]
K. Solin updated logo of Faculty of Law, University of Mostar intially uploaded by Herr Ziffer [140]
RossaLuxx
First edit ever edit on Croatian Wikipedia was creating a sophisticated userpage with a gradient and image. Note the code in RossaLuxx's page <div style="background-color:{{prijelazna boja|top|#000000, #CC0000}};">
[[Datoteka: and compare to AnulBanul's page <div style="background-color:{{linear-gradient|top|#fdffe7, #FFFFFF}};">[[File:
Added category to AnulBanul's File:Croatia 2014 map results.PNG upload [141], then uploaded File:Croatia 2015 map results runoff.PNG in same style of original, same summary, and same license [142]
Mostar IP added AnulBanul's File:Croatia 2014 map results.PNG upload [143], 13 days later RossaLuxx added File:Croatia 2015 map results runoff.PNG using near identical description [144]
Herr Ziffer
Žitomislić: Herr Ziffer blaming destruction of a church on different army, [145], AnulBanul blaming destruction of same church on same army [146], later he claimed that he "wasn't aware" that he made the edit [147]
Bitka za Karvačar: Herr Ziffer uploaded File:Bitka za Karvačar.jpg map on commons [148], the map was added to the article by Wüstenfuchs [149], article edited by K. Solin [150] (note there are only 4 editors who have ever edited the page [151])
Dragan Čović: AnulBanul uploaded a crop of Herr Ziffer's copyvio image [152]
Rafael Boban: image uploaded by Herr Ziffer [153], added to article by Wüstenfuchs [154]
Note almost all of his discovered accounts have been indef blocked on various Wikis for tendentious editing and sockpuppetry:
As shown above the user shows a propensity to evade scrutiny throughout Wikis by constant logged out IP hopping, fragmenting edit history among new accounts, and making sleeper accounts. In addition to this he has also:
Used a Mostar IP of Anulbanul [163][164] in order to commit sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, and libel by referring to a man as a "shithead" ("govnar") in Serbo-Croatian and pretending it's his surname [165][166]
Used a Mostar IP of Anulbanul to immaturely troll on the Valentin Inzko article [167] and has even vandalised a "on this day" template he personally dislikes while logged in [168]
Used Mostar IPs to help initiate and facilitate edit wars, avoid 3RR, and then report the other user [169]
His Wustefuchs [184] and Wustenfuchs [185] accounts were both blocked on commons "unfree files after warnings" and abuse of multiple accounts. [186][187] Despite this he has evaded his block via sockpuppets and continued to purposefully upload copyrighted material under false CC licenses with his Herr Ziffer, AnulBanul, and K: Solin handles as the authors.
Uploading as AnulBanul an image crop of a file uploaded by Herr Ziffer which was removed for copyright violation [188]
Uploading as K. Solin an image crop of a file uploaded by AnulBanul which was removed for copyright violation [189]
Uploading an image [190] taken from [191] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license
Uploading an image [192] taken from [193] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license
Uploading several other copyright infringing images as sockpuppets Herr Ziffer [194] and AnulBanul [195]
TL;DR:
In summary his activity on Wikipedia involves:
The absolute denial of any connection to his sockpuppet AnulBanul account and creation and non-disclosure of any other sockpuppet and sleeper accounts (K. Solin, RosaLuxx, etc)
The impersonation of an Armenian female individual named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan to appear more neutral, completely unrelated to past edits/accounts, and assume her identity (even going so far as to upload her selfie image) in order to deceive other users
The constant splitting of his past edit history through new accounts and IP hopping to game the system, sockpuppeteer, deceive users, vandalize, commit BLP violations, circumvent 3RR, and avoid scrutiny
The forging of a clean slate that is without previous ARBMAC warnings and blocks to appear in good standing and receive more leeway around admins
The willingness to repeatedly avoid blocks and topic bans if he was sure he wouldn't be caught
I have not once edited with any of those accounts at the English Wikipedia, except Wustenfuchs, and I have the right to do so, I can switch to another account for several personal reasons. This was in order to protect my privacy and to protect myself from vandal attacks and other attacks after I edited several pages related to the Syrian civil war back in 2012. It is not my fault that Wikimedia creates accounts on all wikis if you create an account on a Croatian one. Those accounts remained inactive and will remain so. I was blocked for using IPs on your report, and my block ended today. Moreover, I said those were my IPs. Another thing, you will respect my gender identity. I'm not "he". --AnulBanul (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know you that finally admit to the fact that Wüstenfuchs is indeed your account after claiming that you had "no connection to the said user whatsoever" and again admit to editing from Mostar and not Armenia, Serbia, Georgia, or Russia as you wished to purposely mislead others into believing.
The valid reasons for multiple accounts are listed here. None of them state that doing what you claim to have done it for is valid. In any event all the edits of the K. Solin, Herr Ziffer, RossaLux accounts were in 2014 and so have nothing to do with some 2012 harassment.
Nonsense those accounts have edits on English Wikipedia and correspond with your POV as demonstrated by a litany of diffs. Accounts are automatically made when you visit Wikipedia in another language (that's understandable), but you not only did this and edited on the English Wikipedia. You edited the Milan Gorkić page on 27 November 2014 as AnulBanul with HHVM (note tag in summary) [196] and then three days later as K. Solin on 30 November 2014 with HHVM [197] Adding content as AnulBanul [198] and picking up where you left off as K. Solin [199][200] with references you had previously added as Wüstenfuchs. [201] But I suppose that the brand new account adding info in your POV in an obscure article that you created with the same 1984 Croatian work you used is not you?
In my past correspondences to you as Wüstenfuchs I referred to you in male pronouns (Wikipedia is overwhelmingly male) and you never raised this issue, and up until this point the same with your AnulBanul account. I have a hard time believing that you're a female... or that your name is actually Anna, or that you are Armenian, or that you studied at the University of Belgrade, or that you were born and lived in Yerevan, or that that is your selfie image. More likely you are impersonating some poor girl using her name, photo, and location to deceive users. --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly my name is not Anna, as I said, I used this previous account. You can proceede with sock puppet investigation, if you wish. I'll admit I used K. Solin as my account. But had no intention of hiding my edit history. If that's wrongful, I'll suffer the consequences. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be shocked if others don't jump in on this, very much TLDR. Let me clear up a couple of things here and allow you to restate the things that really matter: First, whatever happens at Commons or other Wikis, we don't really care so much here. We have no authority there, the rules are different on different wikis, so our focus is really on activity HERE, under most circumstances. Having the account does't matter, only what you do with it matters.
Next, ANI is the wrong venue for a sockpuppet investigation, and in fact, it is the worst possible venue because it doesn't generate all the autolinks for investigating and ANI isn't a formal board like SPI. Regardless it is here, but you've made it more difficult to investigate.
What really matters most is overlapping edits on the same article, etc. Secondarily, a clear showing of avoiding scrutiny. If they are avoiding an Arb warning, you can typically just add that Arb warning to their page and be done with it. If they are using multiple accounts for reasons under WP:SOCK that are acceptable, then they aren't sanctionable. It isn't clear because you have focused on quantity rather than simple linkage here. Can you please narrow it down to what really matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢06:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned commons and the other Wikipedias to demonstrate that the behavior isn't restricted to a single language or part of Wikipedia and to show what he has a propensity for doing. I didn't dwell on it much. A sockpuppet investigation shouldn't be necessary in the first place as users who do have multiple accounts are supposed to have them "fully and openly disclosed" and not create personas for them, deny any connection to them, and keep them hidden. But if you insist then I'll post the matter there also. None of the valid reasons for using multiple accounts is applicable here. As shown above he has been "avoiding scrutiny" by "using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. (...) it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" (AnulBanul, K. Solin) and "editing logged out to mislead" by "editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy." (edit war and avoid 3RR, delete sourced info, POV push, sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, troll) --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, you muddy the waters when you add all that extra stuff. Show links to articles where he edited first as an editor, then as another editor or IP. Those are facts, all the other stuff just makes it too long to read and determine. Sockpuppet investigating is about dry facts, no opinions. Honestly, WP:SPI is where it needs to go, as you are claiming four accounts, and there is the need for a formal board where random input from other editors isn't an issue. They key is getting it right, not getting it fast or in the ANI crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this goes beyond sockpuppet as it seems to be all about long-term gaming the system and may need to go to arbitration. Even if it's tl;dr, I read and it's good detective work. The whole back story doesn't matter (there's no problem to invent an identity, outside of taking someone else's photo) except it's very easy to prove untrue and thus provides no plausible alternative as to another identity. Additionally, someone who goes to extravagant lengths to edit here is not likely to be dissuaded by the usual sock blocks. AnulBanul, if you are an Armenian (or Russian-Armenian, by your name Anushka) would you prefer to discuss this situation in Armenian or Russian? You only edited one article on the Russian Wikipedia and I can't understand it [202] - in the infobox, you changed the link to Split (town) to Split (the disambiguation)... a bit odd. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The one where I said, that I created additional account in order to distance myself from possible vandalisms made on my old Wustenfuchs account, after editing Syrian civil war topic. --AnulBanul (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What vandalism against Wüstenfuchs? Your account was already blocked! You made AnulBanul in September 2014, right after Wüstenfuchs was finally blocked on the Croatian Wiki. (Btw, Wüstenfuchs was blocked for two-years after 19 PREVIOUS blocks on the Croatian Wiki. Wüstenfuchs was also blocked eight times on the English Wiki.) Then you made K. Solin in November 2014. So you didn't just make one additional account, you made at least two.... all to "protect yourself" from retribution against edits you made two years earlier? —МандичкаYO 😜 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep picking and it all falls apart. First he claimed he had "no connection whatsoever" to the Wüstenfuchs account and that it wasn't his, [203] then claimed all accounts but the Wüstenfuchs account weren't his, [204] and then claimed all but the Wüstenfuchs and K. Solin accounts weren't his. [205] Note he's deleted his AnulBanul userpage likely to make evidentiary diffs of his user page null and to make the RossaLuxx claim unverifiable. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to take this to arbitration. I have been trying to go through all this information across the various wikis and admin reports, admissions of using multiple accounts without disclosure, admissions of ban evasion, admissions of violating topic bans, etc. I don't think ANI or SPI is the right place for either as the response will be "tl;dr" which is benefiting AnulBanul, as is the "different wikis have different policies" reasoning. He created the AnulBanul account after being given a two-year ban on the Croatian Wikipedia, in order to evade the ban (behavior not allowed on any Wikipedia) and AnulBanul was indeffed on the Croatian Wiki after being caught. As AnulBanul's favorite topics are areas under oversight, I think it needs to be taken to arbitration. Taking a random person's someone's photo off the Internet and uploading it to Commons as a "self-portrait" in order to use it on the a Wikipedia userpage to disguise oneself (sorry, this is not you [206]) is a significant violation of the rules, and should be investigated. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't propose to take it to Arb, you either take it there or you don't. Please note that if you haven't even filed an SPI so a formal investigation can be done (and likely completely deal with since they can deal with anything, even behavior, and use Checkuser) then it will surely get thrown out. Arb is the final step after everything else has failed, not the first. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment to Мандичка above. SPI is unnecessary and the evidence against the other two accounts are just as definitive. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK struck out the proposal part. But my intention was to ask the people more familiar if they would like to take it to Arbitration. I just became aware of this situation, but it seems to me that the usual check user/ANI is not being effective in this case and are only of slight inconvenience to this editor. There are not enough people interested in taking the time to wade through this information on ANI. There is considerable, very aggressive gaming the system to avoid blocks and topic bans on multiple wikis, going back to at least 2008, all in order to make disruptive posts, and IMO there needs to be some kind of global checkuser to see the full extent. I've never created an Arb case so I don't know how to proceed. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly cut-and-dried. The report is a bit TLDR, but its pretty blatant when you take a look. Uh.. will someone step in? -- Director(talk)09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Director, I honestly don't know what it is going to take for anyone to actually pay attention. Dennis Brown's response ("that's too long for me to be expected to read") is indicative of the apathy that has allowed this to go on. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the complexities involved here (stemming from apparent wiliness in a seemingly problematic editor) mean that an arb case might be the most ideal solution, but those who want action here really ought to heeding Dennis' pragmatic advice on the matter. The arbs are going to be less than impressed by the issue being dropped into their laps without any intermediate steps in formal investigation. No matter how much a foregone conclusion the linking between the accounts is seen to be by those seeking action here, if they are not willing to file the arbitration case themselves, the best alternative course of action remains SPI. From a practical respect, it is most likely to lead to action regarding any breaking with policy. And if it doesn't work out, you'll be able to demonstrate that lower channels were pursued before taking the matter to ArbCom. Snowlet's rap03:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted an SPI. While I think it's redundant given all the surmounting evidence I also do think it's necessary to go through the lower channels before taking it upstairs as you've said. I note that AnulBanul is busy ridding evidence of his misconduct. [207] --Potočnik (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given his personal hostility to a known and established writer, his insistence on smearing him, I ask that he be sanctioned by being asked to refrain from editing any articles or pages where Blumenthal is being cited or discussed.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This means that you think striking out a smear is not compliance with policy, but bending to a threat by another editor who is acting as a censor. If you believe Blumenthal, against all the evidence, is an anti-Semite, and a bigot (as opposed to a critic of bigotry, you shouldn't be editing anywhere near articles where he is cited, or discussions boards regarding him as a source. My sensitivities have nothing to do with it.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent. Notice the sanction being requested (for an alleged first offense by a relatively new user) would solve a problem for Nishidani, not the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia's problem, as far as there is one, was solved when "bigot" was struck out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another personal attack, as several on the page. I am asking for an independent judgement not a partisan harangue by either side. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Nishidani. I recognize I made a mistake. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Strong words like "antisemite" and "bigoted" are not appropriate, even when they were written in the heat of discussion, as you may understand (in response to the "repulsive Jewish state" you mentioned). I won't repeat those words again. Could we move on with the main subject of the debate, which is to determine whether Blumenthal is a reliable source or not?--Averysoda (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read his comment just above yours? You neglected to mention he removed the comment you reference above, 15 minutes after posting it and before you brought it up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow the sequence of events before claiming a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent? Cus I see the user declining to strike claims that a living person is a bigoted anti-semite until this was brought here. Might be a better idea to advise your pal to not smear living people on Wikipedia instead of arguing with the people who specifically asked him to remove the comment at his or her talk page before anyone brought it up here. And even after being brought here, its not that the smear has no place here, its that Averysoda thinks the problem is offending [Nishidani's] sensitivities. You know what is pretty clear here? When a user goes through these acrobatics at AN/I it isnt because they actually recognize a mistake, its that they are worried about being sanctioned so they say whatever they think they need to so that they may avoid that. Oh, and its also pretty clear that a support network will come to their aid in waving off any problem instead of trying to take them aside and informing them that we have certain standards of behavior here, and insulting living people without basis violates that. nableezy - 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that most of your edits in the last month were either reverting or talking about edits by the subject of this report, regardless of a BLP violation. I doubt your ability to read their mind (or perhaps you were just projecting). It's also pretty clear that a new editor is unlikely to respond well to this kind of "request". And lastly, it's pretty clear that treating new editors harshly doesn't serve Wikipedia's dwindling editor count that well, either.
He made a minor BLP violation and corrected it. Please explain why you are agitating for a sanction for a first offence that was corrected fairly quickly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know my edits were the subject here. Or yours for that matter. Calling a living person an anti-semite and a bigot is not a minor BLP violation and refusing to take it down when asked to by 2 editors until an AN/I report is filed, and then saying that they are taking it down to rectify the offense to another's sensitivities is not correcting it fairly quickly. I havent agitated for anything by the way. Id just like to see a Wikipedia in which people dont rush to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating, and instead tries to advise them what the proper thing to do is. Guess that aint what this place is yet tho. nableezy - 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A. He called him a bigot, not an anti-semite. B. It was corrected within 2 hours and 7 minutes. That's fairly quickly in my book. C. I'm fairly certain he now understands what he can and can't say re living persons. D. Do I need to show some examples of you "rush[ing] to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating"? Because that won't be hard to do. So kindly cut the bullshit. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A. he also said And I don't care if that guy is Jewish ... I doubt a non-Jewish antisemite can be worse than him. B. It might be fairly quickly if it hadn't been a shade under 2 hours from when this notice was posted. A notice that was answered in 2 minutes with a I'm going to completely ignore the issue comment. And then another request that the material be removed was likewise fairly quicklyshrugged off as "meaningless". It only was fairly quickly removed when it was brought here, when a praise the heavens Saul has fallen off his ass moment appears to have struck, and either it was that the user self-reflected during the 15 minutes between the last time the user decided that it was meaningless to call smearing a living person offensive and come to the conclusion that it really is against out policies to use such language, or it was fear of being sanctioned and doing whatever they felt necessary to reduce that chance. Im gonna take a shot in the dark and say it was the latter. C. Im not. D. Go right ahead, though that would once again fall under obfuscating from the issue at hand, but I would be interested in seeing what you come up with. Because I, nor you, are under discussion here. And as much as you would like to deflect from what is, the fact remains that it is Averysoda's actions that are pertinent here. nableezy - 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was very long and I kinda lost interest somewhere in the middle. What's your point? That he should receive some kind of serious sanction because for two hours it said on a talk page that a living person was a bigot, and that Averysoda didn't respond well to someone who was a complete jerk to him? What do you want exactly? I think the fact you follow him around and revert him on pages you've never edited before [208] is quite relevant to why you're here, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe if you pay attention and make it past somewhere in the middle youll see I havent actually asked for sanctions. As far as following him around, when a user repeatedly makes poor edits and says dishonest things in their edit summaries which result in unambiguous violations of policy, I sometimes check where else that has happened and correct those issues. I think you should actually read WP:HOUND and see the part about fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. But again, my edits arent the subject of this report. Deflect all you like, but your pal is the one that has been editing poorly. nableezy - 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Averysoda seems to be engaged with various editors on a number of pages, he seems not interested in dialogue but to create various edits to suit a POV or nationalist agenda. Another report has been added on his page today, I fear this will only escalate as obviously Averysoda has been caught up in a very serious nationalist agenda. I see no alternative but to a 6 month topic ban in relations to History of Israel, conflicts in involving Israel including pre-modern state and all Arab-Israeli conflicts. --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was a WP:BLP violation, but in my limited interaction with Averysoda, he seems to be amenable to reasonable argument. For instance, he reverted his edit here, after I explained policy to him, and also he understood my explanation of WP:PRESERVEhere. He seems to be a new user, so a bit of leeway is fine. Kingsindian♝♚08:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsindian, I think this latest edit sums up what we are dealing with here. Averysoda actually broke a 1RR rule, but then relised his mistake reversed this, and wait until today to revert without breaking the rules. Surely if we were dealing with a constructive and friendly editor in the time awaiting to revert within the rules, he could have taken to the talk pages. This will only get worse. When I have more time I will go through his full history --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsindian, I've now started to look at his history, I can say with full confidence Averysoda is fully aware edit-waring isn't allowed, there has been enough warnings on his page. He has also demonstrated he is not willing to engage with anyone in the talk pages, as I'm really struggling to find any talk page comments from this user. Clearly has set himself on a path of editing and edit warring until pages look how he wishes with very little engagement with other users.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Far from pot kettle, this was clearly edit warring by yourself, I've engaged on the talk page and a consensus was reached by a majority. You have taken no interest in that talk page or any page you edit, I cannot find one talk page comment. This causes myself and others great concern, as your actions go against the community, and why I strongly back a topic ban and until you prove otherwise--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Igorp lj I'm not actually sure if you are serious, as you mention 'attempt to add without any w/out any discussion?'. This has been discussed with the majority in favour of adding Terrorist to the lead. Averysoda is the one who months later has come along, NEVER posted on a talk page and started reverting. I presume you haven't seen this talk page or just a supporter of Averysoda POV agenda. here is proof we have an editor who is engaged in WP:IDontLikeit in nearly every page he edits and edit wars all over the place--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm serious and see these your non-consensus edits/reverts made w/out any discussion (and even after this edit of someone who surely isn't supporter of Averysoda :) as a trick and POV-Pushing . --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed now that you are plunking, without reading the text, a blob or two from a dated book by a novelist who ventured into the intricate history of the PLO, on several pages, and whose book is so dated she only got it back into print by self-republishing it. This is becoming a behavioural issue. At South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)here and here. This broke 1R. The same blob is introduced now at 1982 Lebanon War
That article has a well documented section which reads:
Between July 1981 and June 1982, as a result of the Habib ceasefire, the Lebanese-Israeli border "enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968."[7] But the 'calm' was tense. US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig filed a report with US President Ronald Reagan on Saturday 30 January 1982 that revealed Secretary Haig's fear that Israel might, at the slightest provocation, start a war against Lebanon.[29] The 'calm' lasted nine months. Then, on 21 April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer while he was visiting a South Lebanese Army gun emplacement in Taibe, Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force attacked the Palestinian-controlled coastal town of Damour, killing 23 people
The blobs you introduced from [[Jillian Becker] then read:
after constant attacks from the PLO on the civilian population of Galilee in northern Israel.(lead
From the ceasefire, established in July 1981, until the start of the war, the Israeli government reported 270 terrorist attacks by the PLO in Israel, the occupied territories, and the Jordanian and Lebanese border (in addition to 20 attacks on Israeli interests abroad).Becker, Jillian (1984). PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization. AuthorHouse. p. 257. ISBN978-1-4918-4435-9.
I.e. we have sources saying there was calm on the borders preceding the war. And you come up with a source with an outdated piece of official propaganda no one takes seriously any more, which says the exact opposite, a piece of hasbara at the time which was buried by later research, and edit-war to keep it in.
(a) Becker's work is so dated, and is only the Israeli official line which historiography doesn't accept, even in Israel, that the edition you cite is 'self-published'.
(b)You haven't even troubled to read the text. The figures you introduce stand in start contrast to the actual data given by the UN peacekeeping body observing Israeli and Palestinian behavior on both sides of the border. Articles are meant to have internal cogency and be neutral. You cannot plunk 'stuff' in that implies the documented remainder of the text is false. You are hyperactively dumping 'stuff' without considering the mess it causes, as here. Sheer POV-pushing in multiple articles, with very little talk page justification. Any attempt to revert you gets reverted.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Becker is a reliable journalist that was on the ground during the Lebanon conflict. In addition, I found two more reliable sources (from books) in just a few minutes, also reporting PLO attacks from Lebanon as a reason for the 1982 Israeli invasion. In any case, I don't understand why you refuse to discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of here.--Averysoda (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disruptive. Anyone critical of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians is ipso facto anti-Semite in a certain quarterbaked lowbrow variety of polemics that thrive on smear for want of arguments. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"reasons given (by Simon Wiesenthal Center --Igorp_lj (talk)) being that chapter titles in the book Goliath were used to "equate Israel with the Nazi regime" and that Blumenthal had quoted "approvingly characterizations of Israeli soldiers as 'Judeo-Nazis.'"
After the reported user first deleted the WikiProject Organized Labour banner, I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reported user had nominated the article for exclusion from the project. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Americans for Prosperity. Significantly, the reported user made no mention of his anti-nomination at article talk. Please see Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Article Wikiprojects and rating.3F. I nominated the article for inclusion in the project, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. A fellow project member concurred for inclusion, as did a third editor. Subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, and subsequent to a consensus for inclusion at project talk, in which both threads the reported user participated, the reported user reverted the project add five more times. Reported user's article talk page comments and edit summaries seem to indicate familiarity with WP:PROJSCOPE; possible WP:IDHT. Respectfully request administrator clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to reported user. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This issue has just been resolved" No, this issue was referred here from WP:EWN by the closing administrator Darkwind, who explained that repeated removal of a WikiProject banner from an article talk page was beyond the core scope of WP:EWN, of article space edit warring, please see the closing comment. Respectfully request assistance with a WP:IDHT issue with guideline WP:PROJSCOPE. Respectfully request administrator clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to reported user. "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner." Thank you in advance for your time in addressing this issue. Hugh (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't get it, do you HughD? That's not what the closing admin said. The issue regarding the revert was closed on that page, as per the closing comment by Darkwind at the top of the discussion. Period. Darkwind's comment to which you allude, was at the end of the discussion, and was referring to your ludicrous request, here's the quote, "The admonishment/warning you seek is beyond the scope of this noticeboard". But again, not shocked to see you misrepresenting stuff once again. And continuing to fail to acknowledge consensus. Onel5969TT me20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that Wikipedia guidelines are not being followed, and the disruption is severe enough to warrant administrative action, open a thread at WP:ANI. is pretty clear. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WikiProject Council/Guide clearly lays out that a WikiProject ("WP") can choose to include (or disinclude) a page in its scope. A consensus-gathering action is presently ongoing at WT:WP OL regarding this subject, so from that point ANI is clearly the wrong discussion forum.
On the point of whether the guideline was not followed, so much so as to warrant administrator action against Onel, I would disagree, and personally find the edit restriction as provided for at AN3 to be sufficient for now. Suggest closing this discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checking myself, it appears to me as if the discussion at WT:WP OL has stalled as of June 18, and some of the reverts above are from later in June. There seem to be editors on the talk page of the article who (perhaps?) still disagree with inclusion. I disagree with the aspersion of WP:CANVASS - the use of the WikiProject's talk page to discuss the article in question certainly un-cavass-like to me, even if the contesting editors were not invited to join in the discussion at WT:WP OL for the second go-around.
In conclusion, I would suggest someone get an RFC or similar together on one of the talk page to consider inclusion, ensuring they also notify all of the original editors who are interested in the (dis)inclusion of the topic under that WikiProject, as well as maybe also notifying the editors of the other listed WikiProjects. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The discussion at WT:WP OL did not so much stall out as end once two project members and a non-member concurred on inclusion, which simply seemed sufficient to us for satisfying the antecedent condition to "do not remove" in WP:PROJSCOPE. If WP:EWN is not the forum for repeated reversions of a project banner, and WP:ANI is not, what is? I recognize I have many, many RfCs in my future if Americans for Prosperity is to make it to good, so I am not adverse to that recommendation, but frankly I was hoping a project banner add might not be one of them. WP:PROJSCOPE reads to me as if the intention was that an RfC for a banner add should not be necessary. My humble read of WP:PROJSCOPE is that the clear request not to edit war was us all more or less agreeing with each other that project adds are way too silly to war over. I filed this hoping someone would simply say to the reported user "please stop," and we could all move on. I am not seeking a block or official wrist slap of any kind, just a little help educating an editor. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me somewhere in there. ANI is the appropriate place for discussion of the content dispute from a behavioral standpoint, and my opinion on that should already be clear per my second paragraph in my comment at 21:22. (You'll note I said nothing of your behavior…. [ominous ellipsis, to be clear])
As for the recommendation regarding an RFC, you did not include the editors who disagreed with you when you posed the re-raised question at WT:WP OL. This means I do not find it clear myself whether there is consensus for the project to include or not the project banner in question, and this is why you were slapped with an allegation of canvassing. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Please help me understand how the edit restriction addresses the problem of this report? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...you did not include the editors who disagreed with you when you posed the re-raised question at WT:WP OL." An RfC is our mechanism for assessing community-wide consensus on a issue. A thread on project talk is our mechanism for assessing project-wide consensus. WP:PROJSCOPE is rather strongly worded; a project's scope in terms of article inclusion is unusual in guidelines in that it is specifically exempted from community-wide consensus: "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article..." Reasonable persons may disagree with this, but there it is. In asking me to RfC a project banner add, are you asking me to right some perceived wrong? WP:PROJSCOPE does not require an RfC for inclusion of an article in a project. In fact, I read WP:PROJSCOPE as in effect us saying to each other, look, guys, adding an article to a project is way too trivial to edit war about, and it is way too trivial to RfC. What is your read? In asking me to RfC a project banner add, you are asking me to jump through a hoop beyond guideline. A key point in filing this report is that the reported user participated in a thread at project talk at which project members concurred on the project banner add, with no dissenting project members, and subsequently deleted the project banner five more times. The antecedent condition for "do not edit war" in guideline was met. Respectfully, please reconsider your recommendation. Respectfully, I came here seeking a very little help with a simple issue of an editor needing a straight-forward clarification of a guideline that is clearly intended to help prevent edit warring, and upon reflection I still think it is a reasonable request, and I ask again for help here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand how in your view an RfC is necessary for a project participant to add a project banner to an article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I did advise HughD(tc) to post here about his request for someone to admonish Onel5969(tc) about the WikiProject banner situation if he still felt it was necessary, because his request was out of scope for WP:ANEW where he originally posted -- not because I find merit in any of the allegations. I encourage everyone to avoid seeing this as forum shopping. Regarding the removal of the WikiProject banners, I have already determined that the removal was not edit warring per se a violation of WP:3RR, although it may be considered a very slow edit war due to the number of reverts. (corrected by —Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) I placed the 1RR restriction on the article and its talk page simply because the contentious behavior related to this article, and the ensuing allegations, are getting out of hand—not specifically(added by —Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) because this instance was edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for commenting to confirm the referral and to refute the reported user's defense of charging the reporting user with forum shopping. Thank you very much for your efforts to restore a collaborative environment at Americans for Prosperity. I am committed to restoring a collaborative environment and I look forward to your continued engagement. I view making explicit the broader stakeholders in a good Americans for Prosperity article, beyond WikiProject Conservatism, as a small but important step toward improving the collaborative environment, and I ask all for support here in that. Hugh (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding the removal of the WikiProject banners, I have already determined that the removal was not edit warring per se." When you suggested WP:ANI, I thought fine, whatever, wrong forum, live & learn, I'll refile. Respectfully, upon reflection I find I do not understand how this is not edit warring. I understand it is not 3RR, but there was a 2RR in 6 hours on 18 June, and I understand there is such a thing as a slow edit war. Is it not an edit war because it is talk page editing? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly why I phrased my comment above that way; in my ANEW closing I did not actually state my view on whether there was an edit war in this case. Reviewing it again, it could probably be called a slow edit war, but that would not have changed the action I took of applying a page restriction under discretionary sanctions. I'm also not sure why you're so eager to call it an edit war, HughD(tc); since you're the one who was putting the project banners back in, you'd be equally guilty of edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[209][210] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[211][212]
On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".
I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.
There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [213]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet[214] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [215] --NeilNtalk to me23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I read this correctly, I made Scolaire come to my talk page. And when he was there he told me not to comment on his talk page. This was triggered by me NOT commenting on his talk page.
2. At this point I cleaned my entire talk page of discussion, not just Scolaire's point.
3. I responded to his comment at his talk page only for him to blank it saying that he didn't want to discuss any further.
4. Then responds at my page. I responded to his comment then blanked my page as I no longer wanted to engage with a user with such erratic behavior.
5. Fast forward 2 weeks at he's back at my page again, telling to stop baiting him. Baiting him into coming to my page to shower me with abuse? He also told me not to comment at his page. I don't think he is in a position to come to my talk page unprovoked by anything at his own page, to tell me NOT to post at his page. I blanked my page.
6. He baited me into responding to his comment at his page. If he was so offended by my edit, why then did he respond?
7. Now I find myself at ANI because Scolaire can't keep off my page.
All the while a discussion has been going on at Talk:Derry. A discussion in which Scolaire has exhibited irrational behaviour, first by claiming the original RFC had failed, then claiming that the RFC wasn't a failure with a vote count, then goes on to say that an RFC is not a vote. Hard to follow.Dubs boy (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add that Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.Dubs boy (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire had also made a blind revert of this edit with the reasoning "no, it's not". Valid point? My edit was restored and had support at a discussion I had started at the same article talk page. Note that Scolaire did not join the conversation.Dubs boy (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, please read this Talk [page] again and show me exactly where you have stated a preference. All you have stated is that the decision was based on WP:CONSENSUS. Quoting policy is not quite the same as stating your own preference, nor a reason for keeping something the same. Scolaire has come to my page twice to pester and harass me, not the other way around.Dubs boy (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for God's sake. You presented several options, one of which was "Title:Derry - nothing changes". I wrote, repeatedly, in favour of that option, and I explained my reasons - because it's a long-standing agreed compromise which satisfies most editors on a question that cannot be definitively resolved, and there is no consensus to change it. For some reason you refuse to accept that, and like a really annoying toddler you bleat "but why? but why? but why?" every time I tell you.
WP:CONSENSUS is "the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". If you continue to behave the way you have behaved over this issue, refusing to WP:LISTEN to what others are saying and repeatedly pestering them to give different replies to your question because you don't like the one they've given, you will give yourself such a reputation for disruptiveness you'll struggle to get consensus that the sky is blue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying that consensus hasn't changed is not a reason. Tell me why you think the article is neutral in its current form? Tell me why we have ignored the results of an Equality Impact Assessment? This is going off topic. Scolaire trolled me to my page twice and is now trying to get me blocked for responding to his harassment. Ridiculouso.Dubs boy (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean? he just will not accept the answers he receives. He's either trolling or incompetent. Admin action, please. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Ok. I honestly thought that there would be some onus on an editor to present an opposition argument. Someone explain to me how stating "consensus hasn't changed" is a reason for not making a change. Surely those opposed to a suggestion have to provide a tangible reason as to why they are opposed? This is still off topic but here we have 2 users ganging up on me yet I am the "bully". Scolaire has raised this issue, obviously skipping some of the key events. I have presented a timeline. Let the admins decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - very odd how Dubs Boy complains above that Scolaire has been "dismissive of his input" at Talk:Derry, and doesn't see the irony making [comments regarding my Topic Ban] (which he knows is on a different topic relating to inseting/removing the term British Isles). His comment is clearly designed to shut down my participation and belittle/devalue any disenting voices. Looking at the history of Dubs Boy's editing, it certaing appears that he is disruptive and combative at all times and does not not the meaning of how to collegiately reach consensus and/or edit. I am not suggesting this course of action as some petty "revenge" (although no doubt it might be seen as such by some) but may I suggest (as I believe) a temporary Topic Ban on his participation at Derry related topics might be in order. Perhaps if he tries editing other topics where he is not so emotionally involved, not only will WP improve overall, but perhaps it would do him some good also. -- HighKing++ 19:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And where there is 1 there is always another. Birds of a feather. Very odd that you should show up here Popaice. Where have you been the last 3 months? Weird that you just happen to stroll by. In ref to topic ban, I honestly was just asking? I assumed that when you didn't respond that you were in fact topic banned. If you had responded with "No, I am not topic banned", then you would have nothing to worry about. In saying that, its very hard to keep up with your blocks and sockpuppettry.Dubs boy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'll not bring up your past any further. I'll just lift the rug. Though you haven't exactly engaged, Just laid the boot in. See you in 3 months again when another friend needs support.Dubs boy (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Христо Зарев Игнатов
User:Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk, contribs) has engaged in an array of disruptive editing over the past five days, edit warring and violating 3RR on numerous pages. He has also used roving unlogged-IP addresses to evade 3RR (mostly of the series 212.5.158.xxx). He violated 3RR at Tervel of Bulgaria (history) on 26-27 June. He was blocked from editing for a day on 27 June for edit warring and misuse of logged-out editing at Kardam of Bulgaria (history). On 1 July he engaged in further disruption at Kardam and at several other pages: for example, Krum (history), Malamir of Bulgaria (history), and Kotrag (history). The editor repeatedly adds POV content and non-RS sources. This has been explained to him on multiple talk pages: especially here, but also here, here, and on his user talk page. WP guidelines such as RS have been pointed out to the user, but he has ignored them. His edits have required users such as myself, User:Cplakidas, User:TodorBozhinov, and others to track and remove them and repeatedly explain WP policy to him, to no avail. The initial block on his editing privileges clearly has not stopped his disruptive behavior, and a further block should be instituted. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User is currently evading their block by using IP's (212.5.158.188 and 212.5.158.218) to edit the articles and leave disruptive user talk page message. I've added one month page protection to the articles. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threat against Nigel Ish by block-evading IP
Here's the legal threat against Nigel Ish, which is enough to block the guy. However, what is needed here is a rangeblock to stop this persistent IP-hopper who has also used the account Philm540. Here are some examples of the IPs he has used in the last two months:
So for a rangeblock, it looks like it would have to be as broad as 2600:1002:Bxxx. Settling for 2600:1002:B0xx would get most of these IPs, as there are only a few 2600:1002:B1s. I have not seen any other activity at these IPs so I am not worried about collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All seem to be Verizon Wireless IPs. Would 2600:1002::/47 work, or is that too big? Still having the troubles with figuring the IPv6 rangeblocks. The IPv4 range is a /20 for the 70.192.x.x group, and that might be too broad. KrakatoaKatie04:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie:, that would be far too small. I think you would need to do 2600:1002:B000::/39 which would cover 2600:1002:B000::-2600:1002:B1FF:: if my understanding is correct. Your proposed block would block 2600:1002:0000::-2600:1002:0002:: *I think*. Monty84504:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Monty845: you're right - it's 2600:1002:B000::/39. Until/unless he gives us more data and we can narrow it down we should block the IPv4 addresses individually. KrakatoaKatie05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should show my work in connecting Philm540 to the IPs. First, I cannot say what I know about the real life identity of Philm540, but I can say that the person lives in Pennsylvania, the same area to which the IPs geolocate. Second, Philm540 made this strange edit, which is a copy and paste of this edit by one of the IP6s. Third, Philm540 made this edit with Saipan spelled Siapan, and AAF written Aaf, and Group spelled Goup. All of the IPs listed here have spelling and typography which is equally bad, such as "engiine fire extingusher", and this tangle of typos. If I find the exact above-listed typos in the hundreds of posts by IPs I will be surprised. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked previously for personal attacks and disruptive edits, due to the nature of IP hopping I have had to block the pop-up IPs sometimes one or two times a day, I and others have tried to discuss his edits and blocks but it is has been clear that the user doesnt understand how wikipedia works and the requirements for reliable sourcing. Thanks to the work of Binksternet he has tied the IP use to User:Philm540, also note that at [217] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as an IP. Perhaps after the legal threat and previous personal attacks we should consider a site ban of user. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it does look as though we need a rangeblock. If there is collateral damage it is unfortunate, but necessary. The alternative is going to long-term semi protection of all affected articles. An action which would appear to involve more collateral damage than the proposed rangeblock. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2600:1002:B000::/39 blocked one month for sockpuppetry. Holding on the Philm540 account because I think a site ban proposal is a good idea. KrakatoaKatie13:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done 70.192.141.0/24 and the other IPv4 addresses listed in the LTA case blocked one month. If the month is insufficient and someone wants to extend them, I have no objection. KrakatoaKatie01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because of his insulting personal communication style, his refusal to work with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and no original research policy, and especially because of the legal threat made against Nigel Ish, I propose that Philm540 be banned from English-language Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the user is clearly not here to work with others, refuses to listen and attacks other editors including legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne Surely the problem is that the legal threat is not substantiated. Obviously other issues are of import but, if an editor has not broken the law, an editor can reply to a substantiated "legal notice". GregKaye16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry GregKaye I dont really understand your comment, the user clearly made a threat to use legal action against one or more editors, I dont understand what you mean by "substantiated" in this context it is not a term mentioned at WP:NLT. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne one human being presented what was claimed to be a "legal notice" against another human being. One thing that has long been buzzing in the back of my mind is to ask if there is a legal president for saying that Wikipedia can deny access to legal options. Within which court was this decided? GregKaye17:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye Still dont understand what you are on about the user made a threat of legal action, if you have a problem with wikipedia policy then I would suggest you raise it at the WT:NLT as it is not relevant here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that in a situation in which wrong has been done according to relevant national or international laws then a person naturally has the prerogative to maintain her or his legal rights by any means of their choosing. Editing Wikipedia is certainly a privilege that that can be taken away for any reason by editorial consensus. However I would find it questionable for an editor to be excluded because they followed their constitutional rights.
This is not the forum for GregKaye to question the policy of WP:NLT, which Philm540 has certainly violated. If GregKaye thinks NLT should be modified, there's always the option of starting a discussion on the NLT talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly this editor's presence here is highly disruptive, refuses to follow policy and will not engage constructively with other editors. - Nick Thornetalk22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there a "smoking gun" that links this account to the disruptive IPs? (Yes, I agree there's circumstantial evidence here, but I'm hoping for something more...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regretfully Support. I think this editor is a very informed expert in a variety of fields and could become a very productive member of Wikipedia. I am willing to be a mentor if the editor chooses to come back under a "new" identity, and takes the time to learn the "ins-and-outs" of the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, he's a topic expert, but I think he's best suited to publishing his work external to Wikipedia, with an editorial team combing through his grammar and facts. I don't think he's cut out for collaborative teamwork. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([219]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.
Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content/style dispute that does not require admin intervention at this stage. As Abecedare suggests, these matters can be discussed on the appropriate article talk page. Philg88 ♦talk
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Joshua Jonathan is indulging in disruptive editing at the following talk page: [Page]. The modus operandi is to move comments he had already made in one section of the talk page (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism--Joshua has now deleted this section header) to another section of the talk page (Shankara and Buddhism). His own comments and also my own comments are also freely placed in a new section('Headers') in the talk page that he has created. A previous section header (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism) with his comments and also my comments has been removed by Joshua as i mentioned. All this is resulting in confusion. I have tried to impress upon him the need to retain content that has already been written in one section of the talk page and not create confusion by moving content in the talk page from one section to another section, removing section headers, placing old content (of his posts and also my posts) in newly created section headers, etc. but he is not prepared to listen to me. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only way i could impress upon Joshua not to play around on the talk page moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers, placing edits from a section to a newly created section was to revert his edits where he was doing this. This seems to have made him very angry going by his comments in the edit summary of the talk page where he reverts me, and also his comments in the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a short while, Jonathan (using common-sense IMO) merged the two talkpage sections on the exact same topic, w/o deleting any content.
Soham responded by not only undoing Joshua's merger but also deleting Joshua's subsequent replies, not once but twice!
Frankly this is all very silly, and I hope that this ANI is closed with editors told to simply get back to discussing the article content, and not get lost in discussing how the discussion sections are organized on the article talkpage. No admin action should be needed, unless Soham's disruption and needless escalation continues. Abecedare (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to participate in the talk page if edits are moved around freely from one section to another, section headers are removed, and edits in an older section (in this case, my edits and also Jonathan's edits) are placed in a newly created section header. I appreciate the fact that Abecedare--who has also been commenting on the talk page--has participated in this discussion. My understanding though is that majority does not constitute consensus in some cases. And this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the height of WP:IRONY. Soham321 doesn't even know how to indent. I don't know how many times @Ogress: and I had to correct his indentation. He would combine his post with other editors, despite explanations not to do so.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)What Victoria is accusing me of doing is making a post in the way i am making right now. It is true that i have done this occasionally (not always). But there is a big difference between this, and moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers and placing edits (in this case, my edits and also Joshua's edits) written in a particular section into a newly created section. As i mentioned earlier, majority does not constitute consensus in some cases, and it is my belief that this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Soham321, just did it on this ANI page! He just jammed his comment into mine. Soham321 engages in the most disruptive editing of any editor I have encountered on Wikipedia.VictoriaGraysonTalk06:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [220] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources.
My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [221] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for topic ban
The last AN discussion was [222] where Earl just wore everyone down. He is an SPA that causes more problems than benefit. I'm tired of the constant friction, so it seems the logical choice is to just act and be done with this instead of droning on about it for weeks and everyone gets tired and he gets his way. If we are here to prevent disruption, let's prevent disruption using the tools we have:
Earl King Jr. is topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie, movement or any persons related to this topic (construed broadly), on article, talk pages, or any other page on Wikipedia. This is for an indefinite period of time and may be appealed at WP:AN after a period of one year.
Oppose I have been editing on the Zeitgeist page for about two weeks (drawn by RFC), during that period I have agreed with EKJr on almost nothing. However my experience of his behaviour has been that he 'backs off' when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. In contrast, other editors on talk don't simply 'lose their cool' occasionally, but appear to prefer a 'gladitorial' approach, of which this ANI and the recent BLP are manifestations. I invite others to examine the recent talk page and come to their own judgements as to whether banning EKJr, would achieve anything.Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has pointed out to me that my invovement at the time of this post was actually 3 weeks and ! day, not 'about two weeks'.Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm The original complaint here is that EKJ is "dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc. to a single article. Well, as for the Zeitgeist Movement, looking at the last version, pretty much 90% of the content and sources were actually about the movies. So in that case, EKJ appears to be correct. And that article, since its redirection, has seen nothing but sockpuppets trying to restore it. Meanwhile, looking at Peter Joseph, he looks a bit marginal in notability terms as well. Black Kite (talk)14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (response to Pincrete's oppose) Two weeks isn't nearly enough, I think. I've been watching this topic for years and EKJ really stands out with his relentless efforts to make these articles as negative and crappy as possible, and argues over damn near everything he possibly can. Look at his edit analysis and top edited pages to see the extent of this. From what I've seen, he interprets policy to fit his own agenda (i.e. he's not being truly neutral), and his own improvements to the articles have often been sloppy/poorly written. The Zeitgeist talk pages are full of angry arguments every single day and this has been going on for ages now, literally years. I think the rest of us really deserve a vacation from him. There have been plenty of other editors active on these pages who are neutral (I mean, not-pro-Zeitgeist) who are perfectly capable of keeping these articles in line with policy and dealing with the occasional pro-Zeitgeist SPAs that show up every now and then. EKJs participation isn't necessary and frankly I think he's the one who has wasted the most of our collective time (and nerves). The topic itself isn't worth it. These movies are relatively old by now. Why is it such a big deal? I don't know. A forced topic ban seems like the best way to deal with this. Pincrete, I completely understand why you see that "the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated" -- it's happening now because we've finally had enough of him and we feel the need to make it very obvious. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk)14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I forgot about King inventing WP rules to support his edits, e.g., alleging that WP does not mention paid events,[223]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Update: Upon reviewing King's serial copyright violations on other pages, I think a General Ban is in order. Such editors are a liability to the Wikipedia project, and not just a topic. (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support I think EKJ deserves credit for combating zealous pro-Zeitgeist SPAs screwing with the page, especially when it was at the height of its popularity, but his contributions outside of that have been mired in consistently pushing sloppy anti-Zeitgeist content to such extreme lengths. It is a polarizing article/topic and emotions run high, but when it gets to where you'd use capitalization as a weapon, it's time to find another article to work on. He has demonstrated he is capable of spotting poor/weak content when it fits his agenda, so I believe he'd be an asset to any collaboration on a mainstream article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EKJ has a long history of using Zietgeist-related talk pages as a soapbox for venting his own personal opinions, routinely characterises contributors who disagree with him as 'SPAs' or claims thet they have been canvassed to edit, and as a matter of habit assesses sources not on their reliability and significance, but instead on whether they conform with his personal perspective - see for example his recent attempt to use a conspiracy-theorists forum in support of arguments, [224] (see the first link - to here [225]), and his attempt (in the same post) to cite a source [226] as evidence that TZM is 'right wing', when the source actually writes "in the case of Zeitgeist the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send to ArbCom - The community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing by multiple editors on this subject in the recent past. It is true that EKJ has engaged in tendentious editing on Zeitgeist. At the same time, User:AndyTheGrump has engaged in over-the-top personal attacks on EKJ. A previous WP:AN thread was archived without action. Singling out any one editor for sanctions would oversimplify the scope of the problem. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify multiple problematic editing patterns. While some of the topics of Zeitgeist are already within the scope of discretionary sanctions under either September 11 conspiracy theories, American politics since 1933, or biographies of living persons, imposing discretionary sanctions on all aspects of Zeitgeist would be helpful also. A full evidentiary hearing should be requested to identify multiple patterns of disruptive editing. (My own involvement is that I attempted to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mediation resulted in three RFCs and was unpleasant due to battleground editing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will readily admit that my behaviour over this issue hasn't always been ideal - I would however prefer it if Robert McClenon didn't single me out , and then go on to imply that I was engaging in 'battleground editing' in a DRN discussion I took no part in whatsoever - it should be noted that I wasn't involved at all in the 'unpleasant' DRN discussion. As for taking this to ArbCom, I personally don't think it would be necessary if EKJ is topic banned, and will reiterate what I said in the last ANI discussion - that if EKJ is topic banned, I am happy to stay away from the topic myself. I had voluntarily stayed away from the topic for a long period, and only returned to it as a result of seeing the way EKJ's behaviour was affecting encyclopaedic coverage in a clearly unacceptable manner - the fact that few people apparently like the movies, the movement, or Peter Joseph isn't in my opinion a legitimate reason to cherry-pick sources in an entirely partisan manner. Either the subject is notable, in which case it deserves balanced treatment, or it isn't, in which case it doesn't merit coverage at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support - Earl King Jr has in the past made groundless accusations towards other editors, made up policy as he goes along (for example 'Wikipedia doesn't mention paid events'), been unable to recognise his own bias, treated articles as if owned them and used policy as a threat. He seems to play a tactic of mirroring arguments made by other editors, for example, if accused of a personal attack, he will say he is being attacked; or if BLP violation is raised then he find his own BLP issue.
All that said I believe his behaviour towards other editors has improved. Also, he has and can make good contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would recommend a temporary topic ban of six months. This would make him consider his behaviour without being too punitive. It could also lead to a broadening of his Wikipedia edits.
Additionally, AndyTheGrump should also be topic banned for six months for making personal attacks against Earl King Jr. This made it harder to keep on track discussing the controversial issue of Zeitgeist, as an experienced editor he should have known this isn't helpful. As AndyTheGrump has volunteered to stay away from the topic if Earl King Jr is banned this could be a mute point.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't understand how an editor can be topic-banned from personal attacks. Personal attacks have been forbidden since 2002. AndyTheGrump has been banned from personal attacks since August 2010, when he began editing. He can be warned about personal attacks, but a ban on them that expires would exempt him from a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant AndyTheGrump should be topic banned for six months, because his edits there have included personal attacks that have not helped the situation. Not that he should be topic-banned from personal attacks banned for six months.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send to ArbCom. The Zeitgeist area has, from the beginning, attracted problematic pov-pushing which has defied attempts at resolution through the usual wikipedia mechanisms. When I last worked on that area, EKJ was mostly a force for good, although I was worn down by the constant battles (and extensive sockpuppetry and quotemining by people trying to make Zeitgeist articles look really positive) so I haven't looked closely for some time. If the battles continue, then I think Arbcom is the best option. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Earl King Jr. knows how to be covert and subtle and for over 3 years, with great success, he had been able to dominate and overrun well meaning people looking to simply put truthful, neutral and honest data on Zeitgeist related pages. Many talk about how there are "fluff" forces from the Zeitgeist Club. This is what he started as a theme if you look at his history. Anyone who is not negative must be a "pro zeitgeist cult member" in his own words. He started in 2012 and since then has been a single purpose editor focused entirely on making sure nothing balanced is ever put on Z pages. I am amazed at how biased and intolerant Earl King Jr is and how obsessive his interest to flame and pollute has been. He should be removed from ever editing anything Zeitgeist related if there is any expectation to see neutrality.JWilson0923 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Obviously Earl King has no intention of being neutral about anything Zeitgeist Film or Movement related. He/she is exactly what makes people not trust Wikipedia Sanjit45 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The ArbCom filing finally convinced me to look at this thread and into his edits. An edit-warring, disruptive SPA bent solely on non-neutrally and unilaterally wiping out content from Wikipedia? Has my vote for a complete topic ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If Earl can benefit the encyclopedia, it isn't on this or related topics. He is far too biased and disruptive to be of any use here. OnlyInYourMindT08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose...topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft. I've mentioned before that this "movement" doesn't even exist...almost zero references indicate that it does. The documentary producer is also not notable...that is why these articles were all rolled into one. The movies are notable but not remarkably. There must be a better solution than a topic ban. Why not simply put the article on 1RR and monitor the talk page for policy violations. Earl King surely knows what his boundaries are by now.--MONGO04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO: The first problem with your argument is that it assumes the "movement" or the "director" are relevant to the discussion. This is about EKJ's conduct. But, since you are playing games (and are likely a sock-puppet of EKJ) - the "movement", as per any simple search via Google shows endless notability and secondary press, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Marker, the Guardian, the Examiner, Hollywood Today, Russian Today, Ora.tv and beyond. As far as the "director", he not only made globally known, award winning films, (all of which meet Wikipedia standards and have been translated in a dozen languages and beyond), he is professional music video director with credits like Black Sabbath and Lili Haydn. He has also deviated and given talks at the Global Summit, Leaders Causing Leaders, Occupy Wall St. and two TED talks. He also had a recent Huffington Post profile article for his new film InterReflections. Also, all of these articles have been with Wikipedia for 4-6 years. It has only been people like Earl King Jr. that, in the deep minority, have forced their will to create these false claims of a lack of notability. So please...JWilson0923 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft" -- that's a completely invalid (and inaccurate) argument, and sounds manipulative as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk)07:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me show you manipulative...that's when you remove cited information that is in quotes and is accurate and claim its some BLP violation...as you did [here. Why would you do that? Because you didn't like the information? How is it a BLP violation? Like I said, if Earl is eliminated it allows fancruft to take over.--MONGO09:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JWilson0923, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, this noticeboard (especially the vote section) is NOT the place for idle speculation of 'puppetry', or other personal attacks. Nor the place for detailed discussion of notability/reliability of sources. Perhaps you would care to strike through some of your 'MONGO' post.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't believe SPA is a good reason to ban someone, I imagine many experts wish to edit few articles. That said, EKJ has shown extreme bias, over an extended period, on this article and has lost the ability to be trusted.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP ia not the vehicle for spreading cruft and Earl King Jr. is just following guidelines and policy. This appears to be a content a dispute, not sanctionable behavior. Failing to convince him that he should change his views and failing to establish consensus is not a basis for a topic ban of a single opposing editor. --DHeyward (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a topic ban. Without question one of the most disruptive, battleground editors I've come across during my years here. I had followed these articles for a long time and had come across Earl many times. Here are 6 ANI's that have been brought against him: [227] - [228] - [229] - [230] - [231] - [232] ---- If you've had little or no involvement with this editor, take the time and have a look at these past ANI's. The fact that a topic ban hasn't happened yet is, in my opinion, largely due to the small number of editors that have watched these articles over time. At the end of the day the question for me is this: "Does having Earl editing this topic area result in a net benefit to the overall project?" ---- Now, have IP's supportive of the movement sometimes disrupted the page? Of course they have, but it's nothing other editors can't handle. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is some time since Somedifferentstuff was involved with this article, (apologies if I'm wrong). I know that he was one of a number of editors canvassed to vote here [233], (all of those selectively contacted on their talk pages have so far voted to support a ban, except bobrayner who supports Arbcom)Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Reading the talk page, its a battleground over content. It doesnt appear they are the only problem here and removing one side of a content dispute is never a good idea. Are there problems? Yes, but it doesnt appear they rise to the level of a topic ban. AlbinoFerret13:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I think you have to go back more than two weeks to get the full picture. He's been under the eye of the last report for the last 4 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown I have only skimmed past discussions and so will not comment, beyond saying that if the purpose of a ban is not to punish, but to effect change, even less is it as an excuse to punish for 'stale' crimes. Could we have the diffs to make our own assesments? My own judgement over the last few weeks is that the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated.Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are in the discussion, the archives and the previous ANI that was linked. And the purpose of a topic ban, like a block, isn't to effect change. It is to prevent disruption. Unlike a block, a topic ban lets them contribute elsewhere, and in time, show they can eventually edit in that area again. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, clarification, I didn't mean to affect change to the individual, rather to the 'climate' on the article, so in that sense we agree.Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, it just wasn't in the typical "wikispeak" I'm used to. That said, I know very little about the editor except he is a regular source of controversy. Either the community will support or oppose, but hopefully we will be done bickering either way. Sometimes you have to just put it on the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an IP, so I don't expect my opinion matters much, but in the short time I've been active I've noticed lots of sloppy edits in the article, that, if not originate from EKJ, are/were defended doggedly by him. Like including cherry picked from unrelated sources, blanking synopsis and recommending negative film review take it's place, weird edits that push POV OR that article should stress over the top that films/organization/name are owned by the director 1, 2, edit warring on capitalizing proper noun, and inserting flamebait which probably makes article the source of so much vandalism. That said, I think his greatest contributions have been keeping out FRINGE Zeitgeist supporting primary source content. I don't know if that excuses the sloppy anti-Zeitgeist POV pushing that ends up creating just as much work to wade through and clean up though. I'm pretty sure any of the neutral editors that hang around article would be capable of improving quality of article without fueling as much drama. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned in the opening statement regarding the Zeitgeist articles and Earl's desire to see them merged together (as such I feel this is a valid exemption as outlined in my conduct noticeboard ban). To respond to what Black Kite is saying, a big part of the reason the article on The Zeitgeist Movement was mostly about the movies is because of Earl's editing. See these twodiscussions I previously had over his edits to minimize material about the movement in favor of material about the movies in the article on the movement. When these articles were merged it was actually because an RfC I initiated over whether the reception section should be about the movement or the movies got hijacked into a merge discussion. My involvement in this has included past discussions of Earl's behavior in this topic area. You can see some evidence I presented in that thread from a few months ago regarding his edits, a link to a past discussion about his conduct where I was involved, and evidence of him engaging in copy-right infringing edits on multiple articles related to Cambodia, which still remains a problem.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that quite a number of the diffs being offered date back to Dec. 2014, or are not on 'Zeitgeist' pages.Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the diffs offered immediately above date from Dec. 2014, and/or not from 'Zeitgeist' pages. I apologise for not making clear WHICH diffs.Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the diffs presented in that previous discussion were all from 2014, but a month later Earl did it again in this edit and in this comment to him I noted several instances in the past month where he has again copied from sources. Mind you, this is just the most recent stuff. I can find several more instances of this happening pretty much since he started editing.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IF the old diffs support a long-term and ONGOING pattern of behaviour, they are of course valid. If they don't then this ANI is simply 'settling old scores', a number of supporters of ban above are quite happy to admit that they are 'fed-up' because of past behaviour and aren't too concerned about recent history, An honest position, if not one in WP's finest tradition.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another questionable use of diffs above. In his Support, Sfarney/Grammar cites this as instance of EKJ 'making up' a rule that 'WP does not mention paid events', HOWEVER the text EKJ removed 'Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival' is not supported by EITHER of the sources cited. One source (in 2010), speaks of it holding its 'second annual event' the second quotes the first. EKJ was right to remove or amend the text, even if his edit reason is a bit silly.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion on King's excision and why I recall it.[240] Notice that though the discussion continued for more than 36 hours, King did not participate. We had only his cut-and-run explanation. King may have been correct to "remove or amend" the text, but only on the "amend" alternative, and that was not his choice. King cites a non-existent rule, his edit reason was erroneous, and the edit was wrong. We don't remove a finger because it has a wart, and we don't remove a long-standing statement from an article because part of it is not correctly sourced. If another editor restores the information so that it is correct, he invites edit warring. A newby might make King's mistake, but an experienced editor should work with others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in those 36hrs appeared to pick up on the fact that the last RS info about 'Annual events' (and to the best of my knowledge, the last RS info about Zday), is dated circa 2010/11. Shouldn't somebody have actually checked the source before even thinking of restoring it … or making an issue out of it?Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
King's edit comment was a misdirector. He wrote he was cutting the material because Wikipedia cannot mention paid events. That did not suggest wrong dates or any other reason. And so far we do not know that he had any other reason or that he was looking at the problems you are now indicating. Let's at least credit him with stating his own reason correctly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, he had a mainly wrong reason for removal, which means he should be banned, others had an equally wrong reason for reinstate which means ????.Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean about the "wrong reason." In his own words, he said he removed it because Wikipedia does not mention paid events. We debated that point for more than a day, but he did not clarify his position or correct his reason. I think we should presume he knew what he was doing. Either he was deliberately inventing reasons to remove content, or he was unconsciously inventing reasons. Either way, it's not a good sign. And when content is being restored from a wrongful removal, usually we don't examine every sliver, reference, date, etc. It's not like new content. That is just a fact. And whether King should be banned is a matter for the administrative council to decide. I have already offered my opinions on that, and so have you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was citing King's plagiary your post: No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright.[241][242][243][244] Your attempt to deny what is clearly visible in front of your own nose strikes me as further evidence of your problematic attitude. It may not relate to Zeitgeist, but it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- True, Devil's Advocate provided a longer list of King's Plagiary: See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, thesetwo edits from a couple days later ripped from Radio Free Asia, this edit from November ripping material from East Asia Forum and Global Advice Network, and this edit from December ripping material from Human Rights Watch.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- Copyright violations are an absolutely basic issue about which no editor could be naive, and this is a serial offense. On further reflection of King's overall performance as a WP editor, I seriously question that King is an asset to Wikipedia, and I must vote for general ban.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be true that EKJ's editing has contributed historically to unreasonably negative content about the films and 'movement'. However the main reason response to the films is negative is because there are almost NO positive reviews. The main reason description of the movement is 'patchy' (at best) is because there are almost no RS articles to say what this 'movement' is. After 2-3 weeks involvement, I am still no clearer in my mind whether the 'movement' actually exists in any more tangible sense than 'the hippy movement' or 'the punk movement' existed. The sources just aren't out there.Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for a topic ban is, that over what appears years of, uncivil behaviour, ownership and game playing/incompetence. He exacerbates discussions by bringing up irrelevant or illogical points making it impossible to discuss points properly. A recent example is premature phony closing of RfC diff.
He is not the sole defender of the article against the 'waves' of pro Zeitgeist editors - as the varied response to the recent RfCs show. He could be good for this if his behaviour did change, and it has improved - but not convinced this isn't part of the game. That is why I recommend a short ban.
The Zeitgeist movement is not a movement - as in a social or cultural movement. It is a political advocacy group. It certainly exists, even if not notable. Not sure I follow your argument on 'the hippy movement' and 'the punk movement', see Counterculture of the 1960s and Punk subculture. Anyway, arguments about the movement are off topic. Earl King Jr isn't the only sceptical editor, and isn't the only one working to remove bias from the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonpatterns. Without going too much off-topic, the 'movement' doesn't appear to be an advocacy group in the general sense (Registered members, structure etc … which also implies opening itself to outside scrutiny). I'm old enough to have used the term 'the hippy movement' approvingly, my meaning today was an amorphous set of loosely shared values, with little definable structure, strategy or purpose. My reason for making the analogy was to say that RSs don't really tell us WHAT it is that makes it more than that, I am unclear therefore whether it actually IS, though I would not oject to its claims being described in 'its' voice.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If Earl's problems are in the past (perDennis Brown "You have to go back more than two weeks" and diffs that go back to 2014) then what is the benefit of imposing a sanction? All the best: RichFarmbrough, 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I completely agree, but your implication that I have "selectively" notified others is incorrect. Those who are on the current talk page (like you) that I knew were watching the page, I did not bother to notify personally: I put a notice on the recent BLP section[245] (non-selective). I have just put a notice on the topic:talk page now.[246] I notified King personally and everyone who had been involved to any extent in recent months (non-selective). If you know of others that I missed, by all means invite them (non-selective). The history of controversy with King is huge and involves many people who have many facts and much evidence to bring to the table. I could not cover it all myself. King has so far said little in his own defense. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sfarney|Grammar, many of those you contacted privately ARE regular editors, who would have seen a neutral talkpage notice, whilst Arthur Rubin and myself were not contacted (who just happen to be the only refular editors to oppose). As soon as you contact individuals, it's called canvassing and DON"T DO IT.Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps I had already put a notice on the talk page AS SOON as I (accidentally) became aware of this noticeboard. Your defence compounds the impression of canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, and your characterization does you no credit. Here is the complete list of those I contacted directly, and even the total is not "many."
18:24, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:Bobrayner
18:18, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+545) . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff
18:02, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:AndyTheGrump
17:50, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:NeilN
17:48, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+538) . . User talk:Betty Logan
17:46, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:Willondon
17:45, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+546) . . User talk:Jonpatterns (→sibel edmonds)
17:44, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+548) . . User talk:Robert McClenon (→Earl King Jr.: new section)
17:36, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18) . . User talk:OnlyInYourMind (current)
As can be seen by that list, none of those above except AndyTheGrump had posted to talk:Zeitgeist pages in the last couple of weeks, and might never have received notifications of this discussion. And AndyTheGrump was inconsistent in his contributions to these talk pages and might never return -- his range of topics is wide. There are two issues here: (1) The people who have been offended by King far outnumber the people who support him -- even if I had notified every single person who encountered King in the last 6 months, the numbers could be portrayed as "canvassing" because of the overwhelming imbalance. (2) Your logic presumes a partisan alignment on these topics, but the reality is more in line with WP:Good faith. The editors are not lined up in voting blocks. They are accomplished and experienced editors who have valuable opinions. The situation is really not as King repeatedly portrays it, that a "FLOOD OF SOCKPUPPETS" would take over the topic pages if King were not standing guard. I haven't see any sockpuppets in my two months in these topics. Incidentally, if you know of any other topic pages associated with Zeitgeist, please add notices of this discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're doing fine spamming talkpages on your own...even article talkpages in fact...why are you posting notices about this discussion on the article talkpages for 9/11 conspiracy theories and elsewhere? I don't think I've ever seen a worse case of spamming.--MONGO10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sfarney|Grammar, contacting ONE editor is canvassing. Your actions will probably have no appreciable effect on outcome but you were caught doing something inappropriate FULL STOP. Piece of friendly advice, own up, back off, don't do it again.
You compound it however by continuing [247], the advise you gave was wrong, JWilson0923 should strike through the remarks, if he wishes, not 'doctor them' as you advise him, otherwise my and Mongo's comments are left in limbo.Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … ps I have left a short message on JWilson0923's talk page correcting the misinformation, as neutrally as I could.[248][reply]
In case anyone is reading this, the real wp:Canvassing policy says: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban would include 9/11 conspiracy as it is frequently crossed into the Zeitgeist discussions by King himself. So those editors should be involved in this discussion. Up to them. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sfarney|Grammar, I'm happy to let others be the judge of whether your actions showed intent to 'broaden participation' or to 'canvas support'. Especially as you failed to take the obvious step of putting a note on the talk page until after being warned by me to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I published the notice immediately on the BLP page, which is where the trigger incident for this ANI occurred. With your helpful advice (I didn't realize it was a warning -- what was the threat?), I added all the talk pages associated with Zeitgiest. But then Mongo complained I was spamming, so I guess you can't please everyone, eh? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar'sLittleHelper, I think my involvement is about three weeks actually, but what is your point exactly? To the best of my memory, the two matters EKJ and I have agreed on are 1) the need to 'cool down' the personal attacks, 'grandstanding' and general battlefield mentality of the talk page (no editor above disputes that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks). … … 2). I agreed with EKJ on the BLP that an attributed quote describing the film negatively, is not 'slander', and is not even a BLP issue, simply a weight issue. But so does everyone else on that noticeboard except you. Grammar'sLittleHelper, what was 'the trigger incident' on BLP? Because EKJ's posts there are calm, courteous and rational IMHO, and the debate had largely 'died', because of no new opinion coming in.
As I've already said, others can judge whether your intent was 'notifying', or 'coaching', 'canvassing' and 'spamming',Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For an answer to your question, please read the original complaint I posted here on July 2. Since then, more serious details have emerged that show King's long-term conduct does not comport with the WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
??(no editor above disputes that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks)?? I for one dispute that statement most strongly. The trigger incident was King attacking me once again out of the blue with no provocation. Judging from their statements above in favour of banning King, a number of other editors seem not to agree with your broad statement -- but that is just how they seem to me. Maybe you should read them again. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar'sLittleHelper, could you please supply the diffs for EKJ personally attacking you on the BLP? I know only of YOU striking through an edit of his, which (in my judgement) was not at all personal, an extremely provocative act on your part, which he was cool/clever enough to not 'rise to the bait'.
The answer to your question is in the original Jul 2 post to ANI. King's attacks often take the form of ad hominem. That Latin phrase means a characterization of the person rather than an address to the topic. Such was the case here. King often infers or states that the only reason editor X desires an edit on the topic is because editor X is (some variety of a brainwashed groupie) or a "supporter" for the subject. In this post, he twice attributes words to me that I did not write.[249] In the same post, he attributes motives to me that I have not voiced. Then once again (for there are many previous such) he calls anyone who disagrees with him a "supporter" of Zeitgeist. Ad hominem is classed as a logical fallacy. The rhetorical effect is to change the subject from the topic at hand to the person. A Wikipedia editor should not have to defend self and motives repeatedly to get a topic edit done. Ad hominem is a violation of WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's let the diffs be the judge of whose account of the BLPn is more credible and who was engaging in and initiating personal attacks. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misconception of proposal
The proposal is about Earl King Jr's behaviour over a long term period, not whether the Zeitgeist articles have become a battleground or not. These are two different issues that need to be considered separately. A quick look at the current talk pages will not give an insight into his long term behaviour. For more info see points I previously raised at AN here.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonpatterns, I think we all recognise the distinction, however anyone voting inevitably asks themselves whether banning EKJ from the topic would actually be beneficial to the topic, or whether the problem/answer lies elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Community General Sanctions
I have, above, said that this case should be sent to ArbCom as a matter that the community has been unable to resolve. However, there is one step that the community can take toward resolution. That is to impose community general sanctions, to allow any uninvolved administrator to act against any disruptive editor. If ArbCom takes this case, then in the final decision they can convert the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)My support moved to section below[reply]
Support - I'm surprised something like this wasn't enacted back when the article & its prior incarnation were seeing wilder activity. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As with many essentially religious topics, this is a battleground of belief against ugly fact. Maintaining the quality and integrity of the project requires that we start the process of separating warring parties from each other and the locus of dispute. Note that the Zeitgeist movies and movement are clearly covered by WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is too vague as to be meaningful, thus is not able to be closed or enforced. GS, or community sanctions proposals have to be painstakingly precise and narrowly defined. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if this means real action, but I have been disappointed by recent arbitrations -- all came to nothing, without yes, no, or even a maybe. Just silence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, [user:Dennis Brown]'s argument, as short as it is, convinced me to change my vote. I believe all editors, with the exception of Earl King Jr., have worked toward collaboration and cooperation. If I am wrong, there will be time enough to impose stricter measures. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No value in singling out one editor when others add fuel to problems and neutral presentation is the actual burning presentation, in my view. Let the article go under an extreme microscope and lets get people accountable for future references, ongoing. This is an example of one of my recent edits [250] It seems pretty tame and if anything a little positive toward the subject, but no it is just sourced from a decent content source Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Dennis Brown has given an abridged version of my reasons, but that will do for now - hopefully ArbCom will address the proposer on the issue of competence in dispute resolution at the proposer's present request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @AndyTheGrump: - for the sake of formality and given the mess being generated from this matter being prematurely referred from one request board to another, can you please indicate whether you are supporting this proposal (whatever it is meant to cover) and the one below concurrently, or if not, revise your comment in relation to this one and add a separate comment to the one below? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it would also be helpful if we all strike though our comments if we have moved them to the new proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) [251]
To address Dennis Brown's concern that the sanction as proposed is unacceptably vague, I here offer a redraft:
All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, are subject to community-imposed Wikipedia: General Sanctions. This includes all articles on the films, organization, movement, and individuals connected to these other topics. A copy of this sanction shall be posted to the header of all article talk pages that it applies to.
Proposed, but don't mark me down as a supporter, this is for administrative clarity. I have not studied the article problems enough to support it myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Properly drafted, but I oppose because the topic ban above is the better way to deal with it. There isn't a showing of MANY people causing problems, and that is what you need to justify general sanctions. If you just get the topic ban, the problems as presented are over. That fits the admin goal of using the least amount of force to get the job done, and it's a lot less ongoing paperwork and drama. If it is an ongoing problem with many users, then mixing it in with a report on an individual is muddying the waters, and it should have been done as a separate proposal at WP:AN. The thread (plus arb) is already too much to read. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you're trying to propose is a community discretionary sanctions regime. "General sanctions" refers to various different things, including page revert restrictions, article probation, and discretionary sanctions. See WP:General sanctions for more information. If you want community discretionary sanctions, I suggest you use the likes of WP:GS/GG or WP:GS/SCW&ISIL as templates. RGloucester — ☎02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make this perfectly clear, since there seems to be some doubt about it: I support both a topic ban for EKJ and Community General Sanctions for the subject area. My "support" vote in the topic ban area should not be discounted simply because I also voted "support" here - the two sanctions are not in any way mutually exclusive. BMK (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as reasonable. The overall level of respect and cooperation needs attention. Battlefield mentality on the article is a problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if we trim broadly construed language and list just Zeitgeist related material (there's not that many). Paving with good intentions sometimes has the effect of infecting a bunch of unrelated articles. We don't really want a bunch of uninvolved editors/articles suddenly subject to GS because the topic was mentioned by a Zeitgeist individual or, say, there was a meetup in a city, etc. Suddenly it needs to be mentioned in the off-topic article to justify the talk page template of GS or it's used as a cudgel against an editor when they branch out from Zeitgeist. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether Community General Sanctions are need or not is a separate issue to whether Earl King Jr should be topic banned. Let consider the evidence for that issue here. The issue of Community General Sanctions should be raised separately, and arguments for that considered separately.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless accompanied by a topic ban for EKJ. Otherwise, it looks to me too much like postponing any real action over a long-running issue yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my view that imposing Community General Sections on the subject area overrides the general support shown above for a topic ban on EKJ - they are in no way mutally exclusive, and the !vote count in support of a topic ban is currently at 14-4. BMK (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five people expressly oppose the topic ban. Additionally you have two who support sending it to ArbCom rather than handling it here. That should be considered seven opposes to the topic ban. You also have BK's comment that should probably be viewed as an oppose and Rich's comment in the discussion seems to lean towards opposing a topic ban. Krakatoa previously suggested general sanctions in lieu of topic bans so that could be seen as another oppose. Given that, you have a minimum 15-7 vote and potentially a 15-10 vote. On the general sanctions it appears to be, at present, a 9-5 vote. Obviously, consensus is more than head-counting and a lot of parties voting either way are involved, which should cause their vote to be considered in light of that, but the vote count is not overwhelmingly in favor of one option or another.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I miscounted the opposes, my apologies, it wasn't deliberate. However, the comments concerning sending it to ArbCom shouldn't be counted as opposes, in my opinion, they should be counted as what they are, comments that the problem should be handled in a different venue. Since that's not happening - considering that the arbs appears to be waiting to see what happens here - they're essentially neutral !votes until the editors come back and make a specific vote concerning the topic ban - so I still make it 15-5 for the topic ban, just counting noses without determining strength of argument (which is why admins get the big bucks). BMK (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, regarding Black Kite - I assume he's more than capable of writing "oppose" if he is against a topic ban for EKJ. What I see in his comment is him providing more factual information for editors to take into account when they make their determination - so I wouldn't try to read his mind and count his comment as an "oppose" unless he formally makes it one. BMK (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom Harrison, This is an excellent question. Under WP:ARBGG, The Devil's Advocate is indeed indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard; this is however, with a caveat, "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started". Given that the editor's first sentence of their submission here is "I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned ...", this caveat appears to be in effect; and the edits, therefore, in order.
Given the history of engagement that got him banned from noticeboards, he's been "directly involved in many of the discussions" of just about any topic, and with just about every contributor. If that were what arbcom intended by banning him from noticeboards, it wouldn't have been much of a ban. Surely they didn't craft the remedy so he could continue the behavior that lead to it. Tom HarrisonTalk12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom Harrison, Unfortunately, we're not able to be sure of what ArbCom intended to do, only of what they did do.
What they did do, per WP:ARBGG, is prevent the editor from involving themselves in discussions on matters with which they had not been involved prior to the matter being raised on noticeboards. This is a significant limitation on the editor's involvement in disputes and discussions across the project.
In this instance, the editor asserts that they were involved prior to the matter being raised, and, therefore, the exemption in the caveat to the prohibition applies.
Should editors believe that the prohibition as imposed by WP:ARBGG is not the intended sanction, the appropriate venue to raise the question would be WP:ARCA.
Should editors believe that this editor was not, in fact, involved prior to this matter being raised on this noticeboard, the appropriate venue would be the editor's Talk page, and then WP:AE.
While I appreciate the concerns raised, and understand some of the history, we must accept ArbCom's decision as it is, and work within it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'13:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, please see the thread above (in voting on topic ban). It follows immediately after Rich Farmbrough's emboldened 'Question'. Starting with an admonition from me for Sfarney|Grammar, to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, the 'we text' ('The last thing we need now is a round of more accusations when Earl's accusatory conduct is under examination.'), was also moved to a less prominent position from [257]to [258], where the exchange became meaningless as it was not a response to anything.(It is restored and I have invited the editor to 'strike through'). The very least that must be said is that 'coaching' a new editor is inappropriate and moving 'embarrassing' text on a noticeboard equally so.Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool off, Pincrete. "Less prominent" means nothing when editors are as carefully observant as this crowd. I tried to move it to the discussion section before the argument became another magic beanstock. But now I see you have reopened your accusations of canvassing in a separate area AWAY from my responses to your earlier accusations. What's up with that? Are YOU trying to hide the full discussion from examination? The last thing we need now is a another round of accusations when King's conduct is under examination. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not open this section DHeyward did. Coaching another (new) editor and then moving his text in the manner you had previously advised that editor to do, is unprecedented in my experience. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that he had also moved the comments. The coaching itself was a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "us vs them." Moving the comments to avoid scrutiny in the manner described to the editor is battleground and disruptive behavior that appears to be motivated by reason other than building an encyclopedia. This at the very least should be a 1-way iban against User:Sfarney so he isn't allowed to plot and carry out underhanded dealing with EKG. Possibly a complete topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, battleground mentality is precisely the real problem with this article, of which this incident is only the 'tip of the iceberg' (see talk and recent BLP). My only 'horse in this race' is to argue that getting rid of EKJ will be a victory for that mentality, not the solution to it.Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely no more coaching that any experienced editor would give a less experienced editor. I would like you to consider these points one at a time, because you are seeing them all through a lens of misrepresentation. 1. I counseled JWilson0923 to tone down his remarks and move them(07:11, 4 July 2015 UTC) before ANYone had answered them (08:15, 4 July 2015 UTC). Please check the dates and times and satisfy yourself that this is the truth. 2. I always use "we" when speaking of Wikipedians. The last thing we all need is to turn the administrator page into a battleground of mutual accusations. You don't need it, I don't need it, JWilson0923 doesn't need it, Earl King Jr. doesn't need it, and no honest editor in Wikipedia needs it. 3. Even Pincrete advised the JWilson0923 that his comments were of the wrong color in in the wrong place. 4. I was quite obviously not moving the comments to avoid scrutiny. The only context that would be broken was JWilson0923's comments to Mongo -- When I moved, I kept the whole block together. If you want a long running thread of discussion in the voting area, I did not know. I don't think it is proper. That is why there is a discussion section. 4. Canvassing. I put a general notice on the BLP incident board immediately upon filing this ANI request.[259] I then notified all other editors who had any involvement that I could locate on the talk pages who were not current on the BLP page. Pincrete reminded me I should put a notice of ANI on the talk:topic pages, so that is what I did. Then Mongo accuses me of spamming -- you can't please everyone, I guess. You may not know, but EKJ has often tied 9/11 conspiracy to the Zeitgeist films because the film talks about 9/11. When you look at King's contributions on that talk page, you find he is active there, and the ANI is a discussion of "all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie." That includes 9/11 and would be a part of the topic ban, so those editors should also be involved. The other talk pages I included for the same reason. Let's handle one thing at a time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that Sfarney|Grammar's advice to JWilson0923 was before I gave the public advice to strike through on this ANI. I still think that Sfarney|Grammar's actions were WHOLLY inappropriate and his choice of message to JWilson0923 constituted 'conspiritorial coaching'.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) …[reply]
ps Sfarney|Grammar I didn't remind you to put a notice on the talk page (Why would I? I had already done it), you did it only AFTER I had counselled you to stop canvassing. You misquote the message you left on JWilson0923's talk. You 'can't please everyone' when you knowingly act outside guidelines, in order to 'whip up' solicit support. Who elected you to decide which pages are included in the proposed topic ban? If you thought all those additional pages should be included, you should have proposed them. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did remind me -- perhaps not intentionally, but remind me you did. And I don't think it's appropriate for you to appear to quote me with words I have not said or written. That is not held to be good conduct. As to whipping up support, take a moment to think about what you are saying. If a public notice of this Incident report is broadly known, it should whip up support for King in equal measure to the proposal to ban him. A general notice would whip up support for the ban only if King's adversaries overwhelmingly outnumber his supporters. And that is not improper -- that is what the proposal is intended to determine. How would you alert all involved of this Incident report and proposal? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sfarney|Grammar, if I have 'appeared to quote you', I will correct, but since you don't say where, I cannot.Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) … … Ah I think I see now, fixed! Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The we can presume you will be posting a notice with more neutral wording so that all the communities within the topic will know of this discussion and provide meaningful participation. All those who know King to be a constructive presence and Wikipedian will have full opportunity to speak in his favor, as well as those who have had other experiences. But public sunlight is always a good thing in these situations. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas Todd AfD
Can a few admins have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Todd? There seem to be an awful lot of strong opinions on the debate, which in itself is not necessarily an issue, but the proliferation of redlinked users and IPs leads me to wonder if there's a sock farm at work here. (I haven't pinged anyone aside from the two obvious main protagonists, Stuart lyster (talk·contribs) and 142.59.217.7 (talk·contribs) because I'm not complaining about any specific editor, rather just the general progression of the debate, but please advise if I should). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it with {{notavote}} although that is of questionable value. Socking is a real possibility, but hard to tell without CU with so few edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have seen AFDs get semi-protected, but not under this situation. Has to be pretty extreme. Like serious vandalism, or when 4chan comes to town, trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be meatpuppetry. The IPs look to be from Vancouver Telus and Verizon in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Unless he's crossing over the US/Canada border with the international data plan to beat all data plans, it's probably not the same guy. But the closing admin can take all that into account. KrakatoaKatie14:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these are static broadband IPs. You'd need CU to see which one could be the Stuart Iyster account. That last SPA !vote looks suspicious too. KrakatoaKatie14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent a little time sussing things out, it looks like this is a messy canvass involving mostly Canadian single-purpose editors, most for keep, a couple against. There is probably a discussion about this debate somewhere on the internets. Aside from the non-standard "Do Not Delete" language, it seems at a glance that most of these are different accounts opining about a widely-read religious columnist in a large Canadian newspaper. I'd advise Ritchie333 to step back and let nature take its course, as I don't see sources that will get this article over the GNG bar. I do question the need to delete such an article, but then again I do have a soft spot for journalist biographies, which are notoriously hard to source out. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Handpolk
Handpolk is already currently blocked by Bishonen for 48 hours. He has a history of PA, combative, and disruptive editing including at RfA where his vote has been dicounted by Bureaucrats. He generally removes messages he doesn't like from his talk page but has been warned by several admins that should his attitude not change, he can expect loger blocks. Any boomerang effect of this ANI case should be treated as a separate issue if necessary. For any accusations of incorrect use of multiple accounts, SPI is thataway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I want to report User:Handpolk. He keeps harassing me, reverting all of my recent edits, calling all my edits vandalism/spam/etc. He also stalks my every move on Wikipedia, makes personal attacks on my talk page and other talk pages where I try to discuss with other people.
I tried to dicuss disputes with this person, but I couldn't as he keeps writing the same thing all over again and you can't make a proper dicussion with him on anything. He also keeps deleting my every message from his talk page and spams my talk page.
There are more examples of his similar behaviour related to me, but 3 examples should be enough for now. I call this stalking, harassment, vandalism. This user is doing all that on purpose and is trying to engage me in an edit war which I won't take. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want to be accusing Handpolk of needlessly calling your edits vandalism? Anyway, near as I can tell, these two are disagreeing over a pair of NBA-related disputes. First, How to describe the current champions in their article, and second, mentioning certain players who have been elected to the NBA Hall of Fame but not yet inducted on team articles. And if this thread is any indication, neither is the other's actions in good faith. However, there does appear to be merit to Sabbatino's arguments. I came somewhat involved in this when noting Sabbatino's removal of an uncited piece of trivia on a hockey article with the summary of "No source + not relevant". Handpolk reverted that 23 minutes later, then immediately reverted another one of Sabbatino's edits with the same "No source + not relevant" summary, despite the fact that the only thing Sabbatino did was convert a plain date into a template format in an infobox. IMO, that was a bad faith revert by Handpolk designed to anger Sabbatino. And I don't get the impression the latter needs much help in that regard. Both are acting in bad faith, but Handpolk does seem to be stalking here. Resolute17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched this for a bit, and I agree that both editors are not behaving well. Neither Handpolk, nor Sabbatino have engaged in any article talk page discussion regarding their edits. Handpolk has followed to Sabbatino to other articles, however they all appear to be sports related. He has not changed any edit that Sabbatino has done to non-sports related articles. Also note that Sabbatino has filed at WP: AIV against Handpolk, and a long term harrassment complaint against Handpolk. Neither editor has acted very well, and both editors should be reminded to use the talk page to resolve their dispute instead of constant reverts, and accusations of vandalism. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't disagree with anything. He just started editing everything I edit. That's all. He also started harassing me when he became a stalker. Then he called me a troll and said I personally attacked him. And he didn't even asked to go to talk page as he just started his "fun". Normal users always ask me why I did this or why I did that, but not this person as he just started all those wars for no reason (maybe to make me angry, but I was/am/will be calm, because some people just don't know what discussion means). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, discuss the edits not the editor. Your comment here does nothing but convince admins that maybe there is something to Sabbatino's concerns. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty difficult not to discuss the editor in ANI but ok, I have modified my prior comment slightly. On talk pages etc, I agree 100%. Many of the comments Sabbatino has made focus on me rather than content, which is a very large part of the problem here. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I warned Sabbatino three times about WP:BOOMERANG but he ignored me...
Our interactions began when he engaged in an edit war, calling it 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant' another editor updated the Golden State Warriors lede to note they had won the 2015 NBA Finals (1, 2), making repeated personal attacks (4, 5).
Finally, I decided to look at his recent edits to see what kind of editor I was dealing with -- and discovered several other edits I disagreed with. Including on New York Islanders, where another editor added the Islanders had drafted the first Chinese player into the NHL, which he reverted as 'not relevant' and when reverted he called it 'obvious vandalism'.
I will note that another editor has pointed out two of my reverts were incorrect. I was perhaps too hasty in some of my assessments. Particularly on BC Pieno žvaigždės, where it appears he was just fixing a dead link.
Overall the pattern is clear. This editor is disruptive, makes frequent personal attacks, often engages in edit wars, is very difficult to work and collaborate with and relies frequently on original research to arrive at dubious claims of relevance, rather than deferring to RS's. Since he seems to put in a lot of work on sports related articles, it would be a shame to see him indef blocked or topic banned -- however I think a temporary block based on his recent conduct would be in order -- or at the very least an admonishment to remain civil and focus on content and not people. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯20:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Handpolk, what was the deal with this diff? You seem to revert Sabbatino with the edit summary "No source + not relevant", but all you did was remove a template and re-insert the same information. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I saw was removing the first Chinese player drafted into the NHL from the Islanders as 'not relevant' -- which was almost as absurd as when he argued it isn't relevant the Warriors are NBA Champions. It was hard to assume good faith after seeing that and I appear to have made some bad assessments as a result -- that being one of them. Thankfully we have other editors watching these articles who've stepped in to decide which of my reverts were correct and which were not. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop imagining facts. I didn't say that it's not relevant that GSW won NBA title. I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it (4, 5, etc.). And I can discuss, but YOU make personal attacks and then say that I started that. So stop reverting my reverts without no reason and before doing such thing – make sure that you're not reverting a reverted vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it" that was the final iteration of your argument. The first was to remove the entire sentence with the edit summary 'vandalism'. When I reverted you, you started an edit war and made your first talk page comment to me about it: "I made some research and that edit was made on JUNE 17 and it's irrelevant. I wonder how noone saw that garbage sooner. You can report me, but I'm right by reverting that edit." diff. (I'd be curious to know what research you did that informed you the Warriors winning the NBA Finals was 'garbage' and 'irrelevant.') Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' After we got a 3rd opinion, you decided the problem was the number of games. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Too bad there was no control over that sentence during NBA Finals as it appeared there before game 6 and kept changing from Cleveland Cavaliers are currently beating GSW in 2015 NBA Finals. to GSW are currently beating... and all that was happening before and during game 6! Of course I wasn't watching game 6, but it's obvious from the logs that during the game there was constant vandalism happening. 2. That sentence was in the middle of the paragraph when it shouldn't been there. 3. I didn't say it's irrelevant that GSW won NBA title. 4. However, it has no relevance in how many games they won or who they defeated. 5.Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' – Sorry, but I changed the wording after 3rd opinion was given and you still reverted my edit and started your edit war and you didn't even try to find how that paragraph would appease both of us. You just went your way. When I saw that you didn't listen, I just left that thing alone so you can have it your way... 6. I'm always willing to find a solution to one thing or another, but when a person doesn't try to listen to what I'm trying to say then I just turn around and leave it be. Yes, I could have wrote that edited part in talk page so that we can discuss and correct it, but I didn't as you just kept writing your stuff. 7. I'm done with with hopeless discussion over nothing. But if you start to stalk my every move and harass me like yesterday, I will again report you. Next time go to talk page and try to be civil and LISTEN, and don't bring old stuff for reason, because you are the one who's hot headed, not me and that edit war yesterday was you idea not mine. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a personal attack. That no pun intended is there for a reason. If it wasn't there then I would consider it as personal attack. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you can just say anything and then add (no pun intended) and it's not a personal attack? Well I guess you have an ID if you feel that way (no pun intended). Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯12:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE TAKE NOTE He has started to stalk and revert my edits again. He reverted my edit which removed content which was deleted from Wikipedia. Here:
I've filed a report. You couldn't be more obvious. You can't even edit for a month under a new account without bursting into flames. And don't revert my messages on other user's talk pages or AFD pages. You may want to use the time making yet another identity. 2005 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on Wikipedia for a year and I have no idea what you are talking about. Cease making these baseless allegations immediately...SPI is the venue that allows that. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Non-administrator comment) In case anyone misses the editor's post to the Help desk, in which he admits "I do not have the experience (or even know how) to express my views to the reviewers". To WP:AGF he might just not know that Talk pages are a thing? 野狼院ひさしu/t/c15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fklatt's edits seem to be heavily promotional towards his own device that he is marketing at bestelectricmachine.com. He added[276] and then continually re-adds the material to 3D printing after deletion by other editors[277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288] and Doubly fed electric machine is an article created and heavily edited by him[289] that he sprinkles with links to his website that have been removed several times by other editors (removed by me last go around[290]). I personally don't see the lack of skill or competence claimed by Fklatt. He has been editing for 9 years now and Guy Macon's links above show Fklatt does know how to engage in talk when necessary and, even if it was true, WP:DONTGETIT is not proof against sanction. Fklatt seems to simply be WP:GAMING, namely 'Borderlining' edits after reverts. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and those of us who work on the engineering articles shouldn't have to spend any more time cleaning up after Fklatt's ongoing advertising campaign. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:3D printing#Conflict of interest editing. It looks like he is making a good-faith effort to follow our COI rules, but he is still treating Wikipedia like some website where you do X, Y and Z and your edit gets published. I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to engage us in a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given his recent replies on his talk page, I think he is playing a "I don't understand the rules" game in order to trigger WP:AGF and thus be allowed continue his advertising campaign. I think a series of escalating blocks will result in a sudden ability to carry on a normal conversation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jørgen88 has demonstrated that he cannot edit the page Adam Kotsko - a BLP - from a neutral point of view. He began editing there with this addition [291] headed "Racist remarks" which took Kotsko's remarks out of context, sourced from a right-leaning blog, and also identified Kotsko as Jewish (another mistake copied from the source; Kotsko was in fact raised as an evangelical Christian and is now a Catholic). Despite consensus going against him, Jørgen88 proceeded to edit war to add the content (see User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )). To evade sanctions, there is a very strong possibility that Jørgen88 edit warred at the page while logged out using 176.11.33.252. An SPI is open. That another Norwegian editor happened upon the page and began making identical reverts to continue the edit war is, of course, a possibility - but a very slim one. On the article's talk page, Jørgen88 has continued to demonstrate his true colours ("But I guess since he's a liberal, leftist Jew this incident can just be swept under the rug as if it never happened") and suggested that those opposed to his favoured content are students of Kotsko [292] and engaged in some conspiracy to whitewash the article [293]. Today he continued to violate BLP, calling Kotsko "racist scum" whose reputation is "very dirty ndeed" [sic]. This is entirely the wrong attitude to approach any BLP with and so I propose that Jørgen88 be banned from editing at Adam Kotsko and Talk:Adam Kotsko. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think censoring people from adding sourced content makes any sense. Not adding criticism where it is due, is biased in itself. Mr Kotsko made very racist tweets such as one where he suggested all white people should commit mass suicide. If that doesn't warrant criticism, then nothing will. I don't really care if you ban me from this article or Wikipedia all together, it will only strengthen my view of how biased Wikipedia is, and how a few cliques of users and admins block editing when they don't agree with it, often because of political or religious reasons. That's not how Wikipedia should work, but it looks like that's the way it is heading. The user above, Keri, has been very little diplomatic and obstructive in his/her way of dealing with my edits and my suggestion on the talk page, even deleting my inputs. I don't know why these users are so intent to keep the article clean from criticism, but either agenda, it doesn't matter what sources I bring regarding the racist and radical tweets, as the above user/s seem to insist to keep it away.Jørgen88 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Kotsko racist for his comments about white privilege, incorrectly calling him a "left-leaning liberal Jew" and calling him "racist scum" demonstrate (i) your bias (ii) your ignorance about the subject of the BLP (iii) the ignorance of your sources about Kotsko and (iv) your unsuitability to be editing a BLP. As for deleting your inputs, I reverted one of your edits per WP:BLPTALK. Keri (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol! What? A comment that a whole people should commit mass suicide is "a comment about white privilege"?! You can't be serious. This guy and me and others all edited the article with sources and yet you persist make drama out of something as simple as a criticism section. And you even try to get us blocked from editing. That's very desperate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 July 2015
"This guy and me and others..." Specifically, just you and Jørgen88. Both from Norway. And you made your first and only edits (prior to the one above) to support Jørgen88's edit warring... Keri (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm from Norway and so are five million other people. Unless you've got direct IP proof connecting me to any user (which there aren't) your accusations are groundless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015
Support topic ban for all BLPs - I don't think this particularly BLP is the issue so much as the behavior. Jørgen88's interest in Adam Kotsko is simply because he popped up on right-wing blogs for his facetious Twitter comments. Jørgen88 continually re-inserted false information into the BLP while arguing it is "well-sourced" and "sourced and verified content" (false) and then used an IP to re-insert the information to get his way. Then he went on rants about being censored on the talk page and the SPI. There has been no indication he understands the requirements of WP:BLP and not inserting WP:UNDUE information. He feels any blog that writes anything about anyone is a reliable source. Since his main contributions lie elsewhere [297], a topic ban would not prevent him from contributing to WP in other areas. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call Washington Post or the Daily Caller which was posted as sources on the talk page blogs. Also its not false information. Kotsko posted racist comments about how all white people should kill themselves and there's direct proof of his statements even though he tried to delete them after knowing he said something stupid. There are sources that can add this to Kotskos Wikipedia page. It looks like some users here have a political agenda and wants to keep the truth from being posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015 176.11.33.252
We're not here to talk about the content: that has been done at the article talk page. This is about behaviour at a BLP. And obvious sock is obvious. Keri (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Washington Post nor the Daily Caller (both of which are right-wing anyway) were used as sources, were they? Do you understand what things taken out of context are? Because Peter Schiff said the "mentally retarded" might be perfectly happy to work for $2 an hour because "you're worth what you're worth." It's a fact he said that and that he made certain gold predictions and then bawwwed to his followers[298] that they should go "fix" his WP article to make it more flattering, which you did,[299] though you complain the article labels him unfairly.[300] Funny how the same standards don't apply to everyone - you want to include a joking tweet in Adam Kotsko's bio like he really meant it, but not include his very through explanation of why it was taken out of context and the idea is absurd. Yes, obvious sock is obvious. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figure he meant to say right leaning; and the Post leans perceptibly to the right. Before the ip can derail the conversation back to content, can we now address how Jorgen88 figures Kotsko is a racist, racist scum, and a left-wing liberal Jew? Keri (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@mandia I don't even know who this Schiff guy is. And yeah "all white people should kill themselves" and "Charlie Hedbo is hate speech" sure sound like really funny jokes to me. Not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revenge nomination
I tagged some articles that User:CrazyAces489 recreated for CSD and have !voted to deleted several others of his articles. Out of the blue, he decided to nominate an article I wrote last month, Amin Khoury, for deletion. I don't find it coincidental. The nom reasoning isn't even valid and has all the appearance of being just a WP:POINTy nomination. This isn't an AGF issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. You are the only one who even wrote on the article. I thought it was a vanity page and notability is not inherited. I didn't think the article seemed anything more than a vanity page. Now you saying that I came from the crap factory [301] or I am "butt hurt" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. [302]CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote it. It's not even a month old, so no, others haven't yet. Your "notability is not inherited" reasoning is nonsense, since that's not asserted. Yes, I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory. I shouldn't have and have struck those comments. That has nothing to do with this issue, but does tend to reinforce my position that you nominated this article out of spite. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very long record of deleted articles, including a high proportion of biographies. It seems as if we ought to be introducing a restriction on creating articles other than by WP:AFC for a while, at least until CrazyAces learns to write a properly sourced first draft. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth noting User:Tokyogirl79 also told CA to take more care in process, even to go through the drafting process and have it reviewed before creating any article. This is a pattern and someone needs to break it because CA clearly can't do it themselves. Along with several other issues CA chooses to not fix...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you would think that I have done a lot of articles as of late. [304] I am on my own self restriction. One of them just passed an AFD and the other is a martial artist who is a black belt magazine hall of famer. I actually nominated my last article to AFD so that others could bring forth opinions on its notability. [305] I am ok with not writing any articles outside of the ones I am trying to push out of userspace. So it is not like I wasn't trying. In terms of that article Mr Amin? It had 2 weak keeps and one keep from him. He was also the ONLY editor. I didn't see any notability under WP:ANYBIO or even WP:GNGCrazyAces489 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I was the only editor (I didn't need all caps to say it either). I created the article about 3 weeks ago. He is a low profile, non-controversial figure, so there's not likely to be a big rush to edit it. You act like every article must have a team working it the minute it hits live space. It's never going to be a GA unless he suddenly starts getting more coverage, but there's enough to reach GNG. I almost forgot that you were the one who nominated Crispus Attucks[306], a guy who has over a hundred books written about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amin simply didn't appear noteworthy to me. [307] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [308] , [309] and more [310]. Niteshift seemed to have found the time to edit and gut many articles that I started. Yes I nominated Attucks because I thought based on wiki policy there was no history that was documented on him. I was incorrect! It happens! Saying I am butt hurt [311]isn't Niteshifts first negative comment he has made about me. He has insulted me many times even on AN/I [312] and other places. This isn't the first time Niteshift has had trouble with insults. [313]CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyAces489, please don't make a virtue out of not creating articles recently, when you've in fact been creating articles with your other account, NegroLeagueHistorian. I hope that doesn't mean you're trying to evade scrutiny of what you did with that account, and I most certainly hope that you will stick to one account in future. (In your unblock request in April you stated "I won't create another account"[314], and yet you did.) Several admins have had a lot of patience in overlooking the fact that you were using (at least) two accounts concurrently, so please keep your nose clean it that regard. Compare User talk:Tokyogirl79. If you don't, and it comes to my attention, I will actually block you, despite the fact that I take systemic bias issues very seriously. It's because of those issues that I and others have been giving you second, third and fourth chances, but they'll run out eventually. Note: I see you've posted a {{retired}} template on your talkpage. You'll be most welcome to change your mind and return, as you've done before, but not, and I'll stress this, to simply jump to another account. Enough with the evasion of scrutiny, please.
As for your pretty obviously retaliatory AfD of Niteshift's article, you may remember I told you in April that I hoped you wouldn't have to be formally limited in your use of AfD because of your combativeness and poor track record there. But when I see this, I wonder. It may come to that. Bishonen | talk09:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I created a new account after an admin emailed me and said that I could if I retired. I minded my own business and was outed. I can even provide the link where I was outed on May 28, 2015 [315]. I guess being outed is considered to be ok. I had stayed away from martial arts articles when I had a new account (an area where I had an emotional attachment as per cleanstart ). [316] I created articles that were important to minorities including Congolese Genocide and African American History
which were automatically noteworthy based on accomplishments via WP:WPBB/N "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." I made a few other articles and that was it." Automatically notable and no chance of being deleted via AFD.
In terms of TheGracefulSlick, after he saw that I created James Takemori he messaged PRehse and asked to nominate it for deletion and later claimed he wanted nothing to do with my work on 29 May 2015. [317] Yet strangely enough he started showing up on places my new account went to and started heavily editing there. [318] I retired my new account and went back to this one, I also left a reason why. [319] I felt I was being hounded and and asked Tokyogirl79 to ask TheGracefulSlick to leave me alone in the spirit of IBAN. [320] To which he agreed on June 29, 2015 [[321] ] and simply ignored as of June 30, 2015 to July 4, 2015 . [322]
He has voted to the exact opposite of what I vote (although once changed his vote) including [323][324][325][326][327] . The purpose of TheGracefulSlicks hounding me I believe is based on my nominating a few of his articles for deletion 2 months ago. [328][329][330][331] TheGracefulSlick stated that he believes that I have a personal vendetta against him [332] Another even told us to stay away from each other. [333] I have been trying to get away from him as early as April 25, 2015! [334]
In terms of Amn Khoury, I don't see how Amin_Khoury is considered to be noteworthy. YRCW has a CEO James L. Welch and the company is a fortune 500 yet he has no article. [[335]] What did he accomplish?! His firms website is listed as a source and according to the author Niteshift, a martial arts website isn't a good source for a martial artist. [336] So how is it a business website reliable for a businessman? I saw the various arguments used including notability is not inherited and other stuff exists. I learned rapidly these terms when I have had about 6 my articles placed on AFD at once by a small group of editors? Feb 23, 2015 [337][338][339][340][341][342] Feb 24 [343] It was overwhelming. I thought there was something to it. [344] I wondered what was the similarities between the individuals and there was 2 things (100 percent of them did Judo and 7 out of 8 were African American). When I made that statement, I was said to have implied racial implications. [345] The funny thing is that I saw that most of my articles in general that were deleted were African American or individuals of black descent. Strange coincidence? Possible WP:WORLDVIEW ?
Now I keep getting attacked because of my grammar. [346] I was even mocked for it by Niteshift36 [347] It seem that sadly, I am an innercity male where ebonics or African American Vernacular English is the language people speak. 91 percent of wikipedians are white males. [348] . Myself and most blacks speak very different, often listen to different music, and have a different relationship with the authorities from that of the average white male. Yet I am attacked for it? That is a bit unfair! I am told to go read rules and write "properly?" I am told by Niteshift36 that I am butthurt and make a crap factory and it is ok? [349]. Even earlier on April 9 he referred to me as "Crazy"Aces [350] on an AN/I . Even Bishonen stated that it was bullying "P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." Niteshift36 stated that " But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars " (implying a sexual innuendo). [1] Yet I had , I got blocked for personal attacks when I put forth a corelation of articles [351] and he blatantly has stated nasty things about me and nothing happens? He has a long history of personal attacks. [352]
I created an article Racial bias on Wikipedia and was being judged on it. Problem is that it exists on wikipedia despite what people say. It was nominated for an AFD and was speedy keep. [353] Do I believe that WP:WORLDVIEW exists on wikipedia? Sure do!
The only thing that I asked is that Niteshifts behavior and repeated personal attacks be looked into. That TheGracefulSlick be WP:IBANed from interacting with me. I made one request and it was ignored. [354]
To be honest, I believe nothing will come about from this. Niteshifts repeated personal attacks will be glossed over at the most a slap on the wrist. My request for an IBAN will be ignored despite violations of WP:Hounding[355][356] I will probably be reprimanded for something and or told that I am playing the role of the victim. It will be said that I have poor grammar, make bad articles, or the sort. I am pretty much semi-retired. I wanted to finish up a few articles Florendo and Paul Vizzio and quit. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being a victim. In all the time you spent digging up diffs of stuff that happened months ago, you could have actually read the policy on reliable sources and started using better ones. Yes, grammar matters. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to write something and be unconcerned with grammar, start a blog on WordPress or something. I note that in your tirade, you leave out the parts where I did admit errors, retracted things and.....oh yeah, actually tried to help you. Instead of accepting help, guidance or just good advice, you rejected it with excuses and continued the same errors with the statement "I create so others can work". That, in and of itself, is a hostile attitude. I hope a passing admin finally closes this since the issue of your revenge nomination has been handled. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift36 Of course, exactly what I stated! "stop being a victim." You retracted some of them after being told you had to. As per the link. As per above wth [User:Bishonen]] Other people have repeatedly told you to calm down on your tone with me. [357] Sorry, that my Ebonics isn't correct for you. It is still an accepted language of my people in America. I don't think that people who only speak with an African American Vernacular English should be regulated to Wordpress (and find it offensive that you would imply that). You have been so nasty to me that I am left to simply ignore almost anything you say. I had to semi-ban you from my talk page because of your attitude. [358] . You have been taking the same quote of "I create so others can work" is over 2 months old [359] and is taken out of context. With so many of my articles being gutted by you and others. I simply am left to only create stubs. You complain that I am taking personal insults that are old but you are bringing up this quote that is even older! A bit hypocritical don't you think? CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):*No, it wasn't taken out of context. You actually defended it. It explains so much of what you do here, an issue that a number of experienced editors have tried to get you to correct. You keep claiming that your problem is that you speak "ebonics". I submit that isn't the issue. "Ebonics" doesn't make you use the wrong word, like you did in your response (It's "relegated", not "regulated"), misrepresent sources or fail to even try to comply with RS. You may be speaking perfect "ebonics" (if there is such a thing as perfect "ebonics"), so I would never say your "ebonics" isn't good enough for me. I will, however, call you on editing with "ebonics". I won't apologize for the Word Press comment, because there's nothing offensive about it. In any case, since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Ebonics Wikipedia, the grammar rules of English apply and if you find that to be unfair, you can be the founder of the Ebonics Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
African American Vernacular English is a form of English. With its own set of rules. Shocking how you stopped defending your attacks. They are what they are. Reliable sources from the limited African American publications makes it unfair. We must make considerations when it comes to SOME sources. I don't think that people who speak African American Vernacular English should only use wordpress. If you don't feel your statement has problems. That is a problem in itself. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not quoting sources using AAVE, it's you that is using it. It's not acceptable. Nor did I say that people who speak AAVE should only use Word Press. I said if you want to write in AAVE, consider starting a blog. Thanks for demonstrating again how you misrepresent things. Speak it all you want. Write it all you want. Be proud of it all you want. Just don't edit the English Wikipedia with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is concerned about your ethnicity! Your articles are gutted because you use terrible sources and the topics are unnotable. Maybe Niteshift said some regrettable things because he can't stand how you refuse to learn and think your work is ok. It's not! How many times does someone need to tell you, you need to improve?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to wait for Bishonen (or any admin, please end this!) to close this and hopefully block CA in the process. CA has caused too much damage and his excuses are getting even more bogus. He has been given too many chances because the work he is involved in is important, but CA's editing is not reflecting on that importance. It's hurting the project and the subjects of the article that deserve a better representation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So me speaking African American Vernacular English is bogus? Or creating articles that are about African Americans is hurting? Do you see the problem of not having articles ? In the article "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?" by JAY CASSANO it is addressed [360]. "Wikipedia is the go-to place for information, especially for young people who were born in the digital age. It's what they seek out. So even if they do a Google search and there is information about somebody or something online, they look for Wikipedia. The existence of an entry on Wikipedia gives it weight. It's kind of like 'Oh, it's on Wikipedia? Then it's important.' " I would rather an article written in AAVE than no article. Blocking me for addressing a problem is not how things should be done. You have not been working well with others and have been warned for it. [361]CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a warning that was Bishonen politely asking me to not comment on his talkpage. I never said creating article about Aftican Americans was bad, but you clearly shouldn't be the one doing it. You continue to not listen and it's completely astounding.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure it was closed? Anyway, I'm not sure it's time to close the thread, frankly. I'm pretty tired of CrazyAces' monumental timewasting IDHT behaviour lately, not least on my page. In April, I undid his indefinite ban. Because of the systemic bias angle, I gave a lot of extra chances and assumed a lot of good faith, and so have others. It seems to me that by now the only alternative to a renewed site ban is a ban against creating articles other than through WP:AfC. CrazyAces escaped such a ban by the skin of his teeth in April, pleading (reasonably) the backlog at AfC (though with the unreasonable rider "I create so others can work").[362] I told him I would no longer insist he go through AfC, on condition that he started focusing more on quality than quantity and gave his creations more love before posting them in mainspace.[363] Perhaps he did give them more love, and stopped intentionally relying on others to fix all problems; I don't know. But in that case — if he's doing his best with these new articles — then he still needs to go through AfC, where experienced editors can help him and inform him. It's not working as it is, and the use of several accounts concern me very much also. See also this discussion on User talk:Tokyogirl79. This is my proposal:
Proposed: ban from creating new articles
I propose that CrazyAces be only allowed to create new articles through WP:AfC, per argument above. Not a recommendation — I feel we've done enough recommending to this user, with very little effect — but an actual ban from creating new articles other than through AfC. There will also be no more tolerance for attempts to avoid scrutiny by creating articles (or other editing) using another account.
Support - I have had too many conflicts with CA over his articles. Everyone has tried to help him, but he simply refuses to listen so this is the only alternative other than an indefinite block. Unfortunately, he is still getting into conflicts, right now with User:SubSeven so other things need to be addressed. And I should note this is not limited to his CA account, but also User:NegroLeagueHistorian and the other account CA mentioned he would use when he retired as User:NegroLeagueHistorian.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, you never said anything about Ebonics/AAVE before your last "retirement" when your odd grammar was noted by an admin. Now, after you thought it up started using that excuse, it has been your sole excuse. AAVE doesn't make you use sources that aren't reliable. AAVE doesn't make you insert trivial factoids to increase the number of sources. AAVE doesn't make you misrepresent what a source says. The only thing you can blame on AAVE is grammar. The rest is all just your refusal to properly edit. Agreeing to a creation ban isn't required. Agreeing with multiple conditions? Good luck with that. From my end, I never noticed your edits under the other name because I don't edit those articles. If you stay out of martial arts articles, I probably won't see you. I can't think of a non-martial arts article we've interacted on. But if I do cross paths with you and your sources are shoddy, I will correct the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, I made mention of it before in April. I made another account and TheGracefulSlick was following me around in that one. [364] After I was outed by Peter Rehse. [365]CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An AFC is essentially a ban as the backlog is over one month.[366] The funny thing is that many I had considerably less articles over the past 2 months. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift and me were fixing your articles and suggested ways for you to improve so you wouldn't have them deleted. You refused with "I create so others can work". An IBAN doesn't make sense if you truly want your articles to improve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want your help or want to interact with you. Point blank. You have hounded me on 2 accounts and what appears to follow me around on wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOUNDING says 'Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. ' --SubSeven (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Editor has a track record of questionable articles, has never taken the help and advice offered to him seriously and....well, I'll just stop with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting one of CA's most recent comments: "The sources are the sources. I put something in, and it gets gutted. So I just started to make stubs. Less work and less headaches."[368]. It's probably worth specifying to him in the final wording that creating a stub is the same as creating an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a stub is better than having no article as Black History is very underrepresented on wikipedia. I try putting in good sources but many times they are just removed for a variety of reasons. I don't want to argue with people anymore so I just don't bother. Create a stub with some strong sources and hopefully other wikipedians can grow the articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong sources? In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Hmmm.....create a stub and hopefully others can grow it. That sounds a lot like "I create so others can work". Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would the ban/restriction apply to the user's alternate accounts and sockpuppets as well? Just want to clarify, since the problem could merely shift if a ban/restriction is put into place. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user repeatedly manipulates the UKIP page to conform to his own pro-UKIP biased views, each time I have added reliably sourced information to this page he has removed it mostly without reading though on my first edit he appeared to skim-read the source thus missing or ignoring the relevant information even when I had pointed out in the reference which part of the Guardian article it came from. The reason given for the edit reversals is that it does not conform to his own view. I also noticed on the talk page that I am not the only user to have noticed his unhelpful editing; user:Midnightblueowl, who also mentions on the talk page that the user I am reporting is an open 'kipper, found the user in question to have removed the term "radical right populist" in description of the party despite sources demarcating a clear consensus among political scientists that the term was an appropriate descriptor. The same happen to me when I attempted to add such things as "social conservatism" and "anti-immigrationism" to the ideology section with reliable sources categorically stating that this was UKIP ideology even despite party denial of the term "social conservatism", I also attempted to amend the party's political position to "right-wing to far-right" with I reliable source stating clearly that UKIP's policies were far-right.
I urge you to consider action against this user for his repeated disruptive and biased, non-objective editing and edit-warring. I have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the matter through opening a dialogue on the user's talk page, however he chose to ignore my message despite have come online since (reverting unjustly even more edits to the UKIP page).
In case you note that I was previously blocked after I mistakenly reported a user, I recognise that that was the result of a callous and unthinking vendetta on my part and have since apologised to the user whom I had reported that time. I hope it does not affect my reporting of this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without direct evidence (in other words, diffs to support your accusations), you are quite possibly looking at another block. To accuse an editor of misdeeds without evidence is a form of personal attack. This is stated without any research into the merits of the complaint, just as a procedural note. John from Idegon (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon:What are diffs? I do not understand the jargon of wikipedians. Sorry. There might have an explanation of sorts on the complaint edit page but it is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, for we speak not the sacred tongue of the wikipedians. To non-wikipedians the lengthy paragraph above in which I describe the problems from the user faced by me and another user would be seen as an explanation. Do not discredit it simply because I have used real words and not obfuscated abbreviation and symbols which require ridiculous lengths if time to be spent reading soporific articles to penetrate in even a facile manner. Wikipedians, eh? Sorry, bit of a rant there. No offence intended, just got a bit annoyed due to my non-comprehension of what to wiki users is an explanation. In good faith, I thank you for taking the time to reply. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1- One of the users attempting to edit UKIP's twitter page to list them falsely as "Far-Right" using a random 2 line comment in a tabloid newspaper (the Guardian) is a self admitted "Communist", "Pro-EU", Pro-UK joining the Euro" and pro-Welsh Independence. It is obvious from the vandalism on the page that this user has posted that they are anti-UKIP and allowing their bias to effect what they edit the page to. These actions have been takinjg place over multiple page with biased sources and can be viewed on the History page of the UKIP page. This user has also declined to properly discuss such edits, and no mutual conclusion to edit the page to include said information has been drawn. The user has however continued to repeatidly edit and remove "undo's" to his/her vandalism and continues to vandalise the page with inaccurate and poorly sourced information.
The attempts to categorise UKIP as Far-Right should be deemed vandalism and removed when edited. This by User: Snowded who has jointly persued with damage of the page.
2- User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh has also attempted to add references from the Guardian as valid proof of UKIP's standing politically, and has expressed clear bias in communication with me on my User page which can be viewed to the admins satisfaction. This user has threatened me with reporting should I attempt to edit inaccurate claims that he/she has posted, as party ideologies and also backing up the claim UKIP are Far-Right, which is factually inaccurate and a politically motivated and biased claim.
Comments such as "It's anti-immigrationist policies" - Of which UKIP have none in reality. "strong sense of nationalism" - UKIP don't believe or have ever expressed an opinion of superiority over other countries. But most startlingly obvious is "opposition to co-operation other countries (E.U. (which myself would like Britain to leave) and intervention in struggling foreign countries are both opposed staunchly by the party)." - UKIP oppose the transfer of legislation and further expansionism by the EU. That is in no way Nationalistic, but does express a pretty obvious exposed bias against UKIP seeing as they don't oppose European cooperation or assisting countries.
This user has also let other bias slip with further comments desperately trying to link UKIP to the Far Right French National Front, and Britain First also (viewable on my talk page). Both parties have been barred from partnering or having former members join UKIP as a Party. In reality they are proscribed. It is pretty obvious their is an agenda at play here. Especially when you take note of the random dropping in of the "Nazi party" in mention and referring to UKIP supporters as "Kippers". An attempt at false labeling randomly dropped into discussion that I find personally offensive.
I also further to this believe this user should be reported for making false allegations and threatening Wikipedia users on their talk pages (again can be viewed on my talk page).
When this user posts comments on talk pages such as "Edit the UKIP page in a biased way again and I shall have to report you, leading probably to a block or ban." after editing unreliable info that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, action should really be taken.
As I said to this user on his/her talk page. If I was a biased UKIP supporter, I would have edited the Wikipedia page to read that UKIP are a center-right party. Something I really believe. But the most reliable source that has been added to the page made reference that UKIP were a "Right Wing Party". This source being removed without reason. That source being a Norwegian Political book discussing politics in the Nordic Countries of Europe.
I respect this reference and left it as it is. Main consensus is that UKIP are a Right Wing party, and so editing UKIP as Far Right is wrong. As is labeling "Nationalistic" and or "anti-Immigration", which they are not.
I understand evidence needs to be given. As someone who isn't hugely technologically savvy on Wikipedia all I can do is direct admin to my talk page where I have been threatened for trying to remove false information and also suggest admin look at the edit history of the UKIP pages for the mislabeling and false information posted on said article. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:42, 5 July 2015 (GMT)
I can see you are stubborn RoverTheBendInSussex! Good on you for sticking to your views so firmly! However, UKIP support massive and in my view completely unjustified reduction of immigration, this is anti-immigrationist, for the term is not limited to those who oppose all immigration, though I think Farage would happily ban it outright. UKIP opposed gay marriage - socially conservative, prioritising British workers over foreign ones - British Nationalism. Just because you dislike those terms does not mean they shouldn't be used, possibly you are a disillusioned labour voter? In this case, terms such as socially conservative would probably not be descriptive of your personal political views but they are descriptive of Farage's (a former Tory) and thus the party he dominates. More over, many, many non-UKIP supporters (you were offended by 'kipper so I shall not use it, sorry) would agree they are far-right and some UKIP supporters have gone on to join far-right groups (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33149621), Farage and UKIP itself supported an E.U. bill to fund some of the far-right political parties (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/27/ukip-far-right) and open far-rightists have advocated them (Nick Griffin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/former-bnp-leader-nick-griffin-says-hell-vote-ukip-9893376.html) and Britain First (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-ukip-say-farright-group-britain-first-10126389.html) have both advocated voting UKIP, though Griffin could be ignored as I reckon this was just to spite the BNP after his recent sacking). Use of nazi was to show that I was not unjustly comparing UKIP to them, not all on the far-right are nazis (though I am certainly not an apologist for any far-right political views), though you seem to have construed it as meaning the opposite, in which case I am deeply sorry for the confusion. It is not a non-objective vandalism. Though I would never do it again, I have vandalised a wiki page before and let me assure you I go ridiculously over the top. Had this been a vandalism you would have at the very least found the terms Neo-nazi and fascist in the ideology section, which were not there and I would not have both to source them or revert the edits after they had been deleted, rightly in the case of actual vandalism. I used far-right not randomly and I assure you it was not political bias and that the edit was merely representative of my findings after an internet search. I assure you no vandalism was intended or offence on your part. I apologise, I didn't mean to threaten you I merely felt I ought to warn you of what I or another of the four users, mention in previous comments, you have disrupted might do if you continued in this vein.
If the guardian is not a valid source, I don't know what is, for the guardian is the source give in the example on the help page! Is there any point in editing Wikipedia if, even with appropriate sources from the site suggested by wiki itself, edit will invariably be deleted.
This is not a personal vendetta against the user I have accused and I apologise if it came across as such. I merely think that his removing of sourced info suggests bias. For diffs see my previous comments
You criticise user:snowded, however it should be noted that they have a barn star for maintaining a "neutral and balanced" viewpoint in their edits. Ignore me if you want to, be list to user:snowded for he seems a laudable wiki-user and is in the same predicament as me. Please do not besmirch their name as he has done nothing wrong.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting an WP:IBAN on this individual. He had promised another Admin he would stop interacting with me, but still shows up in multiple places that I go to. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you promised to adhere to policy, which you continue to fail at doing, even though you know it was a part of the agreement. I was merely noting that you were, again, failing to uphold policy which is why there is an AN/I about you above. Our "agreement" was I would not edit your articles and you wouldn't edit mine, which I have upheld. I only edited an AN/I about you because I had valuable info to the discussion and I mentioned it to Tokyogirl79 because she was the admin who set up the "agreement". This should be closed immediately and someone needs to finally take care of CA's purposeful failure to comply with others users and policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am back here on this account is that TheGracefulslick harrassed me on my new user account. [371] I even left a letter on wikipedia notifying people on it. I simply don't want any interaction with him as I stated here. [372] If I wasn't outted by Phrese and TheGracefulSlick I wouldn't have all these issues. I simply want to try and create articles to expand wikipedia. I don't think its going to happen . There is a strong lack of black editors on wikipedia and I believe for very good reason. Certain behavior is tolerated and the buddy system is in strong effect and some articles are tolerated while others are heavily scrutinized. I took a break and went somewhere else and was outed and stalked. I came back and it was worse. If I do come back, I would like this IBAN to be in place. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles are the issue! They are poorly written, poorly sourced, and unnotable. People keep telling you this! Since, CA announced another "retirement" to avoid impending punishment I suggest this AN/I be closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RGloucester (talk·contribs) told me to go to hell ("twice") and accused me of stalking him [373]. I already reported RGloucester for their ongoing incivility and disruptive behavior last week and nothing was done about it - the case was moved to archive. (I added the attack at the archive as it was not closed, but was informed everything moved to archive are abandoned, so I started a new report here). RGloucester's bullying and WP:BATTLEGROUND over everything is harmful to Wikipedia. Should this be brought to arbitration or can this be properly handled at ANI? Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how fun. It was a joke, and a reference. If you'd prefer if I were to go to Hades, I shall be happy to. Damn me to Hades, twice. Now that I've been damned to Hades twice, would you please stop spreading falsities at every turn? It must be fun, I imagine, but I haven't the patience or time to continue dealing with fellow Hadesians. RGloucester — ☎04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks claimed to be jokes are still personal attacks. I also take offense at your statement accusing me of "spreading falsities at every turn" since I certainly do not. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me, please. I wonder what money is in muckraking, pray tell? Oh! How foolish of me! Money, muckraking?! The money of ego, stuff of argent wrought! A common stuff, the stuff of kings! In this age, one of leering, there isn't much, but constant peering...a mucking...a raking...a sacking of the muck, a packing of the muck! Muck, muck! To market with muck, for sale and for let, sold for tuppence, not much left of 'commin'sense', that's the world you've brought. RGloucester — ☎04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey nonny, nonny and such. This is not the first time RGloucester has been excessively abrasive in an AfD. Jokes are all well and good but these types of outbursts tend to happen more when you are disagreed with which makes them less "jokey" in my eyes. Chillum04:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg of you, great Chillum, delete both me and that essay, for the sake of the encylopaedia. The administrative scythe must reap the weeds of my produce. Will you join me in Hades? RGloucester — ☎04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, just close this and move along. Before Monty shows up bitching about shaving his beard. Or before we have to deal with da xiang bao za shi de la du zi. GregJackPBoomer!05:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
partially my fault, haven't edited sence the 12th of May, asking on IRC if there is anything i should do other than revert the stuff that wasnt me. kthxbai Keastesknowthyself14:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a request at RPP to protect the affected templates with the most transclusions and a request at AIV to block you as a compromised account, though you seem to be back in control now. Conifer (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the account for a week. We can take more drastic action if the problem resumes at that point (user has changed their password). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is creating a series of interrelated articles, biographies of researchers, their publications and organization. The notability of the scholarship and the scholars themselves have not been established, and most of the articles rely on primary sources. May merit observation for conflict of interest, as well. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sam Walton. There are numerous reasons I've mostly forsaken contributing as a registered account. One of the secondary reasons has been cultural, which is to say that as long as IPs are far more likely to get hammered for making constructive edits, I'll choose to edit that way. That any type of explanation is requested is, to be blunt, creepy. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it's necessary to need to take anything on faith, or to assume the possibility that I've been blocked; the assumption being that no credible editor would opt to contribute anonymously. I've 15 barnstars, appreciate them, yet don't give a whit to acquire more. Nor to be questioned without reason. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who show up from out of nowhere, and obviously know their way around, automatically raise suspicions. I can't tell you how many editors made the same claims as you, and were eventually found out to be evading blocks. Don't act suspicious, and you won't raise suspicions. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. I looked at several of these articles and they are just as you say. It sure has the earmarks of paid placement. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without meaning to out the editor, it wasn't difficult to connect the dots and find that this is part of a public relations effort. To their credit, once addressed, the editor was transparent as to their connection. And maybe a few of the bios will stand as notable if the subjects' academic credentials are substantiated. But the lot of articles are problematic; perhaps several can be AfD'd together. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2601:188:0 had already notified April Fain about this ANI thread (it's earlier on the Talk page...). But I've left April a note that will hopefully help this user with Talk page procedures... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UK vandal using Greek IPs?
It appears that a persistent UK vandal, the cause of death vandal, has begun using Greek IPs. Compare the following pairs of edits, one made by the UK vandal and the other made by newly active Greek IPs:
These UK and Greek IPs have recently been changing a lot of infoboxes from one sort to another, that is changing Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox person, most likely because the former template does not support parameters for spouse or cause of death.
Joe Cocker gets visited by the UK IP 86.8.78.35 changing a header to "Death", and then by the Greek IP 46.103.174.17 changing the infobox, followed by more Greek IPs 87.202.0.191 changing the infobox, and changing the cause of death parameter 176.92.64.150, finally changing the infobox 46.198.23.4.
So it appears that our LTA vandal has shifted his activity to Greece, either physically or by proxy. Any suggestions for stopping this guy? Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vacation to consistent vandals=unsecured shop/hotel wifi and IP's free from blocks and simple collateral damage they don't have to take responsibility from once the trip ends. The children's TV/broadcast vandal community loves when they get away and go to town on their favorite articles while their parents/SO sees the sights, so sadly this is hardly new. Nate•(chatter)04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With them operating from random IP ranges at the moment and hitting random articles, there's nothing really that can be done through blocking or protection. However, if they're making very similar edits over and over, an edit-filter could be useful. I'll post over there. Black Kite (talk)19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legal Threat
User Com2mass has been blocked indefinitely by Orange Mike for making legal threats. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Richard Silverstein
No has the right of Free Speech as an editor at Wikipedia, however, we generally do not sanction editors for exercising that right when they are writing their own blogs or articles that aren't associated with Wikipedia. What someone does on their own blog is not within our domain, literally and figuratively speaking. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition I filed sockpuppet investigation since I believed at the time both רדיומן and Richards1052 were used by the same person but later updated that I found out רדיומן is very active on Hebrew WP so I'm less suspicious.
The talk page of the article had some discussion but it was deleted with the articles.
In all those discussions Silverstein showed little understanding of WP policies such an WP:RS and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL with comments such as Wikipedia would want an article based on such knowledge and then anyone who had a hand in removing it will be seen as having done a disservice to Wikipedia.
Attack
On July 1st, Silverstein [published an article named "The Poison Pill of Israeli, and Wikipedia Censorship". In which he provide my username (which I guess is in the public space) but also tell lies about the process the brought to the deletion of the article some of which misrepresent in negative false light the whole WP community.
He talks about 'groups' of editors where no such thing happened.
He claims there is 'internal pro-Israel Wikipedia discussion groups'.
He claims 'pro-Israel elements working within Wikipedia achieved... censorship'.
He ends with 'Fools like these cheapen Wikipedia and betray its mission'.
More false accusation repeats from WP discussions which can be found in the discussions I linked above.
I have left 2 messages to Silverstein on his blog. The first pointing out 'inaccuracies' in his report and a second, asking him to remove this incorrect/misleading information or I'll complain. (Messages can't be seen since he moderates comments). He responded in a tweet "Israeli who succeeded in getting Wikipedia to delete article on disappeared Ethiopian, Avera Mengistu threatens 2 haul me B4 Wiki committee."
I would like to ask admins to contact him and demand the removal of these false accusations against myself and the community. Further refresh of WP policies is probably in place as well. Kigelim (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comments
If you are asking Wikipedia admins to contact a Wikipedia user about something he wrote and published off-Wiki, it's extremely unlikely that would happen. If Richards1052 does something untoward on-Wiki that's behavioral and not a content dispute, that's their baliwick, but (in general) what people do off-Wiki, and what opinions they express there, is not something they would normally get involved in -- nor, I suspect, would the intervention of Wikipedia admins change Silverstein's opinion about what happened. BMK (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what BMK wrote. We're not going to take action because you're butthurt over what a Wikipedia editor wrote about you in his blog.
Malik, I'm not very active and yes' after this shenanigan I put some focus on the article and Silverstein. This has nothing to do with the subject. In all the discussions I treated him with the utmost respect and I expect the same back.
If admins feel it is not of their interest, fine. I'm not making the rules. But he clearly uses WP for his own purposes which you have warn him in the past yourself. If you feel using WP to spread his 'speculations', not accept uninvolved editors decision and then present WP as an Israeli puppet is acceptable, that is fine with me.
User has an extensive history of adding promotional links on Wikia, earning him at least one block. Example:
Hi, I saw that you had been working on the wiki for Walking Dead and was wondering if you'd be interested in creating newsline pages for the actors. Newslines is like a "Wikipedia for news. Our writers add 50-150 word summaries of news (life events, YouTube performances, interviews, crimes etc) about celebrities, authors, companies and products. The summaries are sorted into interactive news timelines called "newslines". You can add news on any topic you like. Because we share 50% of advertising revenue with our contributors, someone like you could make a lot of money (possibly thousands of dollars/month) for very little time investment on your part. Have a look at the site, and let me know what you think: http://newslines.org/about/
Wikia ban - March 2015 User has already been banned from one Wikia project for solicitation of users to his company: Wikia solicitation warning [395] and ban [396]
Five year Wikipedia block after COI editing - "Relentless and clue-resistant COI. Block to stop the pain, discussion on ANI." - Blocklog for "Sparkzilla"
Note - his March block was after he paid paid $129 US Dollars to PR Newswire to publish his February Press release promising his employees "Registered users can also earn income by inviting friends into the system" - he pays to promote his website, and pays his employees to "recommend a friend" - meaning that he has a strong financial incentive in paying for new employees to start working for him.
The user paid to promote this Press Release on 17 Feb 2015, and has since then, only used wikipedia to promote his business, propositioning users with WP:SPAM links to the site, that promise "Earn 50% revenue share." In order to avoid accountability for his actions, he describes these spam links as "educational" or "informational" (COI and IDHT)
AfDs
May 2014 - contributed to AfD on Amal Alamuddin [397] Then added promotional link 1 and 2, adding a link to his own website ([398]).
I was quite surprised to see the article remain, considering the large number of 'Delete' votes, but the remnants do appear to be more "encyclopedic". If you are interested in repurposing the mcMillen data you already have, or in creating news archives that won't get deleted, then feel free to give Newslines a try any time. http://newslines.org
Deleted article getting you down? You article on Gunther Holtorf is a good fit for Newslines. Because we are a news archive our standard of inclusion is based on newsworthiness, rather than Wikipedia's abstract notion of "notability". Check out the site here [http://newslines.org
Note - Sparkzilla's extensive history of solicitation across Wikia projects, for which he was already banned on one site, means that his claims to be trying to "educate" users or "illustrate" a point are disingenuous - the phrase "You article on Gunther Holtorf is a good fit for Newslines" or "feel free to give Newslines a try any time" are clearly promotional recruitment in line with his Wikia solicitation. The policy on Wikia is similar to Wikipedia, so this represents a cross-site "Didn't hear that"
June 2015 - User spams Wikipedia ([399]) after spamming left-wing outlet Columbia Spectator ([400]) and AVFM ([401]) - Note that if he really cared about gender bias in wikipedia, he probably wouldn't be promoting his articles on AVFM.
writes "I was quite surprised to see the article remain, considering the large number of 'Delete' votes, but the remnants do appear to be more "encyclopedic". If you are interested in repurposing the mcMillen data you already have, or in creating news archives that won't get deleted, then feel free to give Newslines a try any time." - this is not educational, it is promotional.
The user describes AfD processes as "tiresome discussions" ([402]) but contributes to them, in order to harass users and make them frustrated, so that he can offer them recruitingspam links to his for-profit company (eg [403]). Note, his spam links state "Earn 50% revenue share for writing and editing news summaries. Invite your friends to earn more!" (archive.org) - these are designed to recruit frustrated users to work for his company, that he and his wife founded and run.
Summary - Since sparkzilla was banned from a Wikia site in March 2015 for solicitation, he has continued to promote his site on user talk pages on Wikipedia, stating "feel free to give Newslines a try any time." His extensive history of transparent solicitation on many Wikia projects shows that his claims that his wikipedia conduct is "educational" is disingenuous at best. The user's existing ban on Wikia for violating solicitation rules means that their Spam behaviour here does not need a warning to be enforced.
Given the user's previous five year ban for COI, it would seem that any proposals less than an indef ban are, to me, without merit. The user's lack of useful contributions following the March 2015 Wikia ban means that they are Not Here to build an encyclopedia, only to make repetitious deletion arguments, with an apparent COI.
I also recommend that, if the user's conduct is found to be a violation of spam, their website "newslines.com" be added to an edit filter to block spam additions by sockpuppet accounts.
Aronzak is reacting because I voted to delete Victoria Taylor for lack of notability (no baiting and harassing at all, as you will see from the AfD). He has added a large number of news links to the page in an attempt to force notability. To help him understand the difference between newsworthiness and notability and the difference between and encyclopedia and a news archive I posted an explanatory message to his talk page, and included a link to my site for comparison. Perhaps knowing that news is not the same as notability, this user would perhaps not waste other Wikipedia users' time by posting a multitude of news-based links in an attempt to force notability on a minor person. Like this user, many people on Wikipedia would benefit from knowing the difference between content that is encyclopedic and notable, and newsworthy but not notable. In any case, after having him add four messages to my talk page and reporting me -- instead of simply deleting the message -- all this reminds me is that Wikipedia is somewhat toxic environment, so to save myself, and the good people here any trouble, I will not attempt this kind of "education" again. -- Sparkzillatalk!04:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"link to my site for comparison" - user is deceptive - this is a for-profit company owned and operated by the user, which they promote in violation of WP:Spam. This is a violation of COI that has happened multiple times over the past six months. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is 2607:FB90:C2D:217:5D96:E8A6:3E07:C2E4|2607:FB90:C2D:217:5D96:E8A6:3E07:C2E4 and why are they commenting on ANI? Has the user canvassed a friend? -- Aronzak (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note PR Newswire costs at least $129 per press release. The company Newslines has paid at least $129 promoting a press release with their url (prnewswire.com/news/newslines) - the user is being disingenuous when they imply that they don't know that spam links advertising their for profit company aren't spam - their own for-profit company pays to advertise its product though the URL linked in their paid press releases. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first if Sparkzilla has a conflict of interest, it would be best to disclose it. Sparkzilla has been an editor here since 2006 but this comment mentions the website but there was no mention here. The post on Aronzak's talk page followed but I think we need more information on Sparkzilla's interest with the site. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His PR News release lists a husband and wife team as the owners of the business, with the same name as a twitter handle that can be found by googling the user's name (this is not private information, and has never attempted to be hidden). The user is the owner and operator of his husband and wife business. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the posting made at COIN, and am responding here b/c this is a "higher" board. I just took a walk through Sparkzilla's contribs, and in my view he does have a pattern of using WP to promote his site. He is quite open and frank about it - there is nothing even close to sneaky here. Here is an example from a user talk page:
Deleted article getting you down? Your article on Gunther Holtorf is a good fit for Newslines. Because we are a news archive our standard of inclusion is based on newsworthiness, rather than Wikipedia's abstract notion of "notability". Check out the site here [404]
Here are more diffs just from the first half-page of their contribs:
in that same AfD, comments like this are and this are really clueful about what WP is and is not, content-wise. Hm.
I don't know when this started (Sparkzilla, when did you start doing this?) To me, this seems to me to be an abuse of editing privileges - this is not "here to build an encyclopedia" behavior. Sparkzilla, another question... why do you think doing this on Talk pages is OK? It is a real question - I'd like to understand. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note as well, in one AfD page he adds a link to his promotional article from March (Archive.org) - which explicitly states "next time you think of adding or updating something on Wikipedia, think of Jimmy Wales clicking champagne" - the goal of his edits to AfD pages is to humiliate editors that contribute to the project and boost his own businesses. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sparkzilla IMO many of your comments on your newslines.org blog as mentioned above would fail WP ethical standards. For instance, in the context of WP:ASSERTing that "Wikipedia pages are often unreliable" and commenting "They are easy to vandalize" you then say with no context that, The toxic environment means editor numbers are rapidly declining, making many pages unstable and out of date." Please specify what you have done for instance to promote civility here other than to make general criticism.
You also wp:assert (in a highlighted quote box) that "If new Wikipedia editors were told “Please contribute to our free encyclopaedia….and we will use your content to enrich Google”, they would think twice about their contributions". Please consider content of WP:OR. I for one am just happy to contribute content into a free to access source. I am also happy for Jimmy Wales to click champagne but especially in the context of knowing that he is possibly the least wealth owner/manager of a website that has anything near the proportions of Wikipedia. Please consider the ethical standards presented at WP:NPOV as they may provide a guide for fair practice in all your work. GregKaye06:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My blog does not come under Wikipedia rules. Many contributors to this site have criticisms of Jimmy Wales and the way Wikipedia is run. External comments are not relevant to the discussion here. I am also happy to contribute here and there, but it's really a lot of pain most of the time. The number of editors is, in fact, declining, in part I believe because of the kind of aggression seen in this complaint. -- Sparkzillatalk!06:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to wipipedia talk pages and AfD pages come under Wikipedia's WP:Spam rule - meaning that promoting your for-profit company on this site's talk pages is against Wikipedia's rules, even if you claim that the content is "educational" or that you only want to criticise Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sparkzilla Re: "The number of editors is, in fact, declining, in part ... because ... of aggression.." I certainly agree with the core of what you say here. Re: "External comments are not relevant to the discussion here." I disagree. In the context that you are both presenting links to your site. However I do not personally view that acute cases of toxicity would justify an unambiguous assertion of a "toxic environment" I found the content that you presented to be well thought through and with great validity within the wider context of neutrality. I also think that it is well worth a read. However, the issues that you mention indicate a central issue with problems with Google and not with Wikipedia. As far as I know Wikipedia has the same core deal with Google as it has with everyone else. We are a platform for a freely accessed compilation of information. If anything the money paid/given by Google to WM foundation may constitute Hush money for the sake of Google's PR.
You still made a blanket statement regarding what new editors of Wikipedia would do which, perhaps, I should have mentioned this first privately to you on your tp.
Other content and its presentation merely provides an associated context.
The main issue is that your site presents contents on certain topics while you advocate deletion of parallel articles here. GregKaye07:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the face of it I would normally appreciate many comments in regard to the way other sites operate in relation to Wikipedia's, I think, occasionally out of step ways of working. However, in the context of the AfD issues, I suspect promotion issues here as well. I am especially dubious in regard to SZs involvements in context of the existence of contents such as http://newslines.org/Victoria-Taylor/ when this was a content s/he advocated to be deleted from this encyclopedia.
From evidence seen I would suggest a ban on Sparkzilla adding support or supportive comment to requests for deletion of blp articles. I would also suggest a ban on Sparkzilla's removal of material from blp articles. If s/he can constructively add to, correct or modify Wikipedia materials then all well and good. GregKaye06:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for inviting me to comment. I think that the discussion of newsworthiness vs notability is an important one for the good of the encyclopaedia. Far too many editors treat Wikipedia as a news archive, which brings them into conflict with other editors who see it as an encyclopaedia. It was through creating my own site, Newslines -- a kind of "wikipedia of News" that crowdsources news events into biographies and news-based pages -- that I was able to clearly see a difference between how a news archive works, and how an encyclopaedia should work. In short, an encyclopaedia aims to summarize notable topics, while a news archive aims to amass all newsworthy topics. However the wiki software and policies do not make a clear distinction, leading to a lot of problems.
I am particularly interested in edge cases such as Danny Sullivan and Victoria Taylor. On these pages editors like Aronzok try to force notability by adding a lot of news links. They think that lots of news equals notability, but that's often not the case. I have several examples on my site of people who have tens of news items but are not notable in the least. They are newsworthy, but not notable. A lot of trouble would be saved if more Wikipedia editors understood this distinction.
When I saw Victoria Taylor's page and saw the same issues I though I would contact the editor and explain the difference, and add a link to Newslines to show how a news archive should work. Sometime people have to be shown how other sites work -- the wiki way isn't the only way to create content. I don't expect that the editor will down tools at Wikipedia and run over to my site. I already have plenty fo users and frankly it's not worth the bother, however I am interested in discussion: Why does the editor think that adding so much news is reasonable? It is through these kinds of discussions with many people that I have been able to gain deeper understanding of Wikipedia's problems (and a deeper understanding of my own site).
Actually, I thought my posts wouldn't come close to a conflict of interest because 1) they are directly relevant to the page 2) I am open that I am the owner 3) they are on the talk pages 4) any editor who didn't like it could just delete it. I am fully aware that the links are no follow.
I think this discussion is not driven by any real conflict of interest, but by Aronzok's anger at my Delete nomination for his article, which as you can see from the link above, and despite his accusations, was not harassing in any way. They were also not uncivil, nor could they in any way be seen as a personal attack. A kneejerk reaction to report someone on multiple boards, and fill their talk page with warnings, while making false accusations is simply not civil, and does drive away editors who may have something to contribute. If you don't like my comment just say you don't like it and delete the link. There's far too much drama and paranoia in this complaint, which is one of the reasons I don't post to Wikipedia very much.
In any case I can see how the posts could be seen as promotional in some ways, so while I would like to continue to occasionally comment on AfDs based on the difference between encyclopaedic and news-based content I will refrain from linking directly to my site. Thank you for listening. -- Sparkzillatalk!06:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem issue is suspicion in the context of your presentation of content on a certain content on your site while you simultaneously advocate deletion of parallel content from Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are open as the site owner and genuinely wish you the best for your site and your own future/current clicking of champagne.
However I do not see the relevance in the "encyclopedia" comments. Every adult encyclopedia, by definition, goes beyond the literal description of an encyclopedia and, with the vast content here, Wikipedia goes far beyond just being in the cycle of children's education. Please see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Quotes "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." By, at least, etymological definition this is more than an encyclopedia and, in this context, the only limits that we have are decided on by the consensus of neutral editors. It seems to me that there is valid reason not to merely "assume" that you are one of those. You have other interests. GregKaye07:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Victoria Taylor Swift should be deleted in any case. She's not notable, period, IMHO. Danny Sullivan I'm on the fence about. My AfD comment on Taylor has nothing to do with trying to force the editor to then work on my site, Why would he want to work for my site after I had said I wanted to delete his work? That doesn't make sense.
As for Wales' comment and the stated goal of Wikipedia to be "the sum of all human knowledge", I'm sorry but that's bunk. You cannot use the same software and presentation for different audiences. The heart of this problem is that an encyclopedia acts differently, has a different presentation, and has different readers, than a news archive. Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people. -- Sparkzillatalk!07:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I am open that I am the owner" - not on the AfD articles that he has contributed to. He is open when spamming his promotional links to his own company, but not in the AfD pages of articles he wants deleted to promote his own site's content. "I don't post to Wikipedia very much" - then delete your account and stop violating WP:Spam with your contributions. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that I'm promoting my site by placing delete messages on AfDs so that the people will then turn around and say, "Why gee, you're right I'll just go and post on Newslines instead!' is ridiculous, and verging on paranoia. -- Sparkzillatalk!07:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you paid $129 to PR Newswire to promote your business, you said "Registered users can also earn income by inviting friends into the system. Payments are made through PayPal with a low payout threshold of $20... "says the site has the potential to give long-term earnings to those who are willing to put in consistent effort. "Just like an investor who gets a high return as a company grows, if you build your portfolio of content, you can share in the rewards" - the language "You can share in the rewards" is a direct call to action, designed to recruit users. Do you want to deny that you have paid money to recruit users to your business? Do you want to deny that your business's front page states "Earn 50% revenue share for writing and editing news summaries. Invite your friends to earn more!" - archive.org. Do you want to deny that the goal of the front page of your business is to recruit users? This was a COI in the AfD on the Danny Sullivan article AfD-- Aronzak (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every online site's goal is to recruit users. What you are saying though, is that I am somehow trying to recruit users, one at a time, weeks apart, and not very successfully, by single-handedly forcing AfD decisions that close their pages and upset the writers, so that they will then turn around and join Newslines, all the while hiding my identity on the AfD, but being totally clear about it everywhere else, including your own talk page. It's surely the most complicated and inefficient way to gather users ever thought of. What it actually is, is a paranoid delusion, matched with an aggressive, uncivil, tone, by an aggrieved, editor who is upset about someone actually having valid reasoning to delete your overblown edits. I won't be responding to any more of your freakish claims. -- Sparkzillatalk!08:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost every online site's goal is to recruit users" and the business that you and your wife run pays users to recruit their friends. If you don't want to contribute to wikipedia then you'll be happy to leave without a fuss. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion at AfDs about the difference between Newsworthy and Notable belong on WP:N or the village pump. The very well accepted Wikipedia guideline at GNG is that substantial RS third party news reports make anyone or anything notable, unless they fall under the policy of NOT NEWS or other policy. Myself, I personally agree with some of what Sparkzilla says about this--I have frequently expressed my personal dissatisfaction with the use of the GNG, and I would be very willing to modify it or even to deprecate it except for situations which can not be decided by more objective criteria related to the true encyclopedic importance of the subject. But my personal views on this are not the accepted guideline. I mention the possibility of change from time to time in the hope that other people may eventually come to see it the way I do. But I would never attempt to decide AfDs, or argue for deciding AfDs, on the basis of what I would like to become policy, when it is very clear that the current policy has overwhelming support. We have accepted tens of thousands of bios where there is no substantial underlying notability , except that major papers think the subject worth covering. There is a limit to how far we will go (e.g. NOT TABLOID), but it encompasses a great deal of material that I think does not belong under even the most expansive concept of an encycopedia. Others of course also think this, but with respect to very different sorts of articles than I do--to a considerable extent the one true virtue of WP:GNG is that it is a compromise to avoid the conflicts that would come from trying to balance subjects on a more rational basis.
Sparkzilla, the attempt to make the same unlikely argument at many afds tends to be counterproductive. I've usually advised people in similar situations to try to select the very weakest relevant article, and try to delete that one, and go from there if the argument finds support. Sometimes it even works in modifying our practice a little.
However, Sparkzilla, it really does fit our definition of spam to link to your own website extensively. You must stop this, because, whether or not you think we are paranoid about it, because we always block people who do this after a warning. You have been warned. One more such link, and I will block you as an admin, as I have done in dozens of similar cases DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can be then resolved/agreed in relation to disclosure of potential COI or in regard to restrictions from editing perhaps mainly relating to AfD? GregKaye08:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSparkzilla the argument for COI is that you profit by lack of coverage in free aggregator sites like Wikipedia. I don't find your argument that the presentation of information is the only compelling value addition. Likewise, in the rawest sense, I don't find your argument that Wikipedia is not an aggregator site compelling either as "aggregator" is basically the definition of a tertiary source relying on secondary sources. In fact it is larger than a news aggregrator on topics that are covered in both news and academic journals. It is true, that in the narrow sense of BLP's, Wikipedia is not a complete aggregator site, though. In that sense, if your arguments at AfD speak about our policies such as BLP policy, it's probably fine. Outside of BLP reasons, though, and I think it becomes a little less clear. Articles about events, for example, I think would be difficult for you not to disclose if you are also aggregating for the event. It's clearly worth more to you if you aggregate a topic that WP has not. --DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye we are not the sum of all knowledge about BLP's however. We do distinguish between WP:BLP1E as well as the type of content (e.g. WP:BLPCRIME). We generally favor privacy over the sum of all knowledge since imagining that world is actually quite intrusive. News outlets may provide us with every titillating detail of a subject but we don't. That said, I do find that requesting editors to leave Wikipedia for a different site run by him is not in the interest of Wikipedia. I don't see a problem with his contribution at AfD as long as his !vote is based on policy. Every admin closing AfD's is aware of BLP and NOTNEWS policies and should be weighing policy arguments, not the people who raise the argument as it becomes an ad hominem discussion. I would say there is a COI if he were nominating articles his site covers (or if he was an admin making deletion decisions), but not for merely participation in discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've agreed not to post any links to my site from now, not even for illustrative purposes, nor to suggest my site as an alternative. I believe I should be able to comment on AfDs like any other editor, not that I am going to much, but I'd like to continue to have the option. Frankly there is no reason that I shouldn't, as I have conclusively shown that the OP's claim that I was trying to influence AfD as a way to get people to come to my site was completely made up, and does not make sense. In any case, I'm off to bed. Thank you for the discussion, and for your time. -- Sparkzillatalk!08:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement "feel free to give Newslines a try any time" was an invitation to join the for-profit website, not an illustrative or educational in any way. The comment "I was quite surprised to see the article remain, considering the large number of 'Delete' votes." It's an open question why this user wants to contribute to AfDs and not any other section of the website, when AfD discussions have been the only vehicle he used in the last few months to promote his website. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Sparkzilla wrote: In any case I can see how the posts could be seen as promotional in some ways, so while I would like to continue to occasionally comment on AfDs based on the difference between encyclopaedic and news-based content I will refrain from linking directly to my site. I am good with that, as long as that is not meant to be some wikilawyering narrow thing that Sparkzilla will dance around. I don't reckon it is - we can interpret that broadly. In my view that was the issue and as far as I am concerned this is done. (the philosophical discussion about tension here b/n news and encyclopedia is super interesting to me but this is not the place to go into that) So... what more is there to do here? Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already agreed not to post any links to my site from now, not even for illustrative purposes, nor to suggest my site as an alternative. -- Sparkzillatalk!16:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DDG: please see my changes above - you say "we always block people who do this after a warning" - user was blocked from a wikia site in March 2015 for solicitation - see [405] and ban [406]-- Aronzak (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sparkzilla, in my opinion you need to not mention your site at all during AfD debates. We get that you are trying to create a user-created aggregation space between Wikipedia's stodgy encyclopedism/notability and commercial news sites, but anytime you so much as mention that during the AfD process, you are acting promotionally. "There are other places for such articles" would be an okay expression of reality, any mention of your site by name would not be. This thread should be closed with a formal "Knock It Off" warning. Carrite (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already agreed not to post any links to my site from now, not even for illustrative purposes, nor to suggest my site as an alternative. Thank you for your comment. -- Sparkzillatalk!16:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning towards taking action when I noticed input from DGG and Carrite, two people whom I know to be quite adept at AFD and policy in general. Looking at the other diffs that weren't AFD related, I see someone that has been promoting newslines dot org more than anything, and I'm inclined to think a blacklist for the domain name (first choice) as well as an indef block is in order. He was blocked for 5 years for essentially the same thing, so as far as I'm concerned, his bit of rope is already short, and he has exceeded the end. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Oh my god, just indefinitely block this person already. Anyone who knows my AFD contributions knows I have high standards for notability and frequently refer to NOTNEWS. But I went to Sparkzilla's list of contributions and randomly selected some to look at - most were directly promoting his site, by name, and that being the case, it's hard not to read the delete !votes that aren't directly promotional as nonetheless an attempt to make his site, rather than Wikipedia, the go-to place for information on these indivuduals. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd come to the same conclusion. The recent tranche of COI edits, had they come from an editor in otherwise good standing, might well not indicate a ban was called for. But Sparkzilla was unblocked on the principle that he wouldn't repeat his misconduct of 2006 and 2007. Looking over those contributions and his arguments in their support (e.g. Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 3, wherein he holds himself and his publications as reliable sources, the pattern above is the same as back then. He's requested an unblock, which I have declined. He remains unhappy. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk21:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LooneyTunerIan
This user has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.
Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [408], [409]
He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [410], [411].
Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ RobTalk12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the talk page and his own admissions made it clear he was not here to build an encyclopedia. Block, talk page access revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not that I'm entertaining all this, and I don't have OS access, but how do you know E. B. White is related to her, other than the fact that they share the same last name? Dennis Brown - 2¢21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also just noticed those OS's weren't last week, they were 4 years ago. 2011. This is probably something you should instead forward to the Arbitration committee. Admin don't have access, this is really old, it doesn't look so nefarious to me at first glance, and even though she is on the ArbCom, she would have to recuse from considering it. Just email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org instead. We really can't tell if there is anything to it, nor really do anything here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was Gorilla Warfare an oversighter back in 2011, or were these RevDels? And how does the IP know what the content of the deletions is if the IP is not an admin? (Do we have IP admins now?) BMK (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting wasn't needed, I'm fairly capable, have my own scripts ;) Scanned, tested, open on port 80, blocked. I notified GW as none of that has anything to do with the merits or lack thereof. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert in how OS or revdels work but it seems only the editors username was removed and not their edits. Wouldn't that imply that an editor used thier real name as their username then later regretted it and GW just did the clean up for them? I'm not seeing anything nefarious here. Capeo (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the deal. What she did was fine. It wasn't necessarily how I would have done it, but there was no policy violation, nothing nefarious in what she did, period. I can't say why, but trust me, it's nothing. As GW and I are often on the other side of debates and not beholden to each other, I hope you can just take it at that. The IP is just trying to stir the pot. Policy prohibits me from saying more. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis - there is no violation of policy here and no benefit to continuing discussion about something this old. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[423] I've just been threatened with being sued for financial damages by the subject of a BLP. The claims he is making are quite ridiculous, court judgements are published see [424]. However, I wouldn't have used a court document had I been aware of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have WP:PROD'd the article in question as a result. If someone wishes to delete this to remove any legal problems I don't have any objection. This is my first and last foray in WP:BLP. WCMemail21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Account registered at the beginning of the month. Her activity consists of:
Starting a slow-motion edit wars at Summer Rae and Total Divas to assert that the former is present in the new season of the latter, as well as at at Real Housewives of Atlanta to remove reliably sourced information:
(I will note that they have tried to add something like a source at Total Divas, but it does not mention Season 4 at all. This has been pointed out at Talk:Total_Divas#Summer_Rae_status_for_Season_4.3F, but ValleryKing doesn't seem to understand that.)
The above diffs are fairly representative of the user's overall behavior.
Multiple users attempted to explain how things work here, but her comprehension appears nonexistent, as can be seen at Talk:Total_Divas#Summer_Rae_status_for_Season_4.3F (especially here), on my talk page, on their talk page, and here. Despite insisting that she understands, she regularly goes in the opposite direction of any advice given and acts as though everyone else is at fault for failing to understand her, when she communicates like this:
For the record, I grew up with a babysitter who spoke Gullah to the exclusion of normative English, I can read Chaucer in the original middle English, I worked for over a year in a rural Walmart located inbetween two housing projects and down the road from a trailer park, and I have a TEFL certification (should be using it to teach as well in a few months). I feel pride when I can help ESL users, and enjoy conversing with the different dialects of English (including unfortunately maligned ones like African American Vernacular English). I have little reason to suspect that my comprehension is the problem here.
Oh the administrative. They not helping me or understanding me. I need help to do the article and it is true that Summer returning and she announced it on June 30, 2015 but they understanding me and I understand them so idk . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.5.201 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I need to start speaking better English so I ne'er people to understand me and where I'm coming from on this and idk need help for the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to demonstrate that you understand other people by really citing sources that actually support claims you make, and by not edit warring. We understand that you claim to have seen the information on TV, you haven't shown us that you really understand that we need sources that we can verify. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't understand I understand y'all claims but I'm doing the right thing but u are telling me I'm not and other stuff that I know already and I did warn u but that didn't work socwe reported it like we said that we were gonna do but Ian come on now! I'm providing stuff you not so don't we were doing it together but we were fussing and idk.
Summer Rae is returning for the first half of season four as a series regular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You are doubting me for no eason and its not fair to me or our other fellow wikipedia users.[reply]
No one has made any claims but you. WP:CITE is not a "claim," it is a site guideline. WP:3RR is not a "claim," it is a site policy. If you want to do the right thing, read those pages and follow what they say -- in other words, quit adding claims to the Total Divas article, and go to the talk page and present a source that says that Summer Rae is returning for season 4 of Total Divas. What part of that do you not understand? Don't just say you understand and then act like you don't.
I am not sure whether this constitutes vandalism, sockpuppetry, a WP:RFPP matter or an edit war at this point, so I am asking an admin to take a look. Along with another editor (and ClueBOT), I reverted some persistent editing to the article as vandalism. This initially resulted in the IP user being blocked. A glance at the history page for the article tells a pretty clear story of what is going on. The user initially began making significant, disruptive changes to the article (WP:POV issues, removing sources, some edits that look like pure vandalism) and has continued to do so. You can see the initial discussion between myself, another editor and the individual as 96.228.52.184 on that IP's talk page, as well as the block notification. There is some further discussion on my talk page. The same individual has returned as the 72.84.207.76 IP and continued to make persistent changes to the article. Here are diffs for some of the edits I am talking about: [425], [426], [427], [428], [429], [430], [431], [432] and so on. To me, it borders on pure vandalism, but in the interest of WP:AGF and understanding that this individual feels passionately about it, I thought I would bring it here. Thanks for your time. I'll put a note on the 72.84.207.76 IP's talk page immediately after this. Into The FrayT/C04:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
, That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
Done 70.192.141.0/24 and the other IPv4 addresses listed in the LTA case blocked one month. If the month is insufficient and someone wants to extend them, I have no objection. KrakatoaKatie 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AnulBanul.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Croatia_2014_map_results.PNG){kind=link}
![[57]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87,_portrait.jpg&diff=156011342&oldid=150897657){kind=link}
![[58]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rafael_Boban.JPG){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hasan_Brki%C4%87_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[126]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[127]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[128]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[129]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(4).jpg){kind=link}
![[130]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(5).jpg){kind=link}
![[131]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(6).jpg){kind=link}
![[132]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[133]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[134]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[135]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(4).jpg){kind=link}
![[136]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(5).jpg){kind=link}
![[137]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87_lecture_in_Mostar_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[138]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87_lecture_in_Mostar_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[139]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87_lecture_in_Mostar_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[140]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Mostar.jpg){kind=link}
![[141]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Croatia_2014_map_results.PNG&diff=prev&oldid=146422833){kind=link}
![[142]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Croatia_2015_map_results_runoff.PNG){kind=link}
![[148]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitka_za_Karva%C4%8Dar.jpg){kind=link}
![[152]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87,_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
![[189]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ljubi%C4%87_Bo%C5%BEo_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[190]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87_and_Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87.jpg){kind=link}
![[192]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87_and_Kolinda_Grabar-Kitarovi%C4%87.jpg){kind=link}
![[207]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AnulBanul.jpg){kind=link}
